Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for International Bridge at Calais, ME, 22382-22388 [05-8592]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 82 (Friday, April 29, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22382-22388]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-8592]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 5059]


Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding of 
No Significant Impact for International Bridge at Calais, ME

AGENCY: Office of Canadian Affairs, Department of State.

ACTION: Notice.

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

[[Page 22383]]

SUMMARY: The proposed action is to issue a Presidential Permit to the 
State of Maine to authorize it to construct, connect, operate and 
maintain an international bridge between the City of Calais, Maine, and 
Canada. The Department of State (the ``Department'') has reviewed the 
potential environmental impacts and determined that the proposal will 
not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. 
Therefore, the Department of State has issued its Environmental 
Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department of Transportation of the 
State of Maine has filed with the Office of Canadian Affairs of the 
Department of State an application for a Presidential permit to permit 
the construction of a new international bridge across the St. Croix 
River and a new international border crossing facility between the city 
of Calais, Maine (ME), and the town of St. Stephen, New Brunswick (NB). 
That application was accompanied by a draft environmental assessment 
dated December 2001 (2001 Draft EA), submitted by the Federal Highway 
Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Maine 
Department of Transportation, in cooperation with the General Services 
Administration, and in conjunction with the New Brunswick Department of 
Transportation.
    Notice of the application was published in the Federal Register, 
Vol 68, No. 146, pages 44833 et seq., on July 30, 2003. No formal 
written public comments were received by the Department of State on the 
Presidential permit application or the 2001 Draft EA provided as part 
of the application for a Presidential permit.
    Comments were received from the Federal and State agencies 
concerning the application and were either responded to directly, or 
are addressed in the analysis contained in this review set forth below. 
In addition to inclusion in the analyses of impacts and risks, the 
comments received were used to develop measures to be undertaken by the 
Sponsor as commitments to prevent or mitigate potentially adverse 
environmental impacts.
    This summary environmental assessment, the comments submitted by 
the Federal and State agencies, any responses to those comments, and 
the 2001 Draft EA submitted by the project sponsor together constitute 
the Final Environmental Assessment of the proposed action by the 
Department of State.

I. The Proposed Project

    The U.S. Department of State (the ``Department'') is charged with 
the issuance of Presidential permits for the certain cross-border 
facilities under Executive Order 11423 of August 16, 1968, 33 FR 11741, 
as amended by Executive Order 12847 of May 17, 1993 (58 FR 29511), 
Executive Order 13284 of January 23, 2002 (68 FR 4075), and Executive 
Order 13337 of April 30, 2004 (69 Fed. Reg. 25299), as well as under 
the International Bridge Act of 1972, 33 U.S.C. 535, et seq.
    The Department of Transportation of the State of Maine (``MDOT,'' 
the ``Sponsor'') has filed an application (``the application'') for a 
Presidential Permit to permit the construction of a new international 
bridge across the St. Croix River and a new international border 
crossing facility between the city of Calais, ME, and the town of St. 
Stephen, NB, to supplement two small existing crossings: The ``Ferry 
Point Crossing,'' which connects the downtown areas of both Calais and 
St. Stephen; and the ``Milltown Crossing,'' which connects Calais and 
St. Stephen about \1/2\ mile upstream from the Ferry Point Crossing.
    In January 2001, the Sponsor, in cooperation with the United States 
General Services Administration and the Federal Highway Administration 
of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and with the assistance of 
Gannett Fleming, Inc., initiated preparation of an environmental 
assessment of the potential environmental effects of the proposed 
International Bridge. The ``Draft Environmental Assessment Calais-St. 
Stephen Area International Border Crossing Study'' (2001 Draft EA) was 
completed in December 2001. The 2001 Draft EA was reviewed by the 
Federal Highway Administration, which issued a Finding of No 
Significant Impact (FONSI) on July 31, 2002. That FONSI, and its 
supporting documentation, are herein incorporated by reference.
    The Department has engaged in follow-up inquiries concerning 
various issues raised with respect to a ``Calais-St. Stephen Area 
International Border Crossing Study,'' conducted by the Maine 
Department of Transportation in conjunction with the New Brunswick 
Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration, and 
the U.S. General Services Administration (the study can be found on the 
Internet at https://www.nbdot-mdot-bordercross.com/). A discussion of 
those issues is found below, in Section IV. In addition, the 
Department, acting in a manner consistent with its regulations for the 
implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (``NEPA'') in 
the context of its responsibilities with respect to Presidential 
Permits, has conducted its own, independent review of the 2001 Draft EA 
provided by the Sponsor. The 2001 Draft EA has also been reviewed by 
numerous Federal, State, and local agencies. Each such ``cooperating 
agency'' has approved or accepted the 2001 Draft EA, provided, in 
certain cases, that mitigation recommendations proposed in the 
application itself or by those agencies are followed. These cooperating 
agencies are:
     U.S. Government: The Department of State; the Department 
of Defense; the Department of Transportation; the Department of the 
Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; the Department of Justice; 
the Department of Agriculture, including the Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service's Office of Veterinary Services; the Environmental 
Protection Agency; the Food and Drug Administration; the Department of 
Commerce; the Council on Environmental Quality; the General Services 
Administration; the U.S. Office of the International Boundary 
Commission; the U.S. Office of the International Joint Commission; and, 
within the Department of Homeland Security: The Federal Emergency 
Management Agency; the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection; the 
Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and the U.S. Coast 
Guard.
     State of Maine: The Department of Transportation, the City 
of Calais.
    Based on the 2001 Draft EA, information developed by the Department 
during its review of the Sponsor's application and all comments 
received, and its own review of this information, the Department has 
completed its Final Environmental Assessment (Final EA). On the basis 
of the Final EA, the Department has concluded that the issuance of the 
permit will not have a significant impact on the quality of the human 
environment within the United States. Therefore, an environmental 
impact statement (``EIS'') need not be prepared.

