North Dakota Department of Transportation … Dakota Department of Transportation Presidential...

North Dakota Department of Transportation Presidential Permit Application

Pembina-Emerson Port of Entry April, 2016

i

NDDOT IM-6-029(120)216 PCN 20330 | Presidential Permit April, 2016

CONTENTS

Chapter 1 Introduction ......................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2 Project information ............................................................................. 2

2.1 Applicant Information .................................................................................. 2 2.1.1 Point of Contact ...................................................................................... 2 2.1.2 Legal authority to own and/or occupy the crossing ................................ 2

2.2 Project intention .......................................................................................... 2 2.2.1 Specify any intention to transfer, sell or assign any other entity to the facility.

3

2.3 Description of Facility .................................................................................. 3

2.4 Location ....................................................................................................... 5

2.5 Design ......................................................................................................... 5 2.5.1 Option 1: Dynamic Message Signs ........................................................ 9 2.5.2 Option 2: Electronic Plaques .................................................................. 9 2.5.3 Option 3: Automated Queue Detection Warning System ....................... 9

2.6 Safety standards ....................................................................................... 10

2.7 Access routes ............................................................................................ 10

2.8 Supporting Information and Surveys ......................................................... 11 2.8.1 Include photos of construction site ....................................................... 11 2.8.2 Maps identifying land for crossing ........................................................ 11 2.8.3 Engineer drawings ............................................................................... 11 2.8.4 Environmental clearances .................................................................... 11

2.9 Impact on Hydrology ................................................................................. 11

2.10 National Interest ........................................................................................ 11 2.10.1 Report(s) .............................................................................................. 14 2.10.2 Feasibility of the project ........................................................................ 16 2.10.3 Correspondence ................................................................................... 16

2.11 Similar Facilities ........................................................................................ 17

2.12 Traffic Information ..................................................................................... 17 2.12.1 Road system description ...................................................................... 19 2.12.2 Additional or Pending Routes ............................................................... 19

2.13 Construction Plan ...................................................................................... 20 2.13.1 Schedule .............................................................................................. 20 2.13.2 Potential problems................................................................................ 20

2.14 Financing ................................................................................................... 21 2.14.1 Financing Overview .............................................................................. 21 2.14.2 Canadian Approvals ............................................................................. 21 2.14.3 US Approval and Permits ..................................................................... 22

Chapter 3 Environmental Review ...................................................................... 23 3.1 NEPA ......................................................................................................... 23

3.2 Environmental Assessment ...................................................................... 23 3.2.1 Historic Preservation ............................................................................ 23 3.2.2 Environmental Justice .......................................................................... 23

3.3 Environmental Impact Statement .............................................................. 23

Chapter 4 References ......................................................................................... 24

ii


FIGURES

Figure 1-1, Catchment Trade Area of the Pembina-Emerson Port of Entry 1

Figure 2-1, Project Location Map 4

Figure 2-2, Proposed Three-Lane Commercial Bypass Typical Section 6

Figure 2-3, Proposed Three-Lane Commercial Bypass Typical Section 6

Figure 2-4, Proposed Single Lane Layout and Gore Area 6

Figure 2-5, Proposed Build Alternative Layout 8

Figure 2-6, Example of Electronic Plaque 9

Figure 2-7, Map of Congressional High Priority Corridors 12

Figure 2-8, Historic Annual Traffic (2005-2011) 17

Figure 2-9, Bi-Directional Traffic Forecast (2012-2035) 18

TABLES

Table 2-1, Planning and Financial Members 13

Table 2-2, Pembina-Emerson Planning Stakeholder Advisory Group Members 13

Table 2-3, Pembina-Emerson POE Economic Rank 15

Table 2-4, Pembina-Emerson Historic Trade Value 15

Table 2-5, Pembina-Emerson Forecasted Trade Value 15

Table 2-6, Traffic Forecasts by Type and Direction 18

Table 2-7, Approvals and Permits Associated with the Project 22

iii


APPENDICES

Appendix A: Construction Site Photos

Appendix B: Exhibit 67 – Recommended Alternative South

Appendix C: Proposed Interstate Access Control

Appendix D: Concept and Preliminary Layout

Appendix E: Record of Communication

Appendix F: Right-of-Way Ownership, Operation & Maintenance Responsibilities

Appendix G: ITS Lane Configuration

Appendix H: Proposed Commercial Bypass Highway Lighting

Appendix I: Power Pole Schematic

Appendix J: Canadian Approvals and Agreements

Appendix K: Environmental Assessment & FONSI

APPENDICES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Pembina-Emerson Port of Entry Transportation Study; Gannett Fleming; February 2013

1

NDDOT IM-6-029(120)216 PCN 20330 | Presidential Permit April 2016

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

Figure 1-1, Catchment Trade Area of the Pembina-Emerson Port of Entry

Ports of Entry (POE’s), or locations where goods or people may enter or leave a country under

legal supervision, are essential to economic vitality, recreation and tourism between the United

States (US) and its bordering countries. The North Dakota Department of Transportation

(NDDOT) is seeking a Presidential Permit from the US. Department of State under Executive

Order 11423 for the expansion of the Pembina-Emerson POE between the US and Canada.

