[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 114 (Tuesday, June 15, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32083-32085]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-15141]
[[Page 32083]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
[Public Notice No. 3061]
Office of Mexican Affairs; Issuance of a Finding of No
Significant Impact for Farm to Market Road 3464 From Interstate Highway
35 to the Laredo Northwest International Bridge (Bridge IV), Laredo, TX
AGENCY: Department of State.
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Department of State has issued
a finding of no significant impact on the environment for Farm to
Market Road 3464 from Interstate Highway 35 to the Laredo Northwest
International Bridge (Bridge IV), Laredo, Texas. On October 7, 1994,
the Department of State issued a Presidential Permit (``Permit'') to
the sponsor, the City of Laredo, Texas (``City''), for construction of
the Laredo Northwest International Bridge (``Bridge'') between Laredo,
Texas, and Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas, Mexico. Issuance of the Permit was
predicated, in part, upon the Department's Finding of No Significant
Impact (``FONSI''), which it made on October 3, 1994, concluding that
the issuance of the Permit would not have a significant impact on the
quality of the human environment within the United States.
The Permit specifies that it relates to construction, operation,
and maintenance of the Bridge ``facilities,'' which include ``the
bridge, its approaches, and any land, structure or installations
appurtenant thereto.'' For purposes of the Permit, the approach road
(``Approach Road'') consists of an extension of Farm to Market Road
(``FM'') 3464, connecting the Bridge to the nearest crossroad, FM 1472
(``Mines Road''), as specified in the City's February 1994 permit
application and in the environmental assessment upon which it was
predicated.
Following issuance of the Permit, the City became interested in
realigning FM 3464, including the portion to be constructed as the
Approach Road, approximately 1,000 feet to the south of the location
described in the February 1994 permit application and environmental
assessment. (The realignment would cover not only the Approach Road,
but also the portion of FM 3464 beyond Mines Road, extending to
Interstate Highway (``IH'') 35.)
In 1997, the City initiated an environmental assessment
(``Assessment'') of the FM 3464 realignment project proposal's
potential environmental effects. Four alignment options were considered
(the original alignment, the proposed realignment and two alternative
routes) from IH 35 to the Bridge. The Assessment was prepared by
Parsons, Brinkerhoff, Quade & Douglas, Inc., of Austin, Texas, and is
dated December 1997. It was amended on February 16, 1998. The Federal
Highway Administration (``FHWA'') acted as the lead federal agency
supervising preparation of the Assessment. In March 1998, after review
of the Assessment by a large number of federal, state and local
agencies, the FHWA made a ``finding of no significant impact'' on the
quality of the human environment within the United States with respect
to each of the four alternatives. The Laredo City Council then passed a
resolution accepting the alternative realigning FM 3464, from IH 35 to
the Bridge, 1,000 feet to the south of the initial alignment.
In late 1998, the Department, acting in a manner consistent with
its regulations for implementation of the National Environmental Policy
Act in the context of its responsibilities with respect to Presidential
Permits, conducted its own independent review of the Assessment.
Thereupon, the Department proposed to adopt the Assessment and make its
own ``finding of no significant impact'' with respect to each of the
four alternative routes between IH 35 and the Bridge. For purposes of
the Permit, the Approach Road consists only of the extension of FM 3464
to be constructed between Mines Road and the Bridge. Nevertheless,
since each alternative alignment of the Approach Road has been
presented as a component of an alignment that would extend all the way
to IH 35, the Department's analysis has included review of each roadway
alignment alternative in full.
The Assessment that the Department proposed to adopt was reviewed
by numerous federal and sub-federal agencies (many of which had already
reviewed it in the context of the FHWA process). Each Agency, with the
exception of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, has expressed no
objection to the Department's proposed action and has approved or
accepted the Assessment, provided, in certain cases, that mitigation
recommendations are followed (as described below). These cooperating
agencies are: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of
Treasury, U.S. Customs Service, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, International Boundary and
Water Commission--U.S. Section, U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, U.S. Federal Highway Administration, U.S.
