United States Section; Notice of Availability of a Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for Flood Control Improvements to the Rio Grande Canalization Project in Vado, New Mexico, 48247-48248 [2014-19373]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 158 / Friday, August 15, 2014 / Notices
Pursuant to section 60.13 of 36 CFR part
60, written comments are being
accepted concerning the significance of
the nominated properties under the
National Register criteria for evaluation.
Comments may be forwarded by United
States Postal Service, to the National
Register of Historic Places, National
Park Service, 1849 C St. NW., MS 2280,
Washington, DC 20240; by all other
carriers, National Register of Historic
Places, National Park Service,1201 Eye
St. NW., 8th floor, Washington, DC
20005; or by fax, 202–371–6447. Written
or faxed comments should be submitted
by September 2, 2014. Before including
your address, phone number, email
address, or other personal identifying
information in your comment, you
should be aware that your entire
comment—including your personal
identifying information—may be made
publicly available at any time. While
you can ask us in your comment to
withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so.
Nassau County
Dated: July 25, 2014.
Paul Lusignan,
Acting Chief, National Register of Historic
Places/, National Historic Landmarks
Program.
Downtown Sylva Historic District, Roughly
bounded by Southern RR., Main, Landis &
Jackson Sts., Sylva, 14000545
DELAWARE
Sussex County
Adams Home Farm, 15293 Adams Rd.,
Greenwood, 14000532
St. Clair Street Historic District (Boundary
Increase—Decrease), 28 N. St Clair, 23–29
& 31 Summit, Toledo, 14000546
Montgomery County
Barstow, William, Mansion, 300 Steamboat
Rd., Kings Point, 14000539
United States Merchant Marine Academy,
300 Steamboat Rd., Kings Point, 14000538
Suffolk County
Mollenhauer, John, House, 60 Awixa Ave.,
Bay Shore, 14000540
Wayne County
Lapham, Ambrose S., House, 352 W. Jackson
St., Palmyra, 14000541
Westchester County
Glenwolde Park Historic District, Glenwolde
Park, Walter St. & Willowbrook Ave.,
Tarrytown, 14000542
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company Hall of
Records, 759 Palmer Rd., Yonkers,
14000543
NORTH CAROLINA
Buncombe County
West Asheville—Aycock School Historic
District (Boundary Increase), 444 Haywood
Rd., Asheville, 14000544
Jackson County
OHIO
Lucas County
Weustoff and Getz Company, 210 Wayne
Ave., Dayton, 14000547
GEORGIA
Chatham County
Kensington Park—Groveland Historic
District, Roughly bounded by DeRenne &
Waters Aves., Abercorn & Johnston Sts.,
Chatham, 14000533
Summit County
Longwood Manor, 1634 E. Aurora Rd.,
Macedonia, 14000548
SOUTH CAROLINA
NEW JERSEY
Greenville County
Burlington County
Brandon Mill, 25 Draper St., Greenville,
14000317
Bordentown Historic District (Boundary
Increase), 1 Spring St., Bordentown,
14000534
TEXAS
Travis County
Hoboken Free Public Library and Manual
Training School, 500 Park Ave., Hoboken,
14000535
Rosewood Courts Historic District, Roughly
bounded by Rosewood Ave., Chicon &
Poquito Sts., Austin, 14000549
Monmouth County
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Hudson County
VIRGINIA
Asbury Park Commercial Historic District,
Roughly bounded by 500, 600, 700 blks., of
Bond St., Cookman & Mattison Aves.
between Lake & Bangs Aves., Asbury Park,
14000536
Staunton Independent city
NEW YORK
Washington, Booker T., High School, 1114
W. Johnson St., Staunton (Independent
City), 14000550
[FR Doc. 2014–19325 Filed 8–14–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312–51–P
Monroe County
First Unitarian Church, 220 Winton Rd. S.,
Rochester, 14000537
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:31 Aug 14, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00136
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
48247
INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND
WATER COMMISSION UNITED
STATES AND MEXICO
United States Section; Notice of
Availability of a Final Supplemental
Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact for
Flood Control Improvements to the Rio
Grande Canalization Project in Vado,
New Mexico
United States Section,
International Boundary and Water
Commission (USIBWC), United States
and Mexico.
ACTION: Notice of Availability of Final
Supplemental Environmental
Assessment (SEA) and Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI).
AGENCY:
Pursuant to Section 102(2)(c)
of the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969; the Council on
Environmental Quality Final
Regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500 through
1508); and the USIBWC’s Operational
Procedures for Implementing Section
102 of NEPA, published in the Federal
Register September 2, 1981, (46 FR
44083); the USIBWC hereby gives notice
that the Final Supplemental
Environmental Assessment and Finding
of No Significant Impact for Flood
Control Improvements to the Rio Grande
Canalization Project in Vado, New
Mexico are available.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Gilbert Anaya, Environmental
Management Division; United States
Section, International Boundary and
Water Commission; 4171 N. Mesa, C–
100; El Paso, Texas 79902. Telephone:
(915) 832–4703, email: gilbert.anaya@
ibwc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
Proposed Action
The USIBWC is considering relocating
the Rio Grande river channel in the
Canalization Project Levee System in a
1.08 mile stretch in Vado, New Mexico
and create new levees where no flood
control measures exist in an effort to
meet current flood control requirements.
The Preferred Alternative would
relocate the river channel approximately
100 feet west due to the river channel
moving east against the Burlington
Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad. The
preferred alternative would then create
a new levee that would tie into existing
levee structures to the north and south
of the project area. These improvements
will be subject to availability of funds.