The Pembina-Emerson POE is ranked fifth out of 120 ports in terms of trade value between

the US and Canada. Accelerating tourism and commerce along the Mid-Continent Trade

Corridor, which extends from Canada to Mexico through the POE, will impact efficiency and

throughput, resulting in economic development and broader national safety and security

consequences. Please refer to Figure 1-1, Catchment Trade Area of the Pembina-Emerson

Port of Entry.

The NDDOT is working with Canada to move the POE expansion and improvement project

forward, which will alleviate traffic congestion and safety issues on both sides of the border.

The NDDOT is currently collaborating with Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) focusing

on the US POE expansion.

2


CHAPTER 2 PROJECT INFORMATION

2 . 1 A p p l i c a n t I n f o r m a t i o n

2.1.1 Point of Contact

Justin Schlosser, PE North Dakota Department of Transportation (NDDOT)

608 East Boulevard Avenue

Bismarck, ND 58505-0700

701-328-4383

[email protected]

2.1.2 Legal authori ty to own and/or occupy the crossing

Customs Border Protection (CBP): Julie Peterson 112 W. Stutsman Pembina, ND 58271 Phone: (701) 825.6201 North Dakota Department of Transportation: Les Noehre, Grand Forks District Engineer 1951 N. Washington St Grand Forks, ND 58208 Phone: (701) 787.6500 General Services Administration (GSA): Jason Hessling 1 Denver Federal Center Gate 2, Building 41, Rm 177 Denver, CO 80225 Phone: (303) 335.5242

2 . 2 P r o j e c t i n t e n t i o n

The scope of the project is to build additional northbound lanes at the Pembina-Emerson Port

of Entry (POE) to segregate primary automobiles from commercial traffic. There will not be any

other entities assigned to the facility, however existing entities as the border will either buy,

sell, or transfer land in order to accommodate the project’s configuration.

The NDDOT will be acquiring approximately 8.5 acres of new land from a private landowner,

in order to construct portions of the proposed project that are outside of the existing NDDOT

right-of-way (ROW). After constructing the proposed project, the NDDOT will quit-claim

approximately 5.7 acres of NDDOT ROW to General Services Administration (GSA), where

they will be responsible for owning, operating and maintaining their property. Please refer to

Appendix F, Right-of-Way Ownership, Operation and Maintenance Responsibilities.

3


After construction, this new parcel of land will include the following components and services:

An outbound inspection area for US CBP will be constructed between the

commercial lanes and existing northbound interstate lanes. This will allow CBP to

perform outbound vehicular inspections on both automobile and commercial traffic,

and will result in reduced traffic congestion. Currently CBP’s outbound inspection

area is located west of the northbound interstate lanes, which is not easily

accessible by commercial vehicles and is a primary cause for congestion.

A site will be provided for a duty free pick-up building that will also provide public

restrooms and parking. Currently there are no public restrooms at the POE, and

the duty free shop is located west of the northbound interstate lanes, which would

not be accessible by commercial vehicles after the bypass lanes are constructed.

An outbound vehicle registration parking would be provided, allowing commercial

vehicles to park and walk to the CBP POE, in order to register vehicles before

crossing the international border. Currently, commercial vehicles park along the

shoulder of the northbound interstate lanes, and walk across traffic to access

CBP’s POE.

By relocating these services, access will be better provided to both primary automobile and

commercial vehicle traffic. As a result, user safety will be increased.

2.2.1 Specify any intention to t ransfer, sel l or assign any other ent i ty

to the faci l i ty.

There is no intention to transfer, sell or assign to any other entity the facility, of which portion is

within North Dakota, United States. The sole operator of the POE is currently CBP, who will

remain so after the project is constructed. The NDDOT will provide ownership, operation and

maintenance of the existing and proposed interstate lanes and commercial bypass lanes after

the project is constructed. The interstate lanes service the POE.

2 . 3 D e s c r i p t i o n o f F a c i l i t y

Ports of Entry (POE), or locations where goods or people may enter or leave a country under

legal supervision, are essential to recreation, tourism and economic vitality between the US

and its bordering countries. The Pembina-Emerson POE is an important transportation element

in the economic and trade initiatives of Canada and the US, as well as Manitoba and North

Dakota. In 2011, the Pembina-Emerson POE processed nearly $17 billion in two-way truck

based trade. This figure is expected to grow to $27.5 billion per year by 2035. The Pembina-

Emerson POE is the fifth largest port in terms of trade value between the US and Canada. It is

also one of only three 24-hour POE’s within North Dakota and Manitoba (Pembina-Emerson

POE Transportation Study, 2013). This POE carries more truck traffic than all other North

Dakota crossings combined. The proposed project is expected to begin construction in the

early spring of 2017 and end construction in the fall/winter of 2017.

The NDDOT, in cooperation with the lead federal agency, FHWA, is proposing the following

improvements at the Pembina-Emerson POE: construct new dedicated lanes to segregate

commercial traffic and primary automobile traffic; relocate the outbound inspection area and

duty free pick-up building to a location accessible to commercial and primary automobile traffic;

construct auto and truck parking areas, install Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)

technology and a pedestrian crossing to accommodate users. Please refer to Figure 2-1,

Project Location Map on the following page.

