Notice of Availability of a Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Northern Border Activities, 57751-57754 [2011-23993]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Notices
Dated: September 9, 2011.
R.E. Day,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant
Commandant for Command, Control,
Communications, Computers and
Information Technology.
[FR Doc. 2011–23754 Filed 9–15–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Customs and Border Protection
Notice of Availability of a Draft
Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement for Northern Border
Activities
U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of availability; Request
for comments; Notice of public
meetings.
AGENCY:
U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) announces that a Draft
Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement (PEIS) is now available and
open for public comment. The Draft
PEIS analyzes the potential
environmental and socioeconomic
effects associated with its ongoing and
potential future activities along the
Northern Border between the United
States and Canada. The overall area of
study analyzed in the document extends
approximately 4,000 miles from Maine
to Washington and 100 miles south of
the U.S.-Canada Border. CBP also
announces that it will be holding a
series of public meetings in October to
obtain comments regarding the Draft
PEIS.
SUMMARY:
CBP invites comments on the
Draft PEIS during the 45 day comment
period, which begins on September 16,
2011. To ensure consideration,
comments must be received by October
31, 2011. Comments may be submitted
as set forth in the ADDRESSES section of
DATES:
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Date
October
October
October
October
October
October
October
October
October
October
October
October
October
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Meetings and Invitation To
Comment
CBP invites comments on all aspects
of the Draft PEIS. Comments that will
provide the most assistance to CBP will
reference a specific section of the Draft
PEIS, explain the reason for any
recommended change, and include data,
information, or authority that support
such recommended change. Substantive
comments received during the comment
period will be addressed in, and
included as an appendix to, the Final
PEIS. The Final PEIS will be made
available to the public through a Notice
of Availability in the Federal Register.
Comments may be submitted as
described in the ADDRESSES section of
this document. Respondents may
request to withhold names or street
addresses, except for city or town, from
public view or from disclosure under
the Freedom of Information Act. Such a
request must be stated prominently at
the beginning of the comment. Such
requests will be honored to the extent
allowed by law. This request to
withhold personal information does not
apply to submissions from organizations
or businesses, or from individuals
identifying themselves as
representatives or officials of
organizations or businesses.
CBP will hold public meetings to
inform the public and solicit comments
about the Draft PEIS. Meetings will be
held from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. at each of the
locations and dates provided below. The
meeting in the Washington, DC area is
for interested parties located outside of
the project’s areas of interest. Meetings
will include displays, handouts, and a
presentation by CBP, and will provide
an opportunity for the public to record
their comments on the Draft PEIS.
Changes in meeting plans, due to
inclement weather or other causes, will
be announced on the project’s Web site
at: https://
www.NorthernBorderPEIS.com, and on
a telephone message at: (866) 760–1421.
City, state
3 ......................
4 ......................
4 ......................
5 ......................
5 ......................
6 ......................
6 ......................
6 ......................
11 ....................
11 ....................
12 ....................
13 ....................
17 ....................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
this document. CBP will hold public
meetings on the Draft PEIS. The
locations, dates, and times are listed in
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
of this document.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
related to the Draft PEIS by any of the
following methods. Please include your
name and address and the state or
region to which the comment applies, as
appropriate. To avoid duplication,
please use only one of the following
methods for providing comments:
• Project Web site: https://www.
NorthernBorderPEIS.com/publicinvolvement/comments.html;
• E-mail:
Comments@NorthernBorderPEIS.com;
• Mail: CBP Northern Border PEIS,
P.O. Box 3625, McLean, Virginia 22102;
Phone voicemail box: (866) 760–1421
(comments recorded in the voicemail
box will be transcribed).
You may download the Draft PEIS from
the project Web site: https://
www.NorthernBorderPEIS.com. It will
also be made available on the
Department of Homeland Security Web
site (https://www.dhs.gov). Copies of the
Draft PEIS may also be obtained by
submitting a request through one of the
methods listed below. Please include
your name and mailing address in your
request.
• E-mail:
Comments@NorthernBorderPEIS.com
and write ‘‘Draft PEIS’’ in the subject
line;
• Mail: CBP Northern Border PEIS,
(Draft PEIS Request), P.O. Box 3625,
McLean, VA 22102;
• Phone: (866) 760–1421.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jennifer Hass, CBP, Office of
Administration, telephone (202) 344–
1929. You may also visit the project’s
Web site at: https://
www.NorthernBorderPEIS.com.
57751
Location
Duluth, MN ..................
Massena, NY ..............
Caribou, ME ................
Augusta, ME ...............
Bottineau, ND .............
St. Albans, VT ............
Detroit, MI ...................
Havre, MT ...................
Bellingham, WA ..........
Rochester, NY ............
Erie, PA ......................
Naples, ID ...................
Washington, DC .........
Holiday Inn, 200 West First Street, Duluth, MN 55802.
VFW, 101 W Hatfield St., Massena, NY 13662.
Caribou Inn and Convention Center, 19 Main Street, Caribou, ME 04736.
The Senator Inn & Spa, 284 Western Ave., Augusta, ME 04330.