General Services Administration, U.S Coast Guard, U.S. Immigration and
Naturalization Service, Texas Water Development Board, Texas Department
of Transportation, Texas Historical Commission, and Texas Natural
Resource Conservation Commission. The Texas Parks and Wildlife
Department, citing its preference for Alternative 1, which in its view
``impacts the least amount of critical habitat and reduces the
potential for wildlife and vehicle collisions,'' indicated that it
unable to support a FONSI with respect to Alternative 2. The U.S.
Department of the Interior has advised the Department that there is no
``critical habitat in the area under examination as that term is
defined in the Endangered Species Act.''
For the reasons set forth in the summary, above, and based on the
foregoing analysis, a finding of no significant impact is adopted and
an environmental impact statement will not be prepared.
The environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact
are available for inspection in the Office of Mexican Affairs during
normal business hours, from 8:15 AM to 5:00 PM. Please contact David E.
Randolph, Coordinator for U.S.-Mexico Border Affairs, U.S. Department
of State, 2201 C. Street NW Room 4258, Washington, DC 20520, telephone
(202) 647-8529.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Factors Considered
The Department considered thoroughly four alternative alignment
options in this case, described in detail in the Assessment and in
summary fashion as follows.
Alternative 1
Utilize the alignment of existing FM 3464 between IH 35 and Mines
Road and extend that alignment to the Bridge as approved in the October
1994 Permit.
Alternative 2
Build a new roadway approximately 1,000 feet south of that
described in Alternative 1.
Alternative 3
Initially re-stripe existing FM 3464 as a one-way roadway with
traffic traveling southwest toward the Bridge; in addition, construct a
two-lane, one-way roadway 290 feet south of existing FM 3464 from Mines
Road to Auburn Road and expand the separation to a maximum of 1,500
feet beyond Auburn Road, with traffic traveling Northeast toward IH 35.
Ultimately, the roadway would consist of a reconstruction of the one-
way facility from Mines Road northeast to IH 35 as a four-lane
[[Page 32084]]
controlled access facility with frontage roads.
Alternative 4
Build a new roadway approximately 500 feet south of that described
in Alternative 1.
Three other options are addressed in the Assessment: (a) a no
build/do nothing option; (b) a transportation system management option;
and (c) a mass transit option. The Department has determined that these
options, each of which is an alternative to construction of the Bridge
itself, are not feasible.
In considering option (a), the no build/do nothing option, and
option (c), the option of the City providing expanded public
transportation services between Laredo, Texas and Nuevo Laredo,
Tamaulipas, the Department notes the continuing increase in commercial
truck traffic on the existing Laredo bridges. (Trucks use IH 35 as a
staging area and line up on IH 35 for several miles during peak travel
periods, waiting to cross the existing downtown bridges.)
The Department also notes the significant need for effective
transportation of people, goods, and services between the United States
and Mexico. (The value of imports and exports between the U.S. and
Mexico increased 71% to $129.7 billion between 1992 and 1996.) Trade
with Mexico is likely to continue to increase as a result of the
increase in twin plants or maquiladoras located in Laredo and Nuevo
Laredo. The most significant travel demand relates to commercial
freight. The provision of mass transit services for the existing
international bridges would not meet projected commercial, non-
passenger demands. Moreover, fiscal constraints face the City's
passenger transit system. In sum, increasing population, urbanization,
and commerce in the Laredo area mean that existing problems of air
pollution and traffic congestion caused by heavy truck traffic will
continue to cause the quality of the environment of the Laredo/Nuevo
Laredo downtown areas to deteriorate if no acceptable alternative route
for such traffic is provided. These options were considered thoroughly
in connection with the Department's review of the City's 1994 permit
application (see October 3, 1994, FONSI, 59 FR 59268 et seq.). They
were not chosen at that time and a decision was made then to issue the
Permit. For the reasons described above, the Department's 1994 analysis
applies with at least equal force in 1999.