4


In Figure 2-1, the term ‘project area’ is used to define the boundary that encompasses impacts

associated with the proposed project.

Figure 2-1, Project Location Map

5


2 . 4 L o c a t i o n

The Pembina-Emerson POE is located 70 miles south of Winnipeg, Manitoba and 80 miles north of Grand Forks, North Dakota.

10980 Hwy 29 Pembina, ND 58271 Latitude: 48°59'54.39"N Longitude: 97°14'21.43"W

2 . 5 D e s i g n

The proposed project design was developed to address transportation demands, safety,

system linkage and legislation needs at the POE. The proposed design consists of:

Constructing a commercial bypass that diverges from Interstate 29 via a single

lane off-ramp;

Relocating the outbound inspection area to a location accessible to commercial

and primary automobile traffic;

Providing a site location for the relocated duty free pick-up building;

Constructing auto and truck parking areas and;

Constructing a pedestrian crossing across Interstate 29 and the proposed

commercial lanes.

The above elements were ultimately developed through a process beginning with the build

recommendations in the Pembina-Emerson POE Transportation Study (2013). The build

alternative selected in this study is shown in Appendix B: Exhibit 67 – Recommended

Alternative South. The build alternative was then further developed through agency and

international coordination.

The build alternative was also developed to address current inefficiencies at the POE. The

proposed project would utilize existing facilities, technology and infrastructure to the fullest

practical extent. Design elements enhancing function and new technology to replace outdated

infrastructure would be incorporated where needed and functional.

The build alternative would consist of constructing a 0.89 mile auxiliary lane on Interstate 29

with a single lane off-ramp separating commercial vehicle and automobile traffic. The

commercial bypass would split from a single lane in to three lanes, as well as direct traffic to

the site location for a new duty free pick-up building, parking for commercial vehicles and

parking for public restroom facilities. For lane details, please refer to Figure 2-2, Proposed

Three-Lane Commercial Bypass Typical Section and Figure 2-3, Proposed Three-Lane

Commercial Bypass Typical Section.

6


Figure 2-2, Proposed Three-Lane Commercial Bypass Typical Section

Figure 2-3, Proposed Three-Lane Commercial Bypass Typical Section

Figure 2-4, Proposed Single Lane Layout and Gore Area

Under the proposed configuration, a gore would split the existing three-lane section of Interstate

29 from the proposed commercial bypass lanes. Where the commercial bypass lanes splits

from one lane to three lanes, the western lane will provide access to the duty free pick-up

building. The two west lanes will continue as a commercial bypass for non-FAST commercial

vehicles, while the east-most lane will serve as a dedicated lane for FAST vehicles. Please

refer to Figure 2-4, Proposed Single Lane Layout and Gore Area.

7


Located at the start of the off-ramp, just north of the gore area would be an approximately

24,000 square foot (SF) CBP outbound inspection area. An approximately 57,750 SF

commercial vehicle parking lot would be located on the north side of duty free pick-up building.

An at-grade pedestrian crossing would provide a connection from the POE plaza, to the

termination of NDDOT right-of-way (ROW) just to the west of Old Highway 81. Please refer to

Figure 2-5, Proposed Build Alternative Layout and in Appendix D, Concept and

Preliminary Layout.

Currently, there are not pedestrian facilities along Old Highway 81, however the NDDOT

understands that there is strong local support for a shared-use path to be constructed between

Pembina, North Dakota and Emerson, Manitoba. This future trail would likely be constructed

by the City of Pembina or a joint effort between the cities of Pembina/Emerson at an unknown

date.

A signed crosswalk would be constructed across both the northbound lanes of Interstate 29

and the proposed commercial bypass lanes. The pedestrian crossing would also provide a

connection point (near old highway 81) for a future non-motorized trail between Pembina, ND

and Emerson, MB. This connection will end within the proposed ROW. The Cities of Pembina

and Emerson have discussed this trail and are in the early discussion/planning phase to

determine how they may fund this future project. Sidewalks would be installed to provide

connections, as necessary, to project components located within the proposed project. For an

overview of the proposed build alternative, please refer to Figure 2-5, Proposed Build

Alternative Layout.

Existing drainage structures (culverts) would remain in place and be extended to accommodate

the larger roadway width. New drainage structures will be added according to NDDOT design

standards (NDDOT, 2013).

The build alternative would include additional lighting to be installed, consisting of three 140

foot and fifteen 40 foot high light poles installed along the proposed commercial lanes, from the

beginning of the commercial auxiliary lane to the international border. Please refer to the figure

in Appendix H, Proposed Commercial Bypass Highway Lighting.

The duty free pick-up building, CBP outbound inspection building and highway lighting would

require underground utilities such as water, sewer, electrical and fiber optic to be installed.

Coordination with Ottertail Power has been ongoing and the existing overhead line will be

relocated underground during the project. Please refer to the figure in Appendix I, Power Pole

Schematic.

Traffic would be maintained during project construction. Barriers and appropriate traffic control

and directional signs would be used as needed.

There are three ITS (Intelligent Transportation Systems) options that may be constructed as

part of the proposed project; Dynamic Messaging Signs (DMS), electronic plaques and

automated queue detection warning systems. For all three options, please refer to the figure in

Appendix G, Proposed ITS Lane Configuration.