Twin Oaks Resort & Convention Center, 10723 Lake Loop Road, Bottineau, ND 58318.
The Senator Historical Museum, 9 Church Street, St. Albans, VT 05478.
Holiday Inn Express, 1020 Washington Boulevard, Detroit, MI 48226.
The Town House Inn, 627 1st Street West, Havre, MT 59501.
Hampton Inn, 3958 Bennett Drive, Bellingham, WA 98225.
Holiday Inn—Rochester Airport, 911 Brooks Avenue, Rochester, NY 14624.
Ambassador Banquet Center, 7794 Peach Street, Erie, PA 16509.
The Great Northwest Territories Event Center, 336 County Road 8, Naples, ID 83847.
Crystal City Marriott at Regan National Airport, 1999 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA
22201.
16:26 Sep 15, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\16SEN1.SGM
16SEN1
57752
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
The public may obtain information
concerning the status and progress of
the PEIS, as well as view and download
the document, via the project’s Web site
at: https://
www.NorthernBorderPEIS.com.
Background
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) is charged with the mission of
enforcing customs, immigration,
agriculture, and numerous other laws
and regulations at the Nation’s borders
and facilitating legitimate trade and
travel through legal ports of entry. As
the guardian of the United States’
borders, CBP protects the roughly 4,000
miles of Northern Border between
United States and Canada, from Maine
to Washington. The terrain ranges from
densely forested lands on the west and
east coasts to open plains in the middle
of the country.
CBP has completed a Draft
Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement (PEIS) for its ongoing and
potential future activities along the
Northern Border. The Draft PEIS is now
available for public review and
comment. (For instructions on obtaining
a copy of the PEIS or on submitting
comments, please see the ADDRESSES
section of this document.) An
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
is a study of the potential effects on the
environment from a specific Federal
action. A Programmatic EIS (PEIS) is an
EIS that looks at the general types of
effects of a whole broad program of
actions. It often forms the foundation for
a ‘‘regular’’ or site-specific EIS, which
looks in general detail at the effects of
a specific project slated for a particular
place. Because this effort is
programmatic in nature, the Draft PEIS
does not define effects for a specific or
planned action. Instead, it analyzes the
overall environmental and
socioeconomic effects of activities
supporting the homeland security
mission of CBP focused on applying
alternative approaches to better secure
the border.
On July 6, 2010, CBP published in the
Federal Register (75 FR 38822) a notice
announcing that CBP intended to
prepare four PEISs to analyze the
environmental effects of current and
potential future CBP border security
activities along the Northern Border.
Each PEIS was to cover one region of the
Northern Border: the New England
region, the Great Lakes region, the
region east of the Rocky Mountains, and
the region west of the Rocky Mountains.
The notice also announced and initiated
the public scoping process to gather
information from the public in
preparation for drafting the PEISs. As
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:26 Sep 15, 2011
Jkt 223001
indicated in the notice, the scoping
period concluded on August 5, 2010.
However, CBP continued to take
comments past the initial scoping
period. For more information on this
process, please see the section of this
document entitled Public Scoping
Process.
Subsequently, and in part due to
comments received during public
scoping, CBP decided to refocus its
approach and develop one PEIS
covering the entire Northern Border,
rather than four separate, regional
PEISs. This new approach was designed
to ensure that CBP could effectively
analyze and convey impacts that occur
across regions of the Northern Border.
CBP published a notice in the Federal
Register announcing this intention on
November 9, 2010 (75 FR 68810). While
this makes for a somewhat larger single
document, it offers the advantage of less
duplication and greater usefulness as a
CBP planning tool.
Aided by the information gained
during the public scoping process, CBP
has prepared the Draft PEIS to analyze
the environmental and socioeconomic
effects of current and potential future
CBP border security activities along the
Northern Border between the United
States and Canada, including an area
extending approximately 100 miles
south of the Northern Border. For the
purposes of the PEIS, the Northern
Border is defined as the area between
the United States and Canada extending
from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific
Ocean encompassing all the States
between Maine and Washington,
inclusively. (The Alaska-Canada border
is not included in this effort.) CBP is
evaluating the environmental and
socioeconomic impacts of routine
aspects of its operations along the
Northern Border and considering
enhancements to its infrastructure,
technologies, and application of
manpower to continue to deter existing
and evolving threats to the Nation’s
physical and economic security. Due to
the diverse and natural environments
along the Northern Border, the Draft
PEIS analyzes four Northern Border
regions, referred to above: the New
England region, the Great Lakes region,
the region east of the Rocky Mountains,
and the region west of the Rocky
Mountains. CBP plans to use the
information derived from the analysis in
the PEIS in management, planning, and
decision-making for its mission and its
environmental stewardship
responsibilities. It will also be used to
establish a foundation for future impact
analyses.
More specifically, CBP plans to use
the PEIS analysis over the next five to
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
seven years as CBP works to improve
security along the Northern Border. To
protect the Northern Border against
evolving terrorist and criminal threats,
CBP plans to implement a diversified
approach to border security over the
next five to seven years that responds
most effectively to those threats. This
will involve some combination of
facilities, security infrastructure,
technologies, and operational activities,
although the specific combination of
elements that will be used over this
period cannot be determined at this
time. CBP will use this PEIS as a
foundation for future environmental
analyses of specific programs or
locations as CBP’s plans for particular
Northern Border security activities
develop.