Option (b), the transportation system management option, would
involve re-routing heavy, commercial vehicle traffic from two existing
international bridges in Laredo (both of which connect to the Mexican
State of Tamaulipas) to the Laredo Colombia Solidarity Bridge, which
provides access to the Mexican State of Nuevo Leon. Such an alternative
approach would effectively deny heavy commercial vehicles direct access
to Tamaulipas. In so doing, it would also damage or destroy the
livelihood of long-standing and vibrant business interests in
Tamaulipas. Such economic dislocation could, in turn, have negative
effects on relations between the United States and Mexico. Accordingly,
the Department finds option (b) not to be viable.
Analysis of the Environmental Assessment Submitted by the City
The Assessment submitted by the City provides information on the
environmental effects of the four alternatives outlined above regarding
the alignment of FM 3464. On the basis of the Assessment and
information developed by the Department and the other federal and state
agencies in the process of reviewing the Assessment, the Department
makes the following determinations regarding the impact of these
alignment alternatives.
Air Quality
This project is in an area that is in attainment of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Concentrations of carbon
monoxide under the worst case meteorological conditions are not
expected to exceed the NAAQS at any time. While there is potential
during the construction phase for any of the alternatives involving new
construction to adversely affect air quality in the short term, even
these effects may be mitigated by requiring contractors to minimize
exhaust emissions through emissions control devices and to limit
unnecessary idling of construction vehicles.
River Channel and Floodplains
Each of the four roadway alternatives would cross three stream
channels: Las Manadas Creek and two unnamed drainage areas. Channel
realignments are currently not anticipated. Roadway construction may
involve some channelization and excavation within the right-of-way for
the placement of culverts. The U.S. Department of the Interior has
stated that Alternative 2 would be acceptable to it provided certain
mitigation recommendations made by its Fish and Wildlife Service are
followed. The Fish and Wildlife Service has requested and the City has
agreed to work with the Texas Department of Transportation to
accomplish appropriate culvert designs for incorporation into the
roadway planning to provide safe and viable travel corridors for
endangered cats. The proposed project will not alter the existing
hydrological characteristics and will not increase backwater elevation
in the Rio Grande River, Las Manadas Creek, or the two other large
drainage areas by more than one foot. Encroachment on floodplains was
analyzed to determine any effects caused by the roadway in the event of
the 100-year flood. The Bridge and roadway will permit the conveyance
of the hundred-year flood, inundation of the roadway being acceptable
without causing it or the Bridge significant damage.
Historical and Archeological Resources
In October 1996, an intensive cultural resource survey was
conducted for the corridor containing the roadway alternatives. In
addition, a single corridor from 0.5 miles north of the current
alignment of FM 3464 to 0.5 miles south of the proposed FM 3464
realignment's southern-most right of way, which includes each of the
four alternatives, was investigated for historic standing structures
through a ``windshield survey'' and archival map review. Each
alternative was found to affect a number of prehistoric sites that had
been disturbed previously. No historic properties were listed in the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and no pre-1950 standing
structures were observed 0.5 miles north of the existing alignment of
FM 3464 nor 0.5 miles south of the southern-most realignment proposal's
southern right-of-way. One archeological site would be impacted by each
of the four alternative routes: state trinomial number 41WB429. The
Texas Department of Transportation (TXDOT) completed a program of
archeological testing at this site and based upon the results of that
study the Texas Historical Commission concurred with TXDOT's
recommendation that the site lacks significant research potential and
therefore is ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP. In reviewing the
project according to the procedures set forth in 36 C.F.R. 800, the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's guidelines for the
implementation of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966, as amended, and in light of the absence of properties eligible
for inclusion in the NRHP, the Texas Historical Commission concluded
that the proposed project including each of the four access road
alternatives will have no effect on historic properties.