II. Factors Considered

A. The Need for the Proposed Action

    Over the last ten-plus years, a number of studies have been made of 
traffic flow in the vicinity of the Ferry Point crossing, which is 
located in and connects the central business districts of Calais, ME, 
and St. Stephen, NB. Those studies, including one completed in August 
1999, revealed that the Ferry Point crossing is characterized by: poor

[[Page 22384]]

highway system linkage; inefficient GSA-owned inspection facilities; 
traffic congestion; safety hazards; and freight delays.
    A second border bridge, at Milltown, is also undersized and is used 
primarily by non-commercial, local traffic. Both the Milltown and the 
Ferry Point crossings were built in the 1930s. The traffic load 
statistics gathered in the 1999 traffic count do not clearly 
distinguish between the two crossings, and general references herein to 
``Calais-St. Stephen'' should be construed as referring to both the 
Milltown and Ferry Point crossings.
    According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Calais-St. 
Stephen is the eighth busiest northern border crossing in the United 
States for commercial vehicles (trucks) and the fifth busiest for 
passenger vehicles.
    Traffic crossing the current, two-lane Ferry Point bridge has 
overwhelmed the processing capacity at the border station. Congestion 
has deteriorated quality of life and commercial activity for nearby 
homes and businesses. Oversized trucks must be re-routed around the 
commercial vehicle area, for which they are too big, and into the 
oncoming traffic lane to navigate the inspection facility. Inspections 
of such loads must be undertaken while the trucks are parked in the 
travel lane, leading to significant delays and traffic jams, as well as 
unsafe working conditions for the inspection staffs. Secondary 
inspections are carried out in the public streets. In similar vein, 
outbound inspections are also carried out in the travel lane, limiting 
the number of such inspections that can be conducted.
    A 1999 traffic survey conducted by the Sponsor found that about 
6,700 vehicles per day were using the Ferry Point Crossing, with 
another 2,500 or so using the Milltown Crossing. According to 
information provided by the Province of New Brunswick, the St. Stephen/
Milltown border crossings combined ranked as the ninth busiest in 
Canada in 2002, with 6,000 vehicles a day, including close to 600 
trucks. Whether using the 1999 U.S., or the 2002 Canadian figures, it 
appears that a substantial amount of traffic uses the St. Croix River 
crossings, and traffic congestion in the downtown areas of both 
communities is serious.
    The General Services Administration contracted for an extensive 
study of potential traffic volumes with and without a new crossing in 
the Spring of 2004. The study was based on actual incoming traffic data 
provided by the office of the Port Director for the region. The data 
showed that traffic volumes through the existing crossings at Ferry 
Point and Milltown have been in flux over the last ten years, and that 
the busiest months could see at least 50%--in some years as much as 
70%--greater than average traffic volumes, leading the GSA contractor 
to conclude that a simple projection of past growth figures would not 
be an adequate basis for assessing the effectiveness of the proposed 
design for the inspection facility or the impacts of a new crossing on 
the existing entry points. GSA's contractor therefore ran a number of 
simulations at a substantially higher rate of growth than studies done 
previously, using both a low range of 7% annual growth over a period of 
ten years, and a high range of doubling current traffic volumes over 
the same ten-year period.
    GSA's study determined that there is a slight tendency for more 
commercial vehicles and fewer passenger vehicles to use the Ferry Point 
crossing, while the reverse is the case at Milltown. Despite this 