Alternatives Considered
The Draft PEIS considers the
environmental impacts of several
alternative approaches CBP may use to
protect the Northern Border against
evolving threats. These alternatives
would all support continued
deployment of existing CBP personnel
in the most effective manner while
maintaining officer safety and continued
use of partnerships with other Federal,
state, and local law enforcement
agencies in the United States and
Canada. CBP needs to maintain effective
control of the Northern Border via all
air, land, and maritime pathways for
cross-border movement.
The No Action Alternative (or ‘‘status
quo’’) would be to continue with the
same facilities, technology,
infrastructure, and approximate level of
personnel currently in use, deployed, or
currently planned by CBP. Normal
maintenance of existing facilities is
included in this alternative. This
alternative would not meet CBP’s goals
as it would not allow CBP to improve
its capability to interdict cross-border
violators or to identify and resolve
threats at the ports of entry in a manner
that avoids adverse effects on legal trade
and travel. However, it is evaluated in
this Draft PEIS because it provides a
baseline against which the impacts of
the other reasonable alternatives can be
compared.
The Facilities Development and
Improvement Alternative would focus
on providing new permanent facilities
or improvements to existing facilities
such as Border Patrol stations, ports of
entry, and other facilities to allow CBP
agents to operate more efficiently and
respond to situations more quickly. This
alternative would help meet CBP’s goals
because the new and improved facilities
would make it more difficult for crossborder violators to cross the border. It
E:\FR\FM\16SEN1.SGM
16SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
would also divert traffic from or
increase the capacity of the more
heavily used ports of entry, decreasing
waiting times. The applicability of this
alternative would be limited, as most
roads crossing the Northern Border
already have a crossing facility.
The Detection, Inspection,
Surveillance and Communications
Technology Expansion Alternative
would focus on deploying more
effective detection, inspection
surveillance and communication
technologies in support of CBP
activities. This alternative would
involve utilizing upgraded systems that
would enable CBP to focus efforts on
identifying threat areas, improving agent
and officer communication systems, and
deploying personnel to resolve
incidents with maximum efficiency.
This alternative would help meet CBP’s
goals by improving CBP’s situational
awareness and allowing CBP to more
efficiently and effectively direct its
resources for interdicting cross-border
violators.
The Tactical Security Infrastructure
Deployment Alternative would focus on
constructing additional barriers, access
roads, and related facilities. The barriers
would include selective fencing and
vehicle barriers at selected points along
the border and would deter and delay
cross-border violators. The access roads
and related facilities would increase the
mobility of agents, and enhance their
capabilities for surveillance and for
responding to various international
border violations. This alternative
would help meet CBP’s goals by
discouraging cross-border violators and
improving CBP’s capacity to respond.
The Flexible Direction Alternative
(the Preferred Alternative) would allow
CBP to follow any of the above
directions in order to employ the most
effective response to the changing threat
environment along the Northern Border.
This approach would allow CBP to
respond more appropriately to a
constantly changing threat environment.
Public Scoping Process
CBP developed and executed a public
scoping program for the PEIS to identify
public concerns to be examined in the
PEIS. ‘‘Scoping’’ of an EIS is a process
of informing diverse stakeholders about
an action that an agency is planning and
seeking those stakeholders’ feedback on
the environmental concerns that the
action could generate. The intent of the
scoping effort is to adopt the scope of
the planned environmental document to
ensure that it addresses relevant
concerns identified by interested
members of the public as well as
organizations, Native American Tribes,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:26 Sep 15, 2011
Jkt 223001
and other government agencies and
officials.
CBP’s public scoping period for the
Northern Border PEIS commenced on
July 6, 2010 and concluded on August
5, 2010. See 75 FR 38822. The public
scoping process was initiated with the
publishing of a notice of intent (NOI)
notifying the public of CBP’s decision to
prepare the PEISs. In coordination with
the publication of the NOI, display
advertisements were published in
various newspapers serving local
communities, public service
announcements were broadcasted on
local radio stations, scoping letters were
mailed to potentially interested
stakeholders consisting of agencies,
organizations, and individuals, and a
project Web site was developed.
Following the publication of the NOI, a
series of public scoping meetings were
held in July 2010.
CBP encouraged the public to submit
comments concerning the scope of the
PEIS during the public meetings, or via
Web site, e-mail, or letter. The
comments CBP received during the
public scoping process were used to
adapt the scope of the Draft PEIS and to
ensure that it addressed relevant
concerns identified by interested
members of the public as well as
organizations, Native American Tribes,
and other government agencies and
officials. CBP has compiled a list of
comments received in a scoping report.
This report is available on the project’s
Web site at: https://www.NorthernBorder
PEIS.com.