8


Figure 2-5, Proposed Build Alternative Layout

9


2.5.1 Opt ion 1: Dynamic Message Signs

DMS will allow flexibility in being able to change lane assignments or post informational

messages to the traveling public. DMS would provide multiple benefits to the traveling public

and the employees at the border. A few benefits would include the ability to efficiently shut

down the commercial and/or the automobile plazas in the event of unforeseen circumstances

and to alert the traveling public in advance. In the event of a full border closure, proper warning

would be provided to the traveling public before passing the Pembina interchange, allowing

them to safely exit the Interstate without creating additional congestion at the border.

Consideration is being given to construct four DMS with this project. DMS, if constructed, are

expected to be located at these locations:

Prior to Pembina exit;

After the Pembina exit (Existing DMS);

Prior to the Historic Turnout; and

Approaching the Pembina-Emerson POE before the commercial bypass exit

2.5.2 Opt ion 2: Electronic Plaques

Figure 2-6, Example of Electronic Plaque

Electronic plaques are small electronic panels placed below static lane signs to indicate simple

directions to travelers. Please refer to Figure 2-6, Example of Electronic Plaque. Electronic

plaques may display symbols, such as red “X”, green “O” or short messages such as “NEXUS”

or “FAST”. The electronic plaques are a way to relay limited supplemental information to static

signs such as lane assignments. Compared to DMS technology, electronic plaques do not

display dynamic messages. Electronic plaques would show which lane(s) should be used by

NEXUS/FAST capable vehicles, as well as indicate open/closed lanes.

Static signs with electronic plaques may be installed at the following locations:

North of the historic turnout to show upcoming lane assignments

North of the commercial bypass off-ramp, along the automobile lanes

2.5.3 Opt ion 3: Automated Queue Detect ion Warning System

During high traffic periods, this warning system would alert approaching drivers of stopped

vehicles ahead. The system would exist in the form of pavement or radar sensors. The traffic

detection system could either alert travelers in advance through either stand-alone signing with

electronic features such as flashing lights, and/or messages could be displayed on DMS

(Option 1). Messages could be displayed through either of these two methods, such as

“Stopped Vehicles Ahead” or “Reduce Speed” alerting drivers of stopped traffic leading up to

the POE which could reduce rear end crash potential.

10


2 . 6 S a f e t y s t a n d a r d s

Expansion of the POE will follow all Federal, American Association of State Highway and

Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and NDDOT Design Manual requirements. Emphasis will

be placed on vehicular, pedestrian and bicyclist safety. Additionally, bi-national safety and

security practices established by the North American Free Trade Agreement, Transportation

Border Working Group (2011 Beyond the Border Declaration), Eastern Border Transportation

Coalition and International Mobility and Trade Corridor will be implemented.

2 . 7 A c c e s s r o u t e s

The project would create three new access points to the existing northbound interstate lanes.

Please refer to Appendix C, Proposed Interstate Access Control. These new access points

consist of the following:

1. Off-ramp (Exit) of the commercial lanes from Interstate 29 northbound to access the

relocated duty free pick-up building and public restrooms, outbound inspection parking

area and the new CBSA commercial PILs and “Last Turnoff before Canada” for

commercial vehicles;

2. Off-ramp (Exit) of the auto lanes to access the relocated duty free pick-up building and

the public restrooms;

3. On-ramp (Access) of the auto lanes to access the interstate from the duty free pick-up

building and the public restrooms.

In an effort to minimize access points, the access from the parking lot and duty free pick-up

building would be shared with the exit for the last turnoff before Canada lane. Although the

build alternative would create three new access points along the Interstate 29 northbound

lanes, two access points would be eliminated, as follows:

1. Complete closure of the existing CBP outbound inspection area from Interstate 29

northbound;

2. Complete closure of the existing duty free pick-up building parking access.

The access and exit points to the existing facilities would be closed by either installing

boulevards or removing the existing pavement and installing a ditch along Interstate 29

northbound.

Two existing access points would be modified to promote safer conditions as follows:

1. The opening of the “Last Turnoff before Canada” access will be modified to better

identify permissible and impermissible movements;

2. The existing CBP outbound inspection building would be relocated or removed to

extend the existing concrete to allow commercial vehicles to make turns.

11


2 . 8 S u p p o r t i n g I n f o r m a t i o n a n d S u r v e y s

2.8.1 Include photos of construct ion site

See Appendix A

2.8.2 Maps identi fy ing land for crossing

See Appendix D

2.8.3 Engineer drawings

Approved concept and preliminary layout, see Appendix D

2.8.4 Environmental c learances

The environmental clearance process was initiated in the fall of 2013, with the completion of

the environmental assessment (EA) in February, 2016. The EA was made available for review

and comment by the public on February 24th, 2016, and remained so until March 29th, 2016.

A public hearing was held in Pembina, ND on March 14th, 2016 to discuss the project and

allow the public to ask questions and provide comments. A court recorder was available at the

public hearing to record all questions and comments asked by the public. KLJ and the NDDOT

incorporated all comments in to the final environmental approval document, which was

submitted to FHWA for approval. A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was issued by

FHWA on April 21st, 2016. A copy of the EA and FONSI can be found in Appendix K.

