[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 155 (Thursday, August 12, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44075-44078]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-20900]
[[Page 44075]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
[Public Notice No. 3109]
Office of Mexican Affairs; Notice of Issuance of a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) With Regard to the Issuance of a
Presidential Permit for the Anzalduas International Crossing, McAllen,
Texas
AGENCY: Department of State.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Department of State has issued
a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) on the human environment for
the Anzalduas International Crossing project sponsored by the Cities of
McAllen, Hidalgo and Mission, Texas. An initial draft of the
environmental assessment of the proposed Anzalduas International
Crossing was prepared by Halff Associates, Inc.; Gutierrez, Smouse,
Wilmut and Associates, Inc.; together with Dr. Michael E. Tewes, Mr.
Joe Idecker and Dr. John Keller for the sponsors, the Cities of
McAllen, Hidalgo and Mission, Texas.
Both the draft Environmental Assessment and the draft Final
Environmental Assessment of the Department of State (Draft Final EA)
have been reviewed by numerous federal and state agencies. Each such
``cooperating agency'' has approved or accepted the draft Final EA,
provided, in certain cases, that mitigation recommendations are
followed. These cooperating agencies are:
U.S. Government: The Immigration and Naturalization Service, U.S.
Customs Service, Department of Agriculture, General Services
Administration, United States Section of the International Boundary and
Water Commission, Department of Transportation, Department of the
Interior, U.S. Coast Guard, Environmental Protection Agency, Food and
Drug Administration, Federal Emergency Management Administration,
Department of Defense and Department of Commerce.
State of Texas: Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission,
Department of Public Safety, General Land Office, Texas Historical
Commission, Texas Department of Transportation, Texas Parks and
Wildlife Department, Lower Rio Grande Valley Development Council and
Office of the Secretary of State.
Based upon the Department's independent review of the Draft EA, the
Final EA, comments received during their preparation and comments
received by the Department from federal and state agencies including
measures which are proposed to be taken to prevent or mitigate
potentially adverse environmental impacts which the Sponsors intend to
take, the Department has concluded that issuance of a Presidential
Permit authorizing construction of the proposed Anzalduas International
Crossing, as proposed to be constructed in Road Alternative # 3 as set
forth in the Final Environmental Assessment, would not have a
significant impact on the quality of the human environment within the
United States. Accordingly, a finding of no significant impact is
adopted and an EIS will not be prepared.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the Presidential Permit may be obtained from Mr.
David E. Randolph, Coordinator, U.S.-Mexico Border Affairs, Office of
Mexican Affairs, Room 4258, Department of State, Washington, D.C.
20520, telephone (202) 647-8529. A copy of the Department's Final
Environmental Assessment is available for inspection in Room 4258 of
the Department of State during normal business hours.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed action is to issue a
Presidential Permit to the Cities of McAllen, Hidalgo and Mission,
Texas, for the construction, operation and maintenance of an
international vehicular and pedestrian bridge, its approaches and
facilities at the international boundary between the United States and
Mexico, southwest of McAllen, Texas, and adjacent to Reynosa,
Tamaulipas, Mexico (the proposed ``Anzalduas International Crossing'').
Factors Considered
The Department in this case considered four roadway crossing
construction alternatives. It should be noted that each alternative
contemplates initial construction of a four-lane road with ultimate
build-out to eight lanes. The draft Final Environmental Assessment was
prepared with this information in mind. The alternatives are described
in detail in the draft Final Environmental Assessment and in summary
fashion as follows:
Road Alternative #1: This alternative comprises building a four-
lane access road and bridge to a Border Station, assumed to be
constructed on fill, immediately south of the Banker Floodway. Beyond
the Border Station, a four-lane approach road at grade would be built
to the main channel of the Rio Grande, and a four-lane international
bridge elevated over the main channel.
Road Alternative #2: This alternative comprises a four-lane access
road and bridge to an identical Border Station location for Road
Alternative # 1. South of the Border Station, the road to the Rio
Grande is entirely on structure using the four-lane international
bridge section throughout. The length of this proposed bridge structure
is approximately 4,800 feet.
Road Alternative #3: This alternative comprises a four-lane access
road to a Border Station located approximately 1,000 feet north of the
Banker Floodway. South of the Border Station, the roadway is to be
constructed with four roadway lanes and a sidewalk on one side for the
entire segment south to the Rio Grande. This segment is to be comprised
of 2,200 feet of bridge across the Old Military Highway and the Banker
Floodway (identical to the international bridge section), 6,100 feet of
approach road at grade south of the Floodway and 700 feet of
international bridge to the center of the Rio Grande main channel.