[[Page 32085]]
Land Use and Local Development Impacts
The current area land use along the existing FM 3464 corridor is
predominately warehousing, light industrial and commercial. Short-term
development impacts are considered insignificant because of the site's
rural nature and consist of increased traffic resulting from roadway
construction. Alternative 1 (expanding FM 3464 while maintaining its
existing alignment and extending this roadway from Mines Road to the
Bridge) may result in minimal traffic delays as a result of
construction activities. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 each involve building
a new roadway within 1000 feet of existing FM 3464 and traffic would
use the existing facility during construction activities. Long-term
impacts will be determined by the rate and intensity of development
associated with the Bridge and roadway construction between it and IH
35. Under Alternative 1, development would likely continue to be
centered around the improved roadway and traffic patterns would not
likely change significantly. If Alternative 2, 3, or 4 were chosen,
development would probably be centered around the relocated roadway
facility. Though traffic patterns would change, the existing roadway
would remain open to traffic and would be maintained as a city street.
Threatened and Endangered Species
None of the four roadway alternatives would result in a significant
reduction in range and brush land available for habitat. In October
1996 a biological survey was completed regarding the Bridge facilities
and alternative road alignments (an area of almost 441 acres). The
survey area has two riparian woodlands/wetlands areas comprising 55.4
acres. No endangered plant species were found and impacts to threatened
or endangered plants are not anticipated under the four alternatives.
Impacts to endangered ocelots and other wildlife may be direct in the
form of death through vehicular collision. Such direct impacts appear
to be lowest for Alternative 1 and similar as between Alternatives 2
and 4 as each of these alternatives would involve construction of a new
roadway across linear habitat features (wetlands and riparian
corridors) used by wildlife. Alternative 3 includes an additional two-
lane, one-way roadway, which would increase the potential occurrence of
mortality from road kill. In addition to the mitigation measures
referred to above (see discussion of floodplains), the U.S. Department
of the Interior has indicated that Alternative 2 would be acceptable to
it provided that recommendations of the Fish and Wildlife Service were
followed. In accordance with the recommendations of the Fish and
Wildlife Service, the City has agreed to work with the Texas Department
of Transportation so that permanent street lighting is directed only on
the roadway and not on surrounding vegetation near crossings and
activities resulting in vegetation disturbance are avoided during the
general migratory bird nesting period of March through August.
Traffic Noise
Construction noise is difficult to predict. Provisions should be
included in the plans and specifications that require the contractor to
make every reasonable effort to minimize construction noise through
abatement measures such as work-hour controls and proper maintenance of
equipment muffler systems. Post-construction traffic noise analysis of
the four roadway alternatives indicates no impact will result.
Wetlands
Two potential Palustrine wetland areas were identified occupying
15.23 acres of the survey area. These lie at the Las Manadas Creek
headwaters. Alternative 1 would widen the existing FM 3464 crossing at
the headwaters of Las Manadas Creek wetland and would impact 1.85 acres
of potential wetlands. Similar direct impacts would be anticipated with
respect to Alternatives 2 and 3, which would involve constructing a new
road across the wetland area and could involve 3.72 acres of wetlands.
Alternative 4 would involve constructing a new roadway across the
narrowest portion of the wetland along Las Manadas Creek. This
alternative could produce direct impacts to 1.98 acres of wetlands.
Cumulative impacts are similar for each of the four roadway
alternatives. These may include for each, additional non-point source
pollutant discharge into Las Manadas Creek, increased surface runoff,
and erosion and degradation of wetland function. Additional
consultations with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are required in
order to obtain a permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and
40 CFR 230, which authorizes the discharge of dredge and fill materials
into waters of the United States. The City and the Texas Department of
Transportation have assured the Department that they will comply with
Section 404.
Environmental Justice
The Bridge, ancillary facilities and the roadway connection to IH
35 are located in census tract 001075, which the 1990 census indicated
had a population of 3,320. The 1996 population is estimated to be 7,167
and over 96 percent are estimated to be Hispanic. No residential
population is located within 4,000 feet of the proposed project. Median
household income was $30,149. Therefore, minority and low-income
populations will not be impacted disproportionately in an adverse
manner by any of the proposed roadway alignment alternatives, nor will
there be any negative impacts to community cohesion or neighborhood
stability.
Dated: June 9, 1999.
David E. Randolph,
Coordinator, U.S.-Mexico Border Affairs, Office of Mexican Affairs.
[FR Doc. 99-15141 Filed 6-14-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-29-U