readjustment, however, delays at both crossings are significant. At 
certain times of the day, commercial vehicles at Milltown may wait as 
long as 70 minutes to cross the border, while passenger vehicles can 
wait longer than 60 minutes. At Ferry Point, the wait time for 
commercial vehicles regularly exceeds 80 minutes at certain times 
(morning rush) of the day, while passenger vehicles may wait as long as 
60 minutes or more at the same times.
    Delays and traffic congestion affect the economic and physical 
environments locally, and increase safety risks as well. Also, a number 
of trucks carry hazardous materials, and local residents are concerned 
about the possibility of a hazardous materials spill.
    U.S. and Canadian traffic surveys from 1999 and 2000 also indicated 
that between 27% and 32% of passenger vehicles and approximately 77% of 
truck traffic at the Ferry Point and Milltown crossings are non-local.
    Calais serves as the primary coastal-area crossing point; traffic 
moves between northeastern Maine and the Maritime Provinces of New 
Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland-
Labrador. The nearest alternate border crossing facility for commercial 
vehicles is located at Houlton, ME, approximately 75 miles distant.

B. The Goals of the Proposed Action

    A new crossing would improve traffic flow in the immediate area, 
reduce traffic congestion, and speed through-travel time. It is also 
clear that a new crossing would furnish greater flexibility for 
handling traffic flows and greatly improve border security by expanding 
the capacity of inspection services to carry out their work. According 
to project documents, the new crossing is also intended to create a 
gateway between Maine and the Maritime Provinces as part of an overall 
east-west transportation corridor. The route through Calais is the 
shortest between Bangor and points in eastern New Brunswick, the Bay of 
Fundy, and Nova Scotia.

III. Alternatives Considered

A. Initial Options

    1. Transportation System Management. This would involve small 
changes such as signal timing improvements and/or minor traffic flow 
reconstruction at principal intersections in downtown Calais. The 
restricted space on the ground limits the ability to make substantial 
improvements. This alternative was rejected by the study committee.
    2. Travel Demand Management. This consists of a number of 
strategies to reduce demand through such mechanisms as rideshare and 
transit networks to remove vehicles or to encourage local employers to 
offer flextime hours to shift the times that vehicles would be on the 
roads. Success depends on a high proportion of commuter traffic versus 
recreational or commercial traffic, which is not the case at Calais. 
This alternative was rejected by the study committee.
    3. Intelligent Transportation Systems(ITS)/Commercial Vehicle 
Operations. ITS uses traffic monitoring technology and signage to 
apprise vehicle operators and inspection agencies of conditions at the 
border crossing, with the idea that operators can decide whether/how to 
proceed and inspectors can increase staffing to meet increased demand. 
This alternative was not considered by the study committee, because 
there is no flexibility to expand operations at the existing crossing, 
nor are there workable alternatives for vehicle operators to avoid the 
delays.
    4. No-Build Alternative. This alternative would not address the 
problems that exist at the current border crossing facilities, while 
those conditions would worsen over time. This alternative was rejected 
by the study committee.
    5. Alternative 1--Upgrades at the Ferry Point Crossing. Upgrades 
would include reconstruction of a portion of Union Street and the 
intersection with Main Street and North Street, reconstruction of the 
intersection with U.S. Route 1 east of the Milltown Bridge to define a 
right-turn lane, and