Road Alternative #4: This alternative is identical to Road
Alternative # 3, except that with respect to this alternative, the road
remains on structure from the south edge of the Border Station all the
way to the Rio Grande. The road segment south of the Border Station is
therefore 9,000 feet of international bridge.
Other Alternatives: Two other alternative options are addressed in
the Final Environmental Assessment: (a) a no-action/no-build option;
and (b) a mass transit option. The Department has considered each of
these options as an alternative to construction of the Anzalduas
International Crossing and has determined that neither is feasible.
In considering option (a), the no-action/no-build alternative, and
option (b), the option of Sponsors providing expanded public
transportation services between the cities of McAllen, Texas, and
Reynosa, Mexico, the Department notes the continuing increase in
traffic, including commercial truck traffic, on existing bridges in the
general vicinity of the proposed Anzalduas International Crossing.
The Department further notes the significant and growing need for
effective transportation of people, goods, and services between the
United States and Mexico. (Between 1994 and 1998, the value of U.S.
trade with Mexico nearly doubled, from $100.3 billion to $173.7
billion.) In the longer term, trade with Mexico is likely to continue
to increase as a result of the increase in ``maquiladoras'' located in
the vicinity of the sponsoring cities across the international boundary
in Mexico. Reynosa is now one of the most successful cities along the
northern Mexico frontier in attracting new maquiladora plants.
[[Page 44076]]
No action would likely result in saturation of the existing
Hidalgo-Reynosa International Bridge causing worse delays and gradual
deterioration of trade in the area. The Hidalgo-Reynosa International
Bridge, heavily congested during many hours of each day, ranks among
the top of all Texas border crossings with more than 40,000 vehicular
crossings (two-way) on an average day. The preferred regional action is
to move through traffic and commercial traffic away from the center of
Reynosa, out to the Pharr International Bridge on the east and to the
Anzalduas International Crossing on the west. The no-action/no-build
alternative would force a significant portion of the cross-border trips
to travel through the crowded downtown Reynosa street system or else
divert up to ten miles to cross at the Pharr International Bridge. The
diversion to Pharr could result in extra travel on the order of 30
million vehicle miles per year, with gradually worsening effects
thereafter. The no-action/no-build alternative is believed to be
detrimental to the region in terms of economic development, energy use
and particularly air quality. The increased convenience offered by the
new crossing capacity in the area is expected to alleviate these
problems.
The provision of mass transit services for the existing
international bridges would not meet projected commercial, non-
passenger demands. There is currently mass transit offered at the
existing Hidalgo-Reynosa International Bridge, which services some
80,000 commuters per month between Reynosa and downtown McAllen. The
congestion at Hidalgo remains in spite of the use of mass transit, and
the need for the Anzalduas crossing would not be removed by the mass
transit proposal. The proposed Anzalduas International Crossing could
have a beneficial effect on existing mass transit use in the area
because it will reduce delays at the existing Hidalgo-Reynosa
International Bridge. The resulting improvement in the frequency and
speed of bus service may lead to increased use of this service. In sum,
increasing population, urbanization, and commerce in the McAllen,
Hidalgo and Mission, Texas/Reynosa, Mexico, area mean that existing
problems of traffic congestion, including those caused by commercial
traffic, would likely negatively affect the environmental quality of
the area if the additional route provided by the Anzalduas
International Crossing were not provided.
Road Alternative #3 is the Sponsors' preferred alternative. It
differs from Road Alternative #4 only with respect to proposed road
construction south of the Banker Floodway. Road Alternative #3
initially contemplates a four-lane at-grade approach road while Road
Alternative #4 would be constructed entirely on an elevated structure.
Otherwise, and particularly with respect to potential environmental
impacts, there is no significant difference between the two
alternatives provided that agreed-upon mitigation measures with respect
to Road Alternative #3 are taken. Since Road Alternative #3 was the
Sponsors' preferred choice due to its substantially lower cost, a more
detailed assessment of Road Alternative #4 was not considered
necessary. Road Alternatives #1 and #2 involve filling in the flood
plain of the Rio Grande and elicited a particularly negative response,
based in part on environmental concerns, from federal agencies
including the United States Section of the International Boundary and
Water Commission (IBWC) and the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).
Therefore, these Road Alternatives were not further evaluated.
Summary of the Assessment of the Potential Environmental Impacts
Resulting From the Proposed Action
The Final Environmental Assessment provides information on the
environmental effects of the alternatives outlined above regarding the
placement of the Anzalduas International Crossing, and ``no-action/no-
build'' and mass transit alternatives. On the basis of the Final
Environmental Assessment, the Department makes the following
determinations regarding the potential environmental impacts of Road
Alternative #3, the preferred alternative.