2 . 9 I m p a c t o n H y d r o l o g y

No significant impacts on the flow of water are anticipated. The project is not in a floodway.

Local flow will be handled in a traditional manner of ditches, culverts and area drains. The

drainage patterns will remain unchanged and follow the natural drainage formations. Due to

the implementation of avoidance, minimization and mitigation measure identified in the

previous section, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in significant impacts to

floodplains.

The proposed project is located within an area mapped as Zone A (no base flood elevations

determined) by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Map Service

Center. A non-building general floodplain permit and a Floodplain Development Permit

Application for a walled or roofed building would be required from Pembina County.

The roadway has been designed to remain at generally the same elevation throughout the Red

River floodplain and is not anticipated to alter flow and/or sediment transfer during high flow

events. Some borrow and fill would be placed within the floodplain but in negligible levels in

comparison to the watershed area and would not in levels high enough to impact the 100-year

base flood elevation. The 100-year floodwater surface elevation is not anticipated to increase

as a result of the proposed project.

2 . 1 0 N a t i o n a l I n t e r e s t

More than 40 agencies throughout the US and Canada, including private businesses, local

government, trade associations, public safety and higher education entities have collaborated

to prepare long-range transportation plans. These plans address public safety, national

12


security, environmental impacts, operational efficiency and increasing capacity for multi-modal

traffic demands to allow commercial and automotive traveler access between the US and

Canada. Please refer to Figure 2-7, Map of Congressional High Priority Corridors.

Figure 2-7, Map of Congressional High Priority Corridors

13


Table 2-1, Planning and Financial Members lists stakeholder who have invested time and

financial resources in the long-term planning and final northbound construction of the POE.

Table 2-1, Planning and Financial Members

PEMBINA-EMERSON COOPERATING AGENCIES

Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation

Canada Border Services Agency

Customs and Border Protection

North Dakota Department of Transportation

Transport Canada

General Services Administration

TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP

Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation

Customs and Border Protection

Transport Canada

North Dakota Department of Transportation

Canada Border Services Agency

ENGINEERING SERVICES

Gannett Fleming, KLJ

Table 2-2, Pembina-Emerson Planning Stakeholder Advisory Group Members

INTERNATIONAL

North America’s Super Corridor Coalition Inc.

UNITED STATES AGENCIES

Federal Highway Administration

US Border Patrol

Minnesota Department of Transportation

US Army Corps of Engineers

US Department of Agriculture: Animal Plant Health Inspection Service

North Dakota Division Federal Highway Administration

RAILWAYS

Canadian National Railway

Canadian Pacific Railway

Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway

NORTH DAKOTA STAKEHOLDERS

City of Pembina

Pembina County

Grand Forks - East Grand Forks Metropolitan Planning Organization

US Duty Free Shop

North Dakota Highway Patrol

North Dakota Motor Carriers Association

14


INTERNATIONAL

North Dakota Department of Commerce

North Dakota Department of Commerce Tourism Division

North Dakota State University

North Dakota State Historical Society

MANITOBA STAKEHOLDERS

Travel Manitoba

Town of Emerson

Canadian Duty Free Shop

Manitoba Customs Brokers

GHY International

Manitoba Trucking Association

Manitoba Chamber of Commerce

CentrePort Canada Incorporated

Manitoba Culture, Heritage and Tourism

Roseau River Anishinabe First Nation

CANADIAN AGENCIES

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

Public Works and Government Services, Canada

Public Works and Government Services, Canada

Canada Food Inspection Agency

2.10.1 Report(s)

The Pembina-Emerson POE is an international border crossing between Canada and the US.

Approximately one million bi-directional vehicles are processed through the POE on an annual

basis. The southbound and northbound traffic splits are relatively equal and the auto-truck

traffic split is approximately 60% to 40% respectively. Total bi-directional traffic processed

through the POE is expected to exceed two million vehicles annually by the year 2035. These

projected volumes are also expected to retain the same north/southbound directional volumes

and 60% to 40% auto-truck vehicle split characteristics. The Pembina-Emerson POE is the fifth

busiest land POE along the Canada-US border in terms of two-way truck-based trade. In 2011,

the Pembina-Emerson POE processed nearly $17 billion in two-way truck based trade. This

figure is anticipated to grow to $27.5 billion in annual truck-based trade by the year 2035.

(Source: Pembina-Emerson POE Transportation Study, 2013). Please refer to Table 2-3,

Pembina-Emerson POE Economic Rank and Table 2-4, Pembina-Emerson Historic Trade

Value.