[[Page 22385]]

reconstruction of the intersection of Route 1 with Charlotte Street at 
the entrance to Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) to provide 
longer acceleration and deceleration lanes on Route 1. This alternative 
was rejected because it failed to meet the needs for system linkage and 
safety.
    6. Alternatives 2 and 2A--Baileyville Crossing, Connection to Maine 
Route 9. A new bridge would be built at a site approximately eight 
miles from Calais' city center near the intersection between U.S. Route 
1 and Maine Route 9. This location is favored by some international 
truckers and by some officials and residents of Baileyville, who 
believe this route would cut down travel time and/or bring more 
economic options to Baileyville itself. According to the 2001 Draft EA, 
this routing would disturb more wetlands, undeveloped lands, and good 
agricultural soil than the Calais Industrial Park site. The design was 
altered slightly (creating Alternative 2A) to move a connecting road 
further away from residences than originally proposed. This route would 
also remove a substantial amount of traffic from Route 1 as it passes 
through the Moosehorn NWR, thus reducing the risk of accidents or 
hazardous material (hazmat) spills in the Refuge. Alternative 2A was 
one of the two proactive alternatives placed before the public and the 
agencies reviewing the project. However, it was not ultimately selected 
as the preferred alternative.
    7. Alternative 3--Calais Industrial Park. This alternative was 
selected as the preferred alternative. See fuller discussion below, at 
item III B.
    8. Alternative 4, 4A--Bypass East of Calais. This alternative 
envisioned construction of a new bridge over the St. Croix River and 
Route 1 east of Calais center, between a church and a golf course. The 
area available for inspection services was only 21.4 hectares, well 
below the area needed by the U.S. Government for border inspection 
facilities. This alternative was rejected because it failed to meet the 
needs for system linkage and safety and because it did not satisfy 
system linkage needs on the New Brunswick side. In addition, there 
would be greater impacts to water resources.
    9. Stud Mill Road Alternative. Stud Mill Road is a private logging 
road, used by paper companies, that runs from near the study area 
(Princeton, north of Baileyville) to the Old Town area just north of 
Bangor. Using this road would necessitate upgrading approximately 56 
miles (90 km) and the construction of a new crossing of the Penobscot 
River north of Bangor and a new interchange to connect it with 
Interstate 95. This alternative was rejected because it failed to meet 
the needs for system linkage and safety and because of expense.
    10. Foley Road Alternative. This alternative is similar to 
Alternative 2, albeit longer, located slightly north of the 
intersection of Routes 1 and 9. This alternative was rejected because 
Alternative 2A would accomplish the identified Purpose and Needs at a 
lower cost and with fewer adverse environmental impacts.
    11. Calais Branch Alternative. This alternative, suggested at 
public meeting, would involve the rehabilitation of the existing rail 
bridge and the substitution of rail traffic for truck traffic. This 
alternative was rejected as providing insufficient freight movement 
capacity, and as failing to meet security requirements.

B. The Preferred Alternative

    The project Sponsor studied a number of alternative sites and 
approaches, in addition to the no-action alternative, as outlined 
above. Finding that the other alternatives either did not satisfy the 
Purpose and Needs identified in the study, the 2001 Draft EA focused 
its analysis on two of the alternatives: Alternative 2A at Baileyville 
(featuring a connection between shared U.S. Routes 1 and 9 and New 
Brunswick Routes 1 and 3); and Alternative 3, in the Calais Industrial 
Park, with access to U.S. Route 1.
    From among these, the Sponsor, New Brunswick, and several of the 
commenting agencies have all concurred in recommending adoption of 
Alternative 3, which is located in an undeveloped portion of the Calais 
Industrial Park and situated approximately 1.5 miles upstream of the 
Ferry Point Crossing in close proximity to U.S. Route 1 between the 
Town of Baring and the City of Calais.
    The selection of Alternative 3 as the Preferred Alternative was 
made primarily because the Calais Industrial Park site is already zoned 
commercial, whereas the Baileyville site (Alternative 2A) is zoned 
rural and economic impacts will be less if the crossing is closer to 
the Calais business district. On the other hand, construction at the 
Baileyville site would disturb less wildlife habitat (10.8 hectares, 
versus 16.7 ha at the Calais site) but the same amount of wetlands and 
floodplain areas (2.6 acres in both locations).