Air Quality: This project is in an area that is in attainment of
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). A microscale
analysis for Carbon Monoxide (CO) found that anticipated CO
concentrations are less than the established CO standards of 35 parts
per million (ppm) and 9 ppm for one and eight hour periods,
respectively. The maximum anticipated CO concentration for the year
2014 is 36% for one hour and 60% for eight hours of the CO level of
NAAQS. The impact on air quality from this project will not be
significant.
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 from fugitive dust emissions in and around
the construction site due to construction operations, these effects may
be mitigated by requiring contractors to minimize exhaust emissions
through emissions control devices, using tarp covers on trucks
transporting refuse and construction waste products on-site, wetting
unpaved roadways, prohibiting any open burning of construction waste
products on-site, and limiting unnecessary idling of construction
vehicles. Restoration of the site by introducing grass and other brush-
type plantings would further minimize fugitive dust emissions.
Surface Hydrology: Development of the Anzalduas International
Crossing will result in an increase in storm water runoff due to the
increase in impervious surfaces. The construction of the proposed
project will adhere to the applicable portions of the McAllen/Mission
surface drainage criteria for the collection and discharge of runoff so
as to not adversely impact downstream properties. Long-term adverse
impacts to surface waters are not anticipated due to the proposed
project.
River Channel and Floodplains: The proposed Border Station will be
sited outside the Rio Grande flood plain, consistent with E.O. 11988
regarding a National Policy on Flood Plain Management which requires
federal agencies to ``avoid to the extent possible the long- and short-
term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of
flood plains. . . .'' The improvements result in zero rise in the
upstream water surface and no loss of valley storage in the segment.
Embankments required for the bridge approaches between the Rio
Grande and the Banker Floodway will be constructed with earth borrowed
from the road right-of-way within the floodway. No new fill dirt will
be imported into the floodway and the roadway will be designed to
balance the existing conveyance within the floodway. A computer
hydraulic analysis performed by the Sponsors indicates that the project
should result in no adverse deflection or obstruction of the normal or
flood flows of the Rio Grande. However, approval by the IBWC will be
considered only after it receives conceptual plans from both the U.S.
and the Mexican sponsors covering project components in the United
States and Mexico.
Water Quality: The construction phase of the Anzalduas
International Crossing may lead to minor temporary impacts on water
quality. Existing water lines and sanitary sewer lines would be
extended to serve the project site from the Cities of Mission and
McAllen. Construction of the Crossing and related facilities will
include measures to prevent sediments from entering the adjacent
waterways. Refuse and wastes from demolition and excavation will be
contained and hauled offsite to a
[[Page 44077]]
suitable place of disposal. Trucks will be routed and unloaded so as to
prevent materials and debris from spilling into waterways. A storm
water retention pond approximately 250 feet by 150 feet will be
constructed south of the north abutment of the Rio Grande bridge that
is designed to intercept and retain runoff from the bridge deck so as
to contain contaminants or spills. A pipe drainage system will be
constructed in the bridge superstructure in order to carry storm water
to the pond.
Hazardous Wastes: The proposed project is not located on or near
any known hazardous waste facilities and will not generate any
hazardous wastes. No mitigation is required. The proposed Border
Station will contain a hazardous waste containment unit in the truck
dock area that would provide temporary storage of hazardous waste if a
spill occurred. The international bridge is drained in a contained
system back to a retention pond near the north abutment. This pond
would provide temporary storage of hazardous waste if a spill occurred
on the bridge deck.
Historical and Archeological Resources: The Texas Archaeological
Research Laboratory determined that there are no recorded
archaeological sites located in the project area. An archaeological and
historical reconnaissance survey and shovel testing carried out at the
direction of the Texas State Historic Preservation Office found no
evidence of archaeological or historic features in the project area. An
unmarked cemetery may exist in the vicinity of the entrance to
Anzalduas County Park, well to the west of the project site. The La
Lomita Historic District, which is listed on the National Register of
Historic Places, is also located to the west and outside of the project
site.
Land Use and Local Development Impacts: The majority of the land in
the project area is used for agriculture and is unincorporated. The
Cities of Mission and McAllen have extraterritorial boundaries that
extend into the area; the Cities are cooperating in the development of
a land use master plan. The City of Granjeno is located north of the
bridge site and comprises approximately 90 homes; three other homes in
the area are surrounded by farmland. The FWS owns several tracts of
land along the Rio Grande which comprise a wildlife corridor. Anzalduas
County Park is owned by Hidalgo County on land acquired as part of the
Anzalduas Dam and Banker Floodway flood control projects.