The Supplemental Environmental
Assessment assesses potential
environmental impacts of the No Action
Alternative and the Preferred
E:\FR\FM\15AUN1.SGM
15AUN1
48248
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 158 / Friday, August 15, 2014 / Notices
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Alternative. Two additional alternatives
were considered but were not evaluated
as they were determined to be more
costly, more difficult to achieve, less
reliable, and more difficult to maintain.
Potential impacts on natural, cultural,
and other resources were evaluated. A
Finding of No Significant Impact was
issued for the Preferred Alternative
based on a review of the facts and
analyses contained in the Supplemental
Environmental Assessment when taking
the proposed mitigation into account.
Alternatives Considered
A No Action Alternative was
evaluated for the flood control
improvements to the Rio Grande
Canalization Project Levee System. This
alternative would retain the existing
configuration of the system, and the
level of protection currently associated
with this system. Under severe storm
events, current containment capacity
may be insufficient to fully control Rio
Grande flooding, with risks to personal
safety and potential property damage, as
well as risks to the railroad system.
Design alternatives were conducted
and evaluated in the final design
memorandum entitled ‘‘Rehabilitation
Improvements for the Vado East Levee,
˜
Dona Ana County, New Mexico,’’ dated
July 29, 2011. The final design
memorandum evaluated three
alternatives as described below.
Preferred Alternative. The Preferred
Alternative would allow the levees to
meet the design criteria to contain flood
flows and to comply with FEMA
specifications for the levees in the Rio
Grande Canalization Project Levee
System. This would be accomplished by
creating a flood containment levee 1.08
miles in length that would continue
from the current levee system to the
north and south of the project area. Fill
material, obtained from commercial
sources would be used to create a levee
to meet the 3 foot freeboard criterion
established by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA). In order
to create the levee in this area, the river
channel would have to be relocated 100
feet to the west and the floodplain
would have to be re-established on the
eastern side of the river.
Flood Wall Alternative. This
alternative would construct a flood wall
that would tie into the existing levee
system to the north and south of the
project. The flood wall would require
dredging the river channel along the
section that is currently against the
railroad easement and construction of a
concrete or metal wall that would
extend 888 feet along the river and
existing flood plain to the current
levees. The wall would be 8 feet tall
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:31 Aug 14, 2014
Jkt 232001
above the flood plain and require
pilings to be driven 40 feet in the
ground.
Sheet Pile Wall Alternative. This
alternative would construct a sheet pile
wall instead of the flood wall. This wall
would follow the same requirements but
would consist of interlocked metal
sheets driven into the ground instead of
a concrete wall. Therefore, the pilings
would also have to be driven 40 feet
into the ground but would instead of a
few like in the flood wall; all of the
pilings across the entire length would
have to be driven down to bedrock.
Availability
Single hard copies of the Final
Supplemental Environmental
Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact may be obtained by
request at the above address. Electronic
copies may also be obtained from the
USIBWC Web page: www.ibwc.gov/
Organization/Environmental/EIS_EA_
Public_Comment.html.
Rebecca Rizutti,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2014–19373 Filed 8–14–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7010–01–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 731–TA–1022 (Second
Review)]
Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide From
China; Scheduling of an Expedited
Five-Year Review
United States International
Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
The Commission hereby gives
notice of the scheduling of an expedited
review pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of
the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C.
1675(c)(3)) (the Act) to determine
whether revocation of the antidumping
duty order on refined brown aluminum
oxide from China would be likely to
lead to continuation or recurrence of
material injury within a reasonably
foreseeable time. For further
information concerning the conduct of
this review and rules of general
application, consult the Commission’s
Rules of Practice and Procedure, part
201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part
201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and
F (19 CFR part 207).
DATES: Effective Date: May 9, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of
Investigations, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00137
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain
information on this matter by contacting
the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–
205–1810. Persons with mobility
impairments who will need special
assistance in gaining access to the
Commission should contact the Office
of the Secretary at 202–205–2000.
General information concerning the
Commission may also be obtained by
accessing its internet server (https://
www.usitc.gov). The public record for
this review may be viewed on the
Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS)
at https://edis.usitc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background.—On May 9, 2014, the
Commission determined that the
domestic interested party group
response to its notice of institution (79
FR 6225, February 3, 2014) of the
subject five-year review was adequate
and that the respondent interested party
group response was inadequate. The
Commission did not find any other
circumstances that would warrant
conducting a full review.1 Accordingly,
the Commission determined that it
would conduct an expedited review
pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act.
Staff report.—A staff report
containing information concerning the
subject matter of the review will be
placed in the nonpublic record on
August 29, 2014, and made available to
persons on the Administrative
Protective Order service list for this
review. A public version will be issued
thereafter, pursuant to section
207.62(d)(4) of the Commission’s rules.
Written submissions.—As provided in
section 207.62(d) of the Commission’s
rules, interested parties that are parties
to the review and that have provided
individually adequate responses to the
notice of institution,2 and any party
other than an interested party to the
review may file written comments with
the Secretary on what determination the
Commission should reach in the review.
Comments are due on or before
September 4, 2014, and may not contain
new factual information. Any person
that is neither a party to the five-year
review nor an interested party may
submit a brief written statement (which
shall not contain any new factual
1 A record of the Commissioners’ votes, the
Commission’s statement on adequacy, and any
individual Commissioner’s statements will be
available from the Office of the Secretary and at the
Commission’s Web site.
2 The Commission has found the responses
submitted by C–E Minerals, Inc.; Imerys Fused
Minerals Niagara Falls, Inc.; US Electrofused
Minerals, Inc