C. The Canadian Project

    The Governments of Canada and New Brunswick announced on November 
20, 2003, that funding for the Canadian portion of the project--a 
connector route to NB Routes 1 and 3 and the Canadian portion of the 
bridge--had been secured. Road construction has begun to connect the 
proposed new bridge to existing roads on the Canadian side.

IV. Concerns and Comments

A. Environmental Impacts During Construction and Normal Operation

    Some concerns have been raised with respect to the potential 
environmental impact on the Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge, and in 
particular, with continued or potential expansion of truck traffic 
passing through the Refuge to or from a crossing at Calais Industrial 
Park. Both during the public outreach process conducted by Sponsor and 
subsequent to release of the 2001 Draft EA, some commenters suggested 
that the new crossing should be built at the intersection of Routes 9 
and 1, in the vicinity of Baileyville, Maine (i.e., Alternative 2A), in 
order to reduce area noise and air pollution and the risks that could 
be posed to the Refuge by a traffic accident involving a truck carrying 
hazardous materials.
    Traffic volume along Route 1 from Calais to the junction with Route 
9, including through Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge, will be higher 
under Alternative 3 than it would be under Alternative 2A at 
Baileyville and as compared to the No-Build Alternative. (Information 
on traffic growth projections is provided below.) The new crossing is 
also expected to attract higher traffic volumes than the No-Build 
Alternative, as it will offer greater transportation efficiency for 
destinations along the coastal areas of New Brunswick and Maine. 
However, as discussed in more detail below, these traffic increases are 
not expected to have a significant impact on the environment of the 
Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge or its surrounding area. 
Furthermore, Alternative 3 will better safeguard the economic health of 
Calais businesses and improve the ambient air quality in the business 
district of Calais without appreciably altering the economic well-being 
of Baileyville businesses. Alternative 3 also attracted overwhelming 
public support.
    In response to a request from the U.S. Department of 
Transportation, MDOT has developed updated traffic projections for the 
new crossing and for Route 1 between the junction with Route 9 in 
Baileyville and Calais, including the section passing through Moosehorn 
National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), that reflect an estimated traffic 
growth of approximately 20 percent over twenty years. Current traffic 
volumes, according to figures obtained

[[Page 22386]]