NEPA
This environmental analysis is being
conducted pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., the
Council on Environmental Quality
Regulations for Implementing the NEPA
(40 CFR parts 1500–1508), and
Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023–01 (renumbered from
5100.1), Environmental Planning
Program of April 19, 2006. NEPA
addresses concerns about environmental
quality and the government’s role in
protecting it. The essence of NEPA is
the requirement that every Federal
agency examine the environmental
effects of any proposed action before
deciding to proceed with it or with
some alternative. NEPA and the
implementing regulations issued by the
President’s Council on Environmental
Quality call for agencies to document
the potential environmental effects of
actions they are proposing. Generally,
agencies must make those documents
public, and seek public feedback on
them.
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
57753
In accordance with NEPA, the PEIS
analyzes the effects on the environment
of the Northern Border Security
Program. CBP will seek public input on
these studies and will use them in
agency planning and decision making.
Because NEPA is a uniquely broad
environmental law and covers the full
spectrum of the natural and human
environment, the PEIS will also address
environmental considerations governed
by other environmental statutes such as
the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act,
Endangered Species Act, and National
Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).
NHPA Programmatic Agreement
CBP is developing a Programmatic
Agreement (PA) for operations along the
Northern Border in accordance with
Section 106 of NHPA, 16 U.S.C. 470f,
and its implementing regulations (36
CFR part 800). While the PA is being
pursued as an independent action from
the PEIS, it will be applied to future
activities occurring within the Northern
Border study area and therefore is
relevant to the Northern Border PEIS
project. The Northern Border is defined
for purposes of the PA as extending
from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific
Ocean encompassing all the States
between Maine to Washington,
including an area extending
approximately 100 miles south of the
U.S.-Canada border. This area is
identical to the area of study of the
PEIS.
CBP is currently consulting and
coordinating with the Historic
Preservation Officers of the states of
Idaho, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota,
Montana, New Hampshire, New York,
North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin,
Vermont, and Washington, and the
Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation (ACHP) to finalize an
agreed upon framework for future
Section 106 reviews for CBP actions.
The PA will be signed by CBP, the
ACHP, State Historic Preservation
Officers, and other consulting parties.
The signed PA will identify (1) activities
and projects carried out by CBP that are
agreed do not have the potential to
affect properties either listed or eligible
for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places, and (2) activities that
are considered undertakings that do not
require consultation under Section 106.
Additionally, the PA identifies actions
that may have an effect but that will not
require Section 106 review by CBP,
State or Tribal Historic Preservation
Officers, Tribes and other consulting
parties, so long as all terms and
conditions as described in the PA are
satisfactorily met. The signed PA will be
valid for five years from the date of
E:\FR\FM\16SEN1.SGM
16SEN1
57754
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Notices
execution, as verified with CBP filing
the PA with the ACHP.
Next Steps
After the public comment period on
the draft PEIS, CBP will complete a
Final PEIS. The Final PEIS will be made
available to the public through a Notice
of Availability in the Federal Register.
CBP will then select a programmatic
course of action to guide CBP’s activities
along the Northern Border for the next
five to seven years. That decision will
be published in the Federal Register in
a Record of Decision.
Dated: September 14, 2011.
Trent Frazier,
Acting Executive Director, Facilities
Management and Engineering, Office of
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011–23993 Filed 9–15–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111–14–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
[Docket No. FR–5477–N–37]
Federal Property Suitable as Facilities
To Assist the Homeless
Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Community Planning and
Development, HUD.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
This Notice identifies
unutilized, underutilized, excess, and
surplus Federal property reviewed by
HUD for suitability for use to assist the
homeless.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Juanita Perry, Department of Housing
and Urban Development, 451 Seventh
Street, SW., Room 7266, Washington,
DC 20410; telephone (202) 708–1234;
TTY number for the hearing- and
speech-impaired (202) 708–2565 (these
telephone numbers are not toll-free), or
call the toll-free Title V information line
at 800–927–7588.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In
accordance with 24 CFR part 581 and
section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney
Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C.
11411), as amended, HUD is publishing
this Notice to identify Federal buildings
and other real property that HUD has
reviewed for suitability for use to assist
the homeless. The properties were
reviewed using information provided to
HUD by Federal landholding agencies
regarding unutilized and underutilized
buildings and real property controlled
by such agencies or by GSA regarding
its inventory of excess or surplus
Federal property. This Notice is also
published in order to comply with the
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:26 Sep 15, 2011
Jkt 223001
December 12, 1988 Court Order in
National Coalition for the Homeless v.
Veterans Administration, No. 88–2503–
OG (D.D.C.).
Properties reviewed are listed in this
Notice according to the following
categories: Suitable/available, suitable/
unavailable, suitable/to be excess, and
unsuitable. The properties listed in the
three suitable categories have been
reviewed by the landholding agencies,
and each agency has transmitted to
HUD: (1) Its intention to make the
property available for use to assist the
homeless, (2) its intention to declare the
property excess to the agency’s needs, or
(3) a statement of the reasons that the
property cannot be declared excess or
made available for use as facilities to
assist the homeless.
Properties listed as suitable/available
will be available exclusively for
homeless use for a period of 60 days
from the date of this Notice. Where
property is described as for ‘‘off-site use
only’’ recipients of the property will be
required to relocate the building to their
own site at their own expense.