15


Table 2-3, Pembina-Emerson POE Economic Rank

RANK U.S. CANADA 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

1 Detroit, MI Windsor, ON

$115.1 $114.4 $101.2 $72.5 $91.7 $98.7

2 Buffalo, NY Fort Erie, ON

$58.9 $62.3 $59.0 $47.8 $56.2 $62.2

3 Port Huron, MI

Sarnia, ON $37.5 $40.4 $44.4 $35.2 $42.7 $47.8

4 Champlain, VT

Locolle, QB $16.5 $17.8 $19.1 $16.1 $18.4 $21.0

5 Pembina, ND

Emerson, MB

$13.7 $14.4 $16.0 $12.8 $14.3 $16.9

6 Blaine, WA Surrey, BC $13.6 $14.7 $15.2 $12.3 $13.9 $15.5

Source: Pembina-Emerson Port of Entry Transportation Study

Table 2-4, Pembina-Emerson Historic Trade Value

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

% GROWTH 2005-2011

Bi-Directional Annual Truck Traffic

398,485 387,548 425,971 430,037 352,131 370,209 385,725 (0.1)

Bi-Directional Annual Trade Value

$12.0 $13.7 $14.4 $16.0 $12.8 $14.3 $16.9 40.8

Bi-Directional Annual Metric Tonnes

- 5,225,833 5,575,125 5,854,507 5,680,776 5,791,735 5,930,954 13.5

Note: Annual Trade Value in 2011 constant USD, billions Source: Pembina-Emerson Port of Entry Transportation Study

Table 2-5, Pembina-Emerson Forecasted Trade Value

2012 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

% GROWTH

2012-2035

Bi-Directional Annual Truck Traffic

397,561 425,359 472,978 521,238 573,464 629,235 58.3

Bi-Directional Annual Trade Value

$17.6 $19.1 $20.9 $22.9 $25.1 $27.5 56.3

Bi-Directional Annual Metric Tonnes

6,066,018 5,545,831 7,421,661 8,292,085 9,155,132 10,108,006 66.6

Note: Annual Trade Value in 2011 constant USD, billions Source: Pembina-Emerson Port of Entry Transportation Study

16


The current facilities have been in place for decades, with most recent renovations in 1997

(CBP) and 1999 (CBSA) with little or no inter-agency or bi-national coordination. Land use

decisions regarding the location of developments in the vicinity of the POE or on leased lands

(specifically duty free operations) have also contributed to some functional and operational

problems currently being experienced at the POE. These problems have been amplified by the

traffic increases that have occurred since the current facilities were reconstructed in the late

1990s.

Additionally, the events of September 11, 2001 resulted in the subsequent introduction of new

technologies and inspection protocols, further exacerbating many functional and operational

issues. Furthermore, the economic development goals and trade posture for both Canada and

the United States are at risk if the POE is incapable of managing anticipated facility demands

in a safe, secure, efficient and reliable manner to promote broad trade and economic

development goals. These issues were addressed in the Beyond the Border Declaration signed

into action by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and US President Barack Obama on

February 4, 2011. The Beyond the Border declaration and subsequent Action Plan (released

December 7, 2011) articulate a shared vision of perimeter security and economic

competitiveness.

2.10.2 Feasibi l i ty of the project

The Pembina-Emerson POE Transportation Study used a Synchro-SimTraffic model to

calculate benefits and costs associated with the recommended alternative. A discount rate of

6% was used to provide sensitivity analysis to calculate project benefits. The benefits in terms

of quantifiable savings related to delay and congestion measures in 2016 current year dollars

are estimated to be $367 million (southbound) and $229 million (northbound). Combined

benefits are estimated to be over$503 million and do not reflect an aggregation of directional

benefits due to economic rules associated with calculating net present value. (Source:

Pembina-Emerson POE Transportation Study, 2013, values adjusted for inflation using

http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/).

2.10.3 Correspondence

Beginning on August 8th, 2013, the NDDOT, FHWA and KLJ have been in occasional contact

with the permit grantor, US Department of State (DOS). On August 8th, 2013, KLJ had a

preliminary conference call with the DOS, which concluded that a Presidential Permit would

likely be needed. On September 4th, 2014, a Presidential Permit Kickoff meeting was held

between the DOS, NDDOT, KLJ and FHWA. This meeting consisted of discussing the

presidential permit requirements, design elements, and permit application process. On January

7th, 2015 another conference call was held with the DOS. During this call, the NDDOT provided

a project status and schedule update, and an overview of the FHWA/NDDOT environmental

process. A meeting was scheduled with the State department on November 4th, 2015, however

it was cancelled by DOS due to unforeseen circumstances. DOS intended to reschedule the

meeting, however was unable to do so. On March 4th, 2016, the NDDOT invited the DOS to

attend a public hearing in Pembina, ND as a part of the NEPA process. The public hearing,

presented in an open house format with formal presentations, was held on March 14th, 2016.

FHWA has been in communication with the DOS in relation to this project. A record of

communication between NDDOT, KLJ and the DOS can be found in Appendix E.

17


2 . 1 1 S i m i l a r F a c i l i t i e s

North Dakota has three 24-hour border crossings between the US and Canada. The Pembina-

Emerson POE is one of three 24-hour crossings and is the busiest crossing in the state. A list

of the other 24-hour POE facilities in the State of North Dakota are outlined below.

Portal Border Station 301 W Railway Ave Portal, ND 58772 Owner: U.S. General Services Administration

Dunseith Border Station 10098 Highway 281 Dunseith, ND 58329-9429 Owner: U.S. General Services Administration

2 . 1 2 T r a f f i c I n f o r m a t i o n

The Pembina-Emerson border crossing is the fifth busiest port along the US-Canada border

and the second busiest port west of the Great Lakes. The following figures provide data on

international traffic that uses the Port of Entry (Source of all figures: Pembina-Emerson POE

Transportation Study, 2013).