from MDOT in April 2004, indicate a ``design hourly traffic volume'' of 
872 vehicles on this stretch of highway, and a projected value of 1,094 
by 2024. The design hourly traffic volume is a measure of the highest 
number of vehicles (usually during rush hour) over a typical 24-hour 
period.
    The majority of commercial vehicles now crossing at Ferry Point are 
expected to move to the new crossing; this switch is most likely for 
non-local truck traffic. Given the distance between Calais and the 
nearest alternative crossing point at Houlton, we conclude it is 
unlikely that substantial traffic will divert from Houlton to Calais 
and therefore overall traffic volumes are unlikely to diverge 
significantly from current growth projections of between 1.5 and 2 
percent per year. However, the GSA traffic study team considered a 
possible shift to Calais of from one-quarter to one-third of combined 
passenger and commercial vehicle traffic that presently uses the border 
crossing at Houlton, Maine. In the absolute worst-case scenario (i.e., 
the highest potential traffic volume at Calais), this would mean 
330,000 commercial vehicles and 1,324,000 passenger vehicles passing 
through the port on an annual basis--an average of just under 190 
vehicles per hour.
    According to MDOT, this number is well within the design hourly 
volume for Route 1 in its current configuration and would not be 
expected to have a significant impact on the local environment.
    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency requested information 
regarding the possible widening of Route 1 to accommodate larger 
traffic volumes in future, and cautioned that its acceptance of the 
project was predicated on no disturbance of a bald eagle nesting 
platform near Route 1. Two raised platforms were installed to provide 
nesting sites for osprey. One is occupied by ospreys, the other by bald 
eagles. MDOT has stated that it does not currently foresee the need to 
expand Route 1 to four lanes from the present two. MDOT's two-, six-, 
and twenty-year plans do not include a widening or expansion of Route 1 
at this location. MDOT also has committed to not disturb the two 
existing bald eagle nesting platforms, which are located approximately 
100 yards south of--but within sight of--Route 1. EPA has requested 
that should the State of Maine change its plans, it notify and work 
with the EPA to address any agency concerns at that time.
    There is a 100-foot wide right-of-way for U.S. Route 1 as it 
traverses the northwest corner of the Baring Division of Moosehorn 
National Wildlife Refuge. The length of Route 1 through the NWR is 
approximately 7,000 feet. The total right-of-way area occupied by Route 
1 is therefore 700,000 square feet or about 16 acres. Widening the road 
to four lanes (two in each direction) would not require widening the 
right-of-way or take any additional land from the Refuge. However, 
there are no current plans to widen the road, as noted above.

B. U.S. Agency Comments

    1. The U.S. Coast Guard stated it has no objection to the proposed 
project. A Coast Guard permit will be required before construction may 
commence.
    2. The Environmental Protection Agency, as noted above, expressed a 
concern with the potential for widening Route 1 through the Moosehorn 
NWR, referring to a draft of the environmental assessment prepared in 
December 2001, and requested clarification from MDOT regarding 
potential future expansion plans for Route 1. MDOT has responded by 
noting there are no plans to widen Route 1 in the 2, 6, or 20-year 
Maine transportation plan. The Environmental Protection Agency has 
accepted this statement as responsive to its concerns, and has no 
further objection to the project.
    3. The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Installations 
and Environment noted no objections to the proposed project, subject to 
the issuance of a permit by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The 
issuance of such a permit is not a prerequisite to issuance of a 
Presidential Permit; however, it is a prerequisite to construction of 
the project.
    4. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) of the Department 
of Homeland Security requested that the Sponsor provide a study of the 
hydraulic and hydrologic impacts of the project to the St. Croix River. 
FEMA also requires verification that the project will meet the 
requirements of 44 CFR 60.3(d)(3) (2003) with respect to flood plain 
protection and flood prevention measures. Sponsor has responded that 
these matters will be addressed during the design phase. FEMA has not 
approved the project pending receipt of the verification. FEMA approval 
is not a prerequisite for issuance of a Presidential Permit; however, 
FEMA approval is a prerequisite for construction.
    5. The General Services Administration (GSA) raised the following 
environmental issues:
    a. GSA requested that responsibilities regarding storm water 
management, a spill response plan, and groundwater monitoring be made 
clear. GSA and the Sponsor have agreed to work together to apportion 
responsibilities appropriately.
    b. Noise levels on the site will exceed highway noise abatement 
criteria during construction. GSA seeks assurance from the Sponsor that 
GSA will not have to deal with noise reduction in the geometry and 
grading of the proposed border crossing facility. The issue was 
addressed in the Federal Highway Administration's NEPA process, which 
determined that noise abatement is not feasible and therefore no 
commitments on noise abatement exist. GSA has indicated to the 
Department of State that it is satisfied with this conclusion. No 
agency expressed environmental concerns about the anticipated level of 
noise.
    6. The Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration 
raised the following issues:
    a. FHWA expressed a concern that a substantial period of time had 
elapsed since the last MDOT traffic survey of the area was performed in 
1999 and, along with the Department of Homeland Security, requested 
that updated traffic statistics and projections be provided. Working 
with the Department of Homeland Security and MDOT, the GSA conducted a 
new study in Spring 2004, the results of which are summarized above. 
FHWA has accepted this measure as satisfying its concerns and has no 
further concerns about the project.
    7. The Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) of the 
Department of Homeland Security requested:
    a. Updated traffic statistics and projections. This information has 
been provided as noted above.
    b. Provision for special lanes for bi-national programs (e.g., 
NEXUS, FAST) be included in the project design for the highway and 
bridge connection. MDOT has agreed to work with CBP to incorporate any 
specific traffic design measures that may be required.
    c. Information on flood plain, utilities, easements, rights-of-way, 
and aerial photographs of the construction site. MDOT has agreed to 
provide this information.
    d. Information on the location of Calais City water wells, which 
adjoin the proposed site, and about the mitigation plans to ensure that 
the wells will not be contaminated during construction or operation of 
the border crossing and inspection facilities. GSA has assured the 
project sponsor it will address storm water runoff concerns throughout 
design development and construction of the inspection facilities. GSA 
has also pledged in a letter to the Department of State to design for 
spill containment and remedial or mitigation action as it relates to 
the port and port