Homeless assistance providers
interested in any such property should
send a written expression of interest to
HHS, addressed to Theresa Ritta,
Division of Property Management,
Program Support Center, HHS, room
5B–17, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville,
MD 20857; (301) 443–2265. (This is not
a toll-free number.) HHS will mail to the
interested provider an application
packet, which will include instructions
for completing the application. In order
to maximize the opportunity to utilize a
suitable property, providers should
submit their written expressions of
interest as soon as possible. For
complete details concerning the
processing of applications, the reader is
encouraged to refer to the interim rule
governing this program, 24 CFR part
581.
For properties listed as suitable/to be
excess, that property may, if
subsequently accepted as excess by
GSA, be made available for use by the
homeless in accordance with applicable
law, subject to screening for other
Federal use. At the appropriate time,
HUD will publish the property in a
Notice showing it as either suitable/
available or suitable/unavailable.
For properties listed as suitable/
unavailable, the landholding agency has
decided that the property cannot be
declared excess or made available for
use to assist the homeless, and the
property will not be available.
Properties listed as unsuitable will
not be made available for any other
purpose for 20 days from the date of this
Notice. Homeless assistance providers
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
interested in a review by HUD of the
determination of unsuitability should
call the toll free information line at 1–
800–927–7588 for detailed instructions
or write a letter to Mark Johnston at the
address listed at the beginning of this
Notice. Included in the request for
review should be the property address
(including zip code), the date of
publication in the Federal Register, the
landholding agency, and the property
number.
For more information regarding
particular properties identified in this
Notice (i.e., acreage, floor plan, existing
sanitary facilities, exact street address),
providers should contact the
appropriate landholding agencies at the
following addresses: ARMY: Ms.
Veronica Rines, Department of the
Army, Office of the Assistant Chief of
Staff for Installation Management,
DAIM–ZS, Room 8536, 2511 Jefferson
Davis Hwy, Arlington, VA 22202: (571)
256–8145 (These are not toll-free
numbers).
Dated: September 8, 2011.
Mark R. Johnston,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Special Needs.
Title V, Federal Surplus Property Program
Federal Register Report for 09/16/2011
Suitable/Available Properties
Building
Kansas
4 Bldgs.,
Ft. Riley,
Fort Riley, KS 66442,
Landholding Agency: Army,
Property Number: 21201130040,
Status: Unutilized.
Directions: 00471, 00470, 00745, 00615.
Comments: Off-site removal only; sq ft. vary
among properties; recent use: lodging,
storage.
Bldg. 00600,
600 Caisson Hill Rd,
Fort Riley, KS 66442,
Landholding Agency: Army,
Property Number: 21201130042,
Status: Unutilized.
Comments: Off site removal only; 380,376 sq.
ft.; recent use: hospital.
Bldgs. 00541 and 08321,
Ft. Riley,
Fort Riley KS,
Landholding Agency: Army,
Property Number: 21201130044,
Status: Unutilized.
Comments: Off site removal only; sq. ft. vary
among properties, recent use: lodging.
2 Bldgs.,
Ft. Riley,
Fort Riley KS 66442,
Landholding Agency: Army,
Property Number: 21201130059,
Status: Unutilized.
Directions: 00540, 00541.
Comments: Off-site removal only; sq. ft. vary
among properties, recent use: lodging.
E:\FR\FM\16SEN1.SGM
16SEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 180 (Friday, September 16, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57751-57754]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23993]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Customs and Border Protection
Notice of Availability of a Draft Programmatic Environmental
Impact Statement for Northern Border Activities
AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of availability; Request for comments; Notice of public
meetings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) announces that a
Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) is now
available and open for public comment. The Draft PEIS analyzes the
potential environmental and socioeconomic effects associated with its
ongoing and potential future activities along the Northern Border
between the United States and Canada. The overall area of study
analyzed in the document extends approximately 4,000 miles from Maine
to Washington and 100 miles south of the U.S.-Canada Border. CBP also
announces that it will be holding a series of public meetings in
October to obtain comments regarding the Draft PEIS.
DATES: CBP invites comments on the Draft PEIS during the 45 day comment
period, which begins on September 16, 2011. To ensure consideration,
comments must be received by October 31, 2011. Comments may be
submitted as set forth in the ADDRESSES section of this document. CBP
will hold public meetings on the Draft PEIS. The locations, dates, and
times are listed in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this
document.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments related to the Draft PEIS by any of
the following methods. Please include your name and address and the
state or region to which the comment applies, as appropriate. To avoid
duplication, please use only one of the following methods for providing
comments:
Project Web site: https://www.NorthernBorderPEIS.com/public-involvement/comments.html;
E-mail: Comments@NorthernBorderPEIS.com;
Mail: CBP Northern Border PEIS, P.O. Box 3625, McLean,
Virginia 22102; Phone voicemail box: (866) 760-1421 (comments recorded
in the voicemail box will be transcribed).
