Border ports in area could face closure Written By Michelle Monroe Wednesday, November 04, 2009 DHS report examines Morses Line, Pinnacle ST. ALBANS — The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) should consider closing small, low-traffic ports of entry located near larger ports, a committee assembled by DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano said in a report issued Friday.     As part of their research into the spending of $420 million allocated by Congress under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), the committee visited three northern Customs and Border Protection (CBP) ports, including Morses Line and Pinnacle Road in Vermont to review possible upgrades.     The Morses Line port is located in the center of a farm owned by Clement and Elizabeth Rainville, of Franklin, and the family has said a planned expansion of the facility would harm their farm. The Rainvilles repeatedly said they were willing to work with CPB to construct a new port in a location that would minimize their loss of cropland.     The new report, with its recommendation of examining smaller ports for potential closure, came as a surprise to the family, according to son Brian Rainville.     The planned Morses Line upgrade will cost $14 million if completed. Average traffic at the port is three cars per hour, according to Rainville.     The nation has 163 ports of entry, the vast majority of which are owned or rented by the General Services Agency (GSA). CPB owns 43 ports, 39 of which are located along the northern border. Most of those ports are smaller, older ports constructed in the 1960s and 1970s, although Morses Line was built in 1934.     Congress appropriated $300 million for upgrades of the larger ports owned by GSA.     According to the report, the detention facility at Morses Line consists of a bench to which suspects are handcuffed.  “The space is so limited that at least one attempt to detain a family ended when most family members successfully fled back to Canada on foot,” the authors of the report wrote.     The roof of the building leaks, there is limited space for vehicle inspections, trucks must be inspected on the highway and the water isn’t potable at Morses Line. In addition, officers must cross in front of cars in order to speak with drivers.     There are similar problems at the Pinnacle Road port outside of Richford, according to the report.     The Pinnacle port was built in 1971. Like Morses Line, it lacks potable water and a detention area. The report includes photos of a buckling floor and a rusting water fountain with a sign warning the public not to drink.     Large vehicles need to be inspected on the main roadway, with traffic traveling along the other lane. Sight distance is limited, according to the report.     From the descriptions of the facilities it is clear that both present safety hazards for CBP officers.     In selecting the ports to be upgraded with ARRA funds, CBC relied on a prioritization process developed in 2005 in response to a Congressional order, according to the report.     ARRA required DHS to submit a plan to Congress within 45 days for spending the $420 million, which had to be obligated within two years.     The plan called for replacing 23 older ports, all but two of them on the northern border, with newer facilities. Other ports would receive upgrades. The improvements would be based on facility guidelines developed in 2006. The guidelines include: additional buildings for in-depth vehicle inspections, inspection booths and lanes, canopies to provide shelter for officers and protect equipment, and a secure holding area for detainees.     Overall, the report found that CBP had followed sound procedures in selecting the ports to be upgraded, given the constraints imposed by Congress. However, the authors recommended that CBP use value engineering techniques to determine if the facility designs would deliver the greatest value over the life of the project at the lowest cost.     Finally, the authors suggested a periodic review of ports for potential closure. Authority to close ports lies with the DHS Secretary.  Closing ports would allow not only for the saving of construction costs, but also reduce future staffing and maintenance costs and potentially allow for improved staffing at busier ports.     Closing a port may inconvenience local residents, has implications for international relations, and could potentially have a negative impact on commerce, according to the report. Nevertheless, the authors recommend that closure be considered, particularly when a port is located within 20 miles of another port.     According to the report CBP has not closed a port in at least 30 years.

Reader Comments