[[Page 22387]]

traffic. The City of Calais will continue its ongoing monitoring and 
maintenance of the wells.
    The Bureau of Customs and Border Protection of the Department of 
Homeland Security has accepted these measures as satisfying its 
environmental concerns.
    8. The U.S. Section of the U.S.-Canada International Joint 
Commission (IJC) noted that IJC permission is required to build a new 
bridge. IJC permission is not a prerequisite for issuance of a 
Presidential permit; however it is a prerequisite to construction.
    9. The following agencies noted no objection to the proposed 
project: The Food and Drug Administration, the Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Council 
on Environmental Quality, the Department of Interior, the Department of 
Justice, and the Department of Commerce, the Food and Drug 
Administration, and, within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), 
the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and that portion of 
the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service under DHS jurisdiction.

C. Economic Impacts

    Economic impacts were an overriding concern to many residents of 
the Calais-Baileyville region. A small survey of area businesses and 
customers indicated that most expected that economic losses stemming 
from a decline in traffic volume in downtown Calais would likely be 
higher for the Baileyville crossing site (Alternative 2A) than for the 
Calais Industrial Park site (Alternative 3). Most business owners 
believed that it would be quite difficult to attract potential 
customers to drive the six miles from Baileyville into Calais in order 
to shop.

D. Environmental Justice

    In accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 12898 of 
February 11, 1994, as amended by E.O. 12948 of February 1, 1995, on 
Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 
Populations and Low-Income Populations, the Department has examined 
whether the selection by the Sponsor of Alternative 3 will have a 
disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority or low-income 
populations. After examination of information provided by the Sponsor 
in its submission as to the population and income demographics of the 
proposed site and its environs, the Department is satisfied that any 
impacts attendant on the project will not disproportionately affect any 
minority or low-income populations.

E. Other Impacts

    At a public hearing held in Calais on February 8, 2002, several 
other points were made. Putting the crossing at the Calais Industrial 
Park would help control unconstrained growth, as the Industrial Park 
itself provides plenty of appropriately zoned space for businesses and 
services. Many business owners believe that a crossing at Baileyville 
will discourage tourists from visiting downtown Calais due to the 
greater distance they would have to drive. One commenter pointed out 
that with the selection of Alternative 3, the Moosehorn NWR could 
receive more visitors as well.