You may download the Draft PEIS from the project Web site: https://www.NorthernBorderPEIS.com. It will also be made available on the
Department of Homeland Security Web site (https://www.dhs.gov). Copies
of the Draft PEIS may also be obtained by submitting a request through
one of the methods listed below. Please include your name and mailing
address in your request.
E-mail: Comments@NorthernBorderPEIS.com and write ``Draft
PEIS'' in the subject line;
Mail: CBP Northern Border PEIS, (Draft PEIS Request), P.O.
Box 3625, McLean, VA 22102;
Phone: (866) 760-1421.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Hass, CBP, Office of
Administration, telephone (202) 344-1929. You may also visit the
project's Web site at: https://www.NorthernBorderPEIS.com.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Meetings and Invitation To Comment
CBP invites comments on all aspects of the Draft PEIS. Comments
that will provide the most assistance to CBP will reference a specific
section of the Draft PEIS, explain the reason for any recommended
change, and include data, information, or authority that support such
recommended change. Substantive comments received during the comment
period will be addressed in, and included as an appendix to, the Final
PEIS. The Final PEIS will be made available to the public through a
Notice of Availability in the Federal Register.
Comments may be submitted as described in the ADDRESSES section of
this document. Respondents may request to withhold names or street
addresses, except for city or town, from public view or from disclosure
under the Freedom of Information Act. Such a request must be stated
prominently at the beginning of the comment. Such requests will be
honored to the extent allowed by law. This request to withhold personal
information does not apply to submissions from organizations or
businesses, or from individuals identifying themselves as
representatives or officials of organizations or businesses.
CBP will hold public meetings to inform the public and solicit
comments about the Draft PEIS. Meetings will be held from 7 p.m. to 9
p.m. at each of the locations and dates provided below. The meeting in
the Washington, DC area is for interested parties located outside of
the project's areas of interest. Meetings will include displays,
handouts, and a presentation by CBP, and will provide an opportunity
for the public to record their comments on the Draft PEIS. Changes in
meeting plans, due to inclement weather or other causes, will be
announced on the project's Web site at: https://www.NorthernBorderPEIS.com, and on a telephone message at: (866) 760-
1421.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date City, state Location
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 3............................ Duluth, MN............. Holiday Inn, 200 West First Street, Duluth, MN
55802.
October 4............................ Massena, NY............ VFW, 101 W Hatfield St., Massena, NY 13662.
October 4............................ Caribou, ME............ Caribou Inn and Convention Center, 19 Main
Street, Caribou, ME 04736.
October 5............................ Augusta, ME............ The Senator Inn & Spa, 284 Western Ave.,
Augusta, ME 04330.
October 5............................ Bottineau, ND.......... Twin Oaks Resort & Convention Center, 10723 Lake
Loop Road, Bottineau, ND 58318.
October 6............................ St. Albans, VT......... The Senator Historical Museum, 9 Church Street,
St. Albans, VT 05478.
October 6............................ Detroit, MI............ Holiday Inn Express, 1020 Washington Boulevard,
Detroit, MI 48226.
October 6............................ Havre, MT.............. The Town House Inn, 627 1st Street West, Havre,
MT 59501.
October 11........................... Bellingham, WA......... Hampton Inn, 3958 Bennett Drive, Bellingham, WA
98225.
October 11........................... Rochester, NY.......... Holiday Inn--Rochester Airport, 911 Brooks
Avenue, Rochester, NY 14624.
October 12........................... Erie, PA............... Ambassador Banquet Center, 7794 Peach Street,
Erie, PA 16509.
October 13........................... Naples, ID............. The Great Northwest Territories Event Center,
336 County Road 8, Naples, ID 83847.
October 17........................... Washington, DC......... Crystal City Marriott at Regan National Airport,
1999 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA
22201.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 57752]]
The public may obtain information concerning the status and
progress of the PEIS, as well as view and download the document, via
the project's Web site at: https://www.NorthernBorderPEIS.com.
Background
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is charged with the
mission of enforcing customs, immigration, agriculture, and numerous
other laws and regulations at the Nation's borders and facilitating
legitimate trade and travel through legal ports of entry. As the
guardian of the United States' borders, CBP protects the roughly 4,000
miles of Northern Border between United States and Canada, from Maine
to Washington. The terrain ranges from densely forested lands on the
west and east coasts to open plains in the middle of the country.
CBP has completed a Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement (PEIS) for its ongoing and potential future activities along
the Northern Border. The Draft PEIS is now available for public review
and comment. (For instructions on obtaining a copy of the PEIS or on
submitting comments, please see the ADDRESSES section of this
document.) An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is a study of the
potential effects on the environment from a specific Federal action. A
Programmatic EIS (PEIS) is an EIS that looks at the general types of
effects of a whole broad program of actions. It often forms the
foundation for a ``regular'' or site-specific EIS, which looks in
general detail at the effects of a specific project slated for a
particular place. Because this effort is programmatic in nature, the
Draft PEIS does not define effects for a specific or planned action.
Instead, it analyzes the overall environmental and socioeconomic
effects of activities supporting the homeland security mission of CBP
focused on applying alternative approaches to better secure the border.