Figure 2-8, Historic Annual Traffic (2005-2011)

18


Table 2-6, Traffic Forecasts by Type and Direction

TRAFFIC TYPE

2012 TOTAL

VOLUME

2015 TOTAL

VOLUME

2020 TOTAL

VOLUME

2025 TOTAL

VOLUME

2030 TOTAL

VOLUME

2035 TOTAL

VOLUME Southbound

Autos 356,684 390,907 470,513 546,619 646,746 774,602

Trucks 218,213 232,271 255,983 278,725 301,167 324,068

Total Traffic 574,897 623,178 726,496 825,344 947,913 1,098,670

Growth From Preceding Column in Table:

- 8.4% 16.6% 13.6% 14.9% 15.9%

Northbound

Autos 335,684 368,291 449,904 520,985 622,201 733,445

Trucks 179,348 193,088 216,990 242,513 272,297 305,167

Total Traffic 514,912 561,379 666,894 763,498 894,498 1,038,612


- 9.0% 18.8% 14.5% 17.2% 16.1%

Bi-Directional

Autos 692,248 759,198 920,417 1,067,604 1,268,947 1,508,047

Trucks 397,561 425,359 472,973 521,238 573,464 629,235

Total Traffic 1,089,809 1,184,557 1,393,390 1,588,842 1,842,411 2,137,282


- 8.7% 17.6% 14.0% 16.0% 16.0%

Figure 2-9, Bi-Directional Traffic Forecast (2012-2035)

19


2.12.1 Road system descript ion

Approximately one million bi-directional vehicles are processed through the POE on an annual

basis. The southbound and northbound traffic splits are relatively equal and the auto-truck

traffic split is approximately 60% to 40% respectively. Total bi-directional traffic processed

through the POE is expected to double and exceed two million vehicles by the year 2035.

These projected volumes are also expected to retain the same north/southbound directional

and auto-truck vehicle split characteristics. Weekly traffic volumes were examined to determine

if the majority of high volume periods for each vehicle classification occur on a specific day(s)

of the week.

Southbound automobile traffic has a distinct peak on Fridays. Thursdays and Saturdays nearly

identical and approximately 33 percent less than Friday levels. Commercial traffic has a distinct

peak on Monday after which volumes gradually decrease until Saturday when commercial

traffic is at its lowest daily volume; about half of the peak volume. Northbound automobile traffic

remains relatively steady throughout the week with Sunday volumes almost double the

weekday volumes. Northbound commercial traffic has a distinct peak, gradually building from

Sunday until it peaks on Thursday. Volumes then gradually decrease until Sunday, when they

are approximately half of what is experienced on the Thursday peak.

All holiday-related traffic was removed from the weekly and hourly profiles to illustrate typical

average conditions.

CBSA and CBP attempt to limit delays to 10 minutes for automobiles on weekdays (20 minutes

on weekends/holidays) and 30 minutes for trucks daily. As such, 20 minutes of delay is

considered acceptable for all traffic, while a delay of greater than 20 minutes was considered

unacceptable. Delay durations were determined similar to delay occurrences where volumes

known to cause delays were assumed to result in queuing. The maximum delay duration was

nine hours in the southbound direction and 11 hours in the northbound direction. The most

common delay duration was between two and four hours in the southbound and northbound

directions, respectively.

2.12.2 Addit ional or Pending Routes

The initial build alternative recommended in the Pembina-Emerson POE Transportation Study,

2013 has been developed and refined to ensure the needs of all stakeholders (owners and

operators) have been incorporated.

20


2 . 1 3 C o n s t r u c t i o n P l a n

2.13.1 Schedule

2.13.1.1 Permits and approvals

It is anticipated all other permits which the Contractor is not responsible for, will be approved

and obtained by December 2016. Permits which are the responsibility of the Contractor will be

obtained by the Contractor prior to construction.

Section 404 Individual Permit – US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

Section 401 Certification – North Dakota Department of Health

Asbestos Notification of Demolition and Renovation form (SFN 17987) – North

Dakota Department of Health; Contractor responsibility

Lead-Based Paint Notification of Abatement and Demolition Clearance (SFN

53479) – North Dakota Department of Health; Contractor responsibility

North Dakota Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (to be obtained by

the contractor) – North Dakota Department of Health

Drain Permit – North Dakota State Water Commission

Floodplain Permits (Building and Non-Building) - Pembina County

2.13.1.2 Financing

NDDOT has identified the project in their 2016-2019 State Transportation Improvement

Program (STIP) for the recommended alternative. The funding consists of federal, state and

local funds.

Although funding has been allocated by the NDDOT in the 2016-2019 STIP, a 2016 FASTLANE

Grant Application is being submitted requesting funds for the project. If awarded, the grant

would allow the NDDOT to reallocate state funding to other NDDOT projects.

2.13.1.3 Design

The design phase is scheduled to take place from April to December, 2016. The final design

phase will include right-of-way acquisition, wetland permitting, utility coordination and

construction documents.

2.13.1.4 Construction

Construction will commence in the spring of 2017 and substantial completion is anticipated in

late 2017. Final Completion is expected to take place in early 2018.