V. Commitments and Conditions Relevant To Issuance of a Finding of No 
Significant Impact

    The sponsor, Maine Department of Transportation, has undertaken the 
following commitments in response to issues identified during the 
interagency project review:
    A. Sponsor will adopt Alternative 3 as its preferred alternative. 
Sponsor will work with the General Services Administration and other 
bodies to ensure that adequate space for the GSA-owned inspection 
facility will be provided and made available (approximately 40 acres) 
to GSA and the Federal inspection agencies, under terms agreed between 
the GSA and Sponsor.
    B. Sponsor will perform hydrologic and hydraulic analyses and 
prepare a report based on those analyses in relation to the design of 
the bridge in order to verify that the project complies with the 
requirements of 44 CFR 60.3(d)(3) (2003). A copy of the report, 
containing said analyses, shall be supplied to the Department of State 
and to the Federal Emergency Management Agency of the Department of 
Homeland Security.
    C. There will be no disturbance of bald eagle nests in the adjacent 
Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) and all reasonable efforts 
will be made to avoid disturbance of other wildlife or migratory bird 
species and their nests. The Department notes that there are no 
proposed construction activities within the Refuge.
    The Department will condition issuance of the permit on the 
following measures in order to minimize negative environmental impacts:
    A. The sponsor would be required to apply for and obtain a permit 
from the International Joint Commission and the International Boundary 
Commission for construction and operation of the bridge.
    B. The following environmental provisions would also apply to the 
Presidential permit:
    1. All reasonable efforts will be made to minimize particulate 
matter, lighting and noise that might affect wildlife.
    2. A biologist will do a pre-construction survey to identify and 
protect any wildlife in the project area. Construction activities 
should be conducted in such a way as to avoid as much as reasonably 
possible migratory bird species and their nests.
    3. Injured wildlife will be reported and/or taken to the proper 
authorities for rehabilitation.
    4. In the event of unexpected discovery of archaeological or 
historical cultural resources, all activity shall cease in the area of 
discovery. Immediate telephone notification of the discovery shall be 
made to an appropriate responsible state or federal official, as 
provided in the Section 105.9 of the State of Maine Department of 
Transportation General Conditions, Supplemental Specifications, and 
Supplemental Standard Details for Construction, dated February 1, 2002, 
and the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. In addition, 
reasonable efforts to protect the cultural resources discovered shall 
be made. The activity may resume only after the appropriate federal and 
state agency officials have authorized a continuance.
    5. Reasonable measures will be taken to prevent conveyed materials, 
including soil and rock, from being dropped into the river or other 
bodies of water in order to avoid adverse effects on the current water 
quality.
    6. Petroleum, oils, and lubricants (POL) will be properly 
contained. Waste POLs and other articles, such as batteries, will not 
be burned, dumped in trash containers, deposited in landfills, buried, 
left on the ground or dumped in ditches. All materials brought on site 
will be disposed of in a proper manner.
    7. Spills of POLs or hazardous wastes will be properly contained 
and the contamination cleaned up and disposed of in accordance with 
current applicable regulations. Spills of hazardous materials will be 
immediately reported to the appropriate state and federal authorities.
    8. The area will be watered during construction and site operations 
as needed to protect plants and wildlife and minimize blowing dust.
    9. There will be a short-term increase in noise levels during 
construction. All personnel working in the area will use proper ear 
protection.

[[Page 22388]]

    10. A berm and fence shall be erected along the property line 
separating any aggregate receiving/distribution site from the St. Croix 
River or other watercourses. Fencing material should be such as will 
act as a dust transport barrier.
    11. Herbicides used in landscape maintenance will be properly 
approved and applied in accordance with all regulations.

Conclusion: Finding of No Significant Impact

    Based on the Department's independent review of the Final 
Environmental Assessment, comments received by the Department from 
Federal, and state and local agencies in response to the Notice of 
Application, published in the Federal Register, Vol. 68, No. 146, dated 
Wednesday, July 30, 2003, page 44833 et seq., as well as measures which 
the Sponsor has committed to take to prevent potentially adverse 
environmental impacts, the Department has concluded that issuance of a 
Presidential Permit authorizing construction of the proposed Calais-St. 
Stephen International Bridge and Border Crossing Facilities, as 
proposed to be constructed in Alternative No. 3 as set forth in the 
Environmental Assessment, would not have a significant impact on the 
quality of the human environment within the United States. Accordingly 
a Finding of No Significant Impact is adopted and an environmental 
impact statement will not be prepared.
    The Final Environmental Assessment addressing this action is 
incorporated by reference and is on file and may be reviewed by 
interested parties at the Department of State, 2201 C Street NW., Room 
3917, Washington DC 20520 (attention: Ms. Evelyn Wheeler, Tel 202-647-
3135).

    For the Department of State.
Terry A. Breese,
Director, Office of Canadian Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 05-8592 Filed 4-28-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-29-P