On July 6, 2010, CBP published in the Federal Register (75 FR
38822) a notice announcing that CBP intended to prepare four PEISs to
analyze the environmental effects of current and potential future CBP
border security activities along the Northern Border. Each PEIS was to
cover one region of the Northern Border: the New England region, the
Great Lakes region, the region east of the Rocky Mountains, and the
region west of the Rocky Mountains. The notice also announced and
initiated the public scoping process to gather information from the
public in preparation for drafting the PEISs. As indicated in the
notice, the scoping period concluded on August 5, 2010. However, CBP
continued to take comments past the initial scoping period. For more
information on this process, please see the section of this document
entitled Public Scoping Process.
Subsequently, and in part due to comments received during public
scoping, CBP decided to refocus its approach and develop one PEIS
covering the entire Northern Border, rather than four separate,
regional PEISs. This new approach was designed to ensure that CBP could
effectively analyze and convey impacts that occur across regions of the
Northern Border. CBP published a notice in the Federal Register
announcing this intention on November 9, 2010 (75 FR 68810). While this
makes for a somewhat larger single document, it offers the advantage of
less duplication and greater usefulness as a CBP planning tool.
Aided by the information gained during the public scoping process,
CBP has prepared the Draft PEIS to analyze the environmental and
socioeconomic effects of current and potential future CBP border
security activities along the Northern Border between the United States
and Canada, including an area extending approximately 100 miles south
of the Northern Border. For the purposes of the PEIS, the Northern
Border is defined as the area between the United States and Canada
extending from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean encompassing all
the States between Maine and Washington, inclusively. (The Alaska-
Canada border is not included in this effort.) CBP is evaluating the
environmental and socioeconomic impacts of routine aspects of its
operations along the Northern Border and considering enhancements to
its infrastructure, technologies, and application of manpower to
continue to deter existing and evolving threats to the Nation's
physical and economic security. Due to the diverse and natural
environments along the Northern Border, the Draft PEIS analyzes four
Northern Border regions, referred to above: the New England region, the
Great Lakes region, the region east of the Rocky Mountains, and the
region west of the Rocky Mountains. CBP plans to use the information
derived from the analysis in the PEIS in management, planning, and
decision-making for its mission and its environmental stewardship
responsibilities. It will also be used to establish a foundation for
future impact analyses.
More specifically, CBP plans to use the PEIS analysis over the next
five to seven years as CBP works to improve security along the Northern
Border. To protect the Northern Border against evolving terrorist and
criminal threats, CBP plans to implement a diversified approach to
border security over the next five to seven years that responds most
effectively to those threats. This will involve some combination of
facilities, security infrastructure, technologies, and operational
activities, although the specific combination of elements that will be
used over this period cannot be determined at this time. CBP will use
this PEIS as a foundation for future environmental analyses of specific
programs or locations as CBP's plans for particular Northern Border
security activities develop.
Alternatives Considered
The Draft PEIS considers the environmental impacts of several
alternative approaches CBP may use to protect the Northern Border
against evolving threats. These alternatives would all support
continued deployment of existing CBP personnel in the most effective
manner while maintaining officer safety and continued use of
partnerships with other Federal, state, and local law enforcement
agencies in the United States and Canada. CBP needs to maintain
effective control of the Northern Border via all air, land, and
maritime pathways for cross-border movement.
The No Action Alternative (or ``status quo'') would be to continue
with the same facilities, technology, infrastructure, and approximate
level of personnel currently in use, deployed, or currently planned by
CBP. Normal maintenance of existing facilities is included in this
alternative. This alternative would not meet CBP's goals as it would
not allow CBP to improve its capability to interdict cross-border
violators or to identify and resolve threats at the ports of entry in a
manner that avoids adverse effects on legal trade and travel. However,
it is evaluated in this Draft PEIS because it provides a baseline
against which the impacts of the other reasonable alternatives can be
compared.
The Facilities Development and Improvement Alternative would focus
on providing new permanent facilities or improvements to existing
facilities such as Border Patrol stations, ports of entry, and other
facilities to allow CBP agents to operate more efficiently and respond
to situations more quickly. This alternative would help meet CBP's
goals because the new and improved facilities would make it more
difficult for cross-border violators to cross the border. It
[[Page 57753]]
would also divert traffic from or increase the capacity of the more
heavily used ports of entry, decreasing waiting times. The
applicability of this alternative would be limited, as most roads
crossing the Northern Border already have a crossing facility.
The Detection, Inspection, Surveillance and Communications
Technology Expansion Alternative would focus on deploying more
effective detection, inspection surveillance and communication
technologies in support of CBP activities. This alternative would
involve utilizing upgraded systems that would enable CBP to focus
efforts on identifying threat areas, improving agent and officer
communication systems, and deploying personnel to resolve incidents
with maximum efficiency. This alternative would help meet CBP's goals
by improving CBP's situational awareness and allowing CBP to more
efficiently and effectively direct its resources for interdicting
cross-border violators.