2.13.2 Potential problems

2.13.2.1 Project management and coordination

No potential problems are anticipated at this time. However, extensive coordination is required

through all the government agencies on both sides of the border.

21


2.13.2.2 Construction impacts to waters

Impacts to USACE jurisdictional wetlands will be mitigated in the Kirkeby/Schuster Mitigation

Bank at a 1:1 ratio, equating 5.25 acres. The remaining 0.36 acres of impacts occur in artificial

wetlands, ditches, and are not required to be mitigated.

2 . 1 4 F i n a n c i n g

2.14.1 Financing Overview

2.14.1.1 Estimated costs

The Pembina-Emerson POE expansion project is anticipated to have a construction cost

around $10.6 Million, which includes the optional DMS signing ($1.1 Million), electronic plaques

($0.5 Million) and automated queue detection warning system ($0.5 Million). The base

construction cost without the optional items is approximately $8.5 Million. This cost estimate

includes construction engineering and right of way acquisition. Right of way acquisition is

estimated to cost approximately $70,000, which includes purchasing 8.5 acres of land from the

adjacent private landowner.

The NDDOT has decided to move forward with funding all three ITS options outlined above, if

a FASTLANE grant is awarded to the project. If grant funds are not awarded, the NDDOT

intends to revisit moving forward with installation of all three ITS options.

2.14.1.2 State and Federal funding sources

NDDOT has identified the project in their 2016-2019 State Transportation Improvement

Program (STIP) for the recommended alternative. The approved funding consists of federal,

state and local funds.

2.14.2 Canadian Approvals

No formal approvals from Canada are anticipated at this time. However, coordination with MIT,

CBSA and Transport Canada will be part of this project to ensure the infrastructure is

advantageous to all agencies.

2.14.2.1 Agreements:

Financing

Although a formal letter of financial commitment has not been received from the Canadian

Agencies, coordination has continued on a regular basis with both CBSA and MIT since the

project’s conception in fall, 2014. The NDDOT, CBSA and MIT have continued to share design

files and host bilateral meetings through the preliminary engineering phase. On May 22, 2015,

MIT Minister Steve Ashton drafted a letter of support for the NDDOT’s. The letter was submitted

to The Honorable Anthony Foxx, Secretary, of the United States Department of Transportation

to promote the continued project coordination on the Pembina-Emerson POE improvements

project during a grant application. In this letter, Minister Ashton states that MIT’s next steps in

planning the transportation infrastructure improvements are progressing and are consistent

with the 2013 Pembina-Emerson POE Transportation Study. A copy of the letter can be found

in Appendix J.

22


Construction

Preliminary Construction documentation for the associated project on the Canadian side of the

international border was obtained from CBSA on June 18th, 2015, which included a full-sized

plan set detailing the proposed redevelopment, which was prepared by Public Works and

Government Services Canada. In January 2016, MIT provided an updated preliminary layout

of the preferred option that was developed during their preliminary engineering and planning

phase. A copy of both the exhibits can be found in Appendix J.

Ownership of the Canadian portion of the facility

Proof of ownership of the Emerson POE was prepared by Manitoba Infrastructure and

Transportation and obtained on September 3, 2015. See Appendix J.

2.14.3 US Approval and Permits

The following permits, reviews and approvals will be required to implement the proposed

project:

Table 2-7, Approvals and Permits Associated with the Project

AGENCY PERMIT/APPROVAL STATUS

US Department of State Presidential Permit Submitted with this application

FHWA Environmental Assessment Approved February 2016

FHWA Finding of No Significant Impact Issued April 2016

US Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Individual Permit Not submitted

North Dakota Department of Health

Section 401 Certification Not submitted


Asbestos Notification of Demolition and Renovation form (SFN 17987)

Not submitted


Lead-Based Paint Notification of Abatement and Demolition Clearance (SFN 53479)

Not submitted (Contractor responsibility)


North Dakota Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit

Not submitted (Contractor responsibility)

North Dakota State Water Commission

Drain Permit Not submitted

Pembina County Floodplain Permits (Building & Non-Building)

Not submitted

23


CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

3 . 1 N E P A

The NEPA process was followed and an EA was completed. The EA was available for public

comment until March 29th, 2016. A FONSI was issued in April 2016.

3 . 2 E n v i r o n m e n t a l A s s e s s m e n t

The EA was completed in 2016. A copy of the EA and the FONSI can be found in Appendix

K.

3.2.1 Histor ic Preservation

No potential historic preservation issues are anticipated with the proposed project.

3.2.2 Environmental Just ice

No potential environmental justice issues are anticipated with the proposed project.

3 . 3 E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t S t a t e m e n t

According to FHWA regulations an Environmental Impact Statement is not needed with the

proposed project.

24


CHAPTER 4 REFERENCES

Gannett Fleming in conjunction with NDDOT, US Customs and Border Protection, Canada Border Services Agency, General Services Agency, Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation &

Transport Canada. (2013). Pembina‐Emerson POE Transportation Study. PDF.

North Dakota Department of Transportation … Dakota Department of Transportation Presidential...

Documents

Transcript of North Dakota Department of Transportation … Dakota Department of Transportation Presidential...