The construction of the Border Station will require the
displacement of two single-family homes located in agricultural fields.
The Border Station and roadway will impact approximately 236 acres of
cultivated fields; the Border Station will be located approximately
1,000 feet northwest of Granjeno.
The City of McAllen, under the city's property acquisition and
relocation assistance policy, will compensate the property owners being
displaced by the Border Station. The Border Station will be designed
and constructed to minimize impacts to Granjeno; a large landscaped
berm will be constructed along the east side of the Border Station
property to shield the facility. A 500-feet-wide open space buffer will
be preserved between the Border Station and Granjeno.
Threatened and Endangered Species: The FWS has identified four
federally-listed endangered species that may be present in the project
area: the jaguarundi, ocelot, northern aplomado falcon and Walker's
manioc. The Sponsors have developed a detailed ``Endangered Species
Plan'' in consultation and coordination with FWS to ensure that the
bridge will not affect the federally-listed wildlife species known to
exist in the Rio Grande Floodway corridor. Three large wildlife
underpasses will be constructed at agreed locations under the at-grade
segment of the roadway.
The Plan also includes the leasing of 160 acres of land located to
the east of the proposed bridge to the FWS for $1.00 per acre to allow
revegetation of farmlands. The initial lease of the land to the FWS
will revert to a donation when traffic begins to cross the Anzalduas
International Bridge. The Sponsors will execute payment of $50,000 to
the FWS for expenses associated with revegetation after diplomatic
notes have been exchanged between the United States and Mexico
authorizing bridge construction to begin.
The Sponsors will grant Conservation Easements to the FWS covering
a 400-foot-wide strip adjacent to the Rio Grande, a 60-foot-wide strip
of land along the western edge of the right-of-way south of the Banker
Floodway, and 1.6 acres of unused land under the proposed Banker
Floodway Bridge. The Sponsors will also construct a stormwater
retention pond south of the north abutment of the international bridge
and three large wildlife underpasses under the at-grade segment of the
roadway. The revegetation activities should not impede the conveyance
of normal or flood flows in the river and its floodplain. Such
activities will be considered in the same understandings as in River
Channel and Floodplains (page 6 of the FONSI) regarding the deflection
or obstruction these may present.
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, proper maintenance of equipment muffler systems and usage of
noise-controlled construction equipment. An analysis of the existing
and future traffic noise levels indicates that the proposed project
will not result in any noise impacts at any adjacent land use activity
areas.
Wetlands: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers conducted a site visit
and made a wetland determination of the project area on April 29, 1992.
The Corps determined that the project would not impact any wetland
areas subject to its jurisdiction. Because no wetland impacts are
expected from the project, no wetland mitigation is required.
Environmental Justice: The project area is located in Hidalgo
County, Texas, which the U.S. Census Bureau in 1995 estimated to have a
population of 479,000. The county population is approximately 87%
Hispanic. The majority (99%) of land in the project area is used for
agriculture. As stated above, two houses in the project area will need
to be acquired; one of these two residences is owned by a minority
family. Acquisition of these properties will be accomplished under the
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies
Act of 1970, as amended. Relocation resources and assistance will be
available to all persons regardless of race, color, religion, sex or
national origin. The proposed project is expected to have a positive
impact on the economic characteristics of the area and therefore no
mitigation is required.
Minority and low-income populations will not be impacted
disproportionately in an adverse manner by the proposed bridge, nor
will there be any negative impacts to community cohesion or
neighborhood stability.
Conclusion
Analysis of the Environmental Assessment Submitted by the Sponsors
Based upon the Department's independent review of the Final
Environmental Assessment, comments received during its preparation and
comments received by the Department from federal and state agencies
including measures which are proposed to be taken to prevent or
mitigate potentially adverse environmental
[[Page 44078]]
impacts which the Sponsors intend to take, the Department has concluded
that issuance of a Presidential Permit authorizing construction of the
proposed Anzalduas International Crossing, as proposed to be
constructed in Road Alternative #3 as set forth in the Final
Environmental Assessment, would not have a significant impact on the
quality of the human environment within the United States. Accordingly,
a finding of no significant impact is adopted and an EIS will not be
prepared.
Dated: July 23, 1999.
David E. Randolph,
Coordinator, U.S.-Mexico Border Affairs, Office of Mexican Affairs.
[FR Doc. 99-20900 Filed 8-11-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-29-P