The Tactical Security Infrastructure Deployment Alternative would
focus on constructing additional barriers, access roads, and related
facilities. The barriers would include selective fencing and vehicle
barriers at selected points along the border and would deter and delay
cross-border violators. The access roads and related facilities would
increase the mobility of agents, and enhance their capabilities for
surveillance and for responding to various international border
violations. This alternative would help meet CBP's goals by
discouraging cross-border violators and improving CBP's capacity to
respond.
The Flexible Direction Alternative (the Preferred Alternative)
would allow CBP to follow any of the above directions in order to
employ the most effective response to the changing threat environment
along the Northern Border. This approach would allow CBP to respond
more appropriately to a constantly changing threat environment.
Public Scoping Process
CBP developed and executed a public scoping program for the PEIS to
identify public concerns to be examined in the PEIS. ``Scoping'' of an
EIS is a process of informing diverse stakeholders about an action that
an agency is planning and seeking those stakeholders' feedback on the
environmental concerns that the action could generate. The intent of
the scoping effort is to adopt the scope of the planned environmental
document to ensure that it addresses relevant concerns identified by
interested members of the public as well as organizations, Native
American Tribes, and other government agencies and officials.
CBP's public scoping period for the Northern Border PEIS commenced
on July 6, 2010 and concluded on August 5, 2010. See 75 FR 38822. The
public scoping process was initiated with the publishing of a notice of
intent (NOI) notifying the public of CBP's decision to prepare the
PEISs. In coordination with the publication of the NOI, display
advertisements were published in various newspapers serving local
communities, public service announcements were broadcasted on local
radio stations, scoping letters were mailed to potentially interested
stakeholders consisting of agencies, organizations, and individuals,
and a project Web site was developed. Following the publication of the
NOI, a series of public scoping meetings were held in July 2010.
CBP encouraged the public to submit comments concerning the scope
of the PEIS during the public meetings, or via Web site, e-mail, or
letter. The comments CBP received during the public scoping process
were used to adapt the scope of the Draft PEIS and to ensure that it
addressed relevant concerns identified by interested members of the
public as well as organizations, Native American Tribes, and other
government agencies and officials. CBP has compiled a list of comments
received in a scoping report. This report is available on the project's
Web site at: https://www.NorthernBorderPEIS.com.
NEPA
This environmental analysis is being conducted pursuant to the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq., the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing
the NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01 (renumbered from 5100.1), Environmental Planning
Program of April 19, 2006. NEPA addresses concerns about environmental
quality and the government's role in protecting it. The essence of NEPA
is the requirement that every Federal agency examine the environmental
effects of any proposed action before deciding to proceed with it or
with some alternative. NEPA and the implementing regulations issued by
the President's Council on Environmental Quality call for agencies to
document the potential environmental effects of actions they are
proposing. Generally, agencies must make those documents public, and
seek public feedback on them.
In accordance with NEPA, the PEIS analyzes the effects on the
environment of the Northern Border Security Program. CBP will seek
public input on these studies and will use them in agency planning and
decision making. Because NEPA is a uniquely broad environmental law and
covers the full spectrum of the natural and human environment, the PEIS
will also address environmental considerations governed by other
environmental statutes such as the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act,
Endangered Species Act, and National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).
NHPA Programmatic Agreement
CBP is developing a Programmatic Agreement (PA) for operations
along the Northern Border in accordance with Section 106 of NHPA, 16
U.S.C. 470f, and its implementing regulations (36 CFR part 800). While
the PA is being pursued as an independent action from the PEIS, it will
be applied to future activities occurring within the Northern Border
study area and therefore is relevant to the Northern Border PEIS
project. The Northern Border is defined for purposes of the PA as
extending from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean encompassing all
the States between Maine to Washington, including an area extending
approximately 100 miles south of the U.S.-Canada border. This area is
identical to the area of study of the PEIS.
CBP is currently consulting and coordinating with the Historic
Preservation Officers of the states of Idaho, Maine, Michigan,
Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota,
Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Vermont, and Washington, and the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) to finalize an agreed upon
framework for future Section 106 reviews for CBP actions. The PA will
be signed by CBP, the ACHP, State Historic Preservation Officers, and
other consulting parties. The signed PA will identify (1) activities
and projects carried out by CBP that are agreed do not have the
potential to affect properties either listed or eligible for listing in
the National Register of Historic Places, and (2) activities that are
considered undertakings that do not require consultation under Section
106. Additionally, the PA identifies actions that may have an effect
but that will not require Section 106 review by CBP, State or Tribal
Historic Preservation Officers, Tribes and other consulting parties, so
long as all terms and conditions as described in the PA are
satisfactorily met. The signed PA will be valid for five years from the
date of
[[Page 57754]]
execution, as verified with CBP filing the PA with the ACHP.
Next Steps
After the public comment period on the draft PEIS, CBP will
complete a Final PEIS. The Final PEIS will be made available to the
public through a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register. CBP
will then select a programmatic course of action to guide CBP's
activities along the Northern Border for the next five to seven years.
That decision will be published in the Federal Register in a Record of
Decision.
Dated: September 14, 2011.
Trent Frazier,
Acting Executive Director, Facilities Management and Engineering,
Office of Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-23993 Filed 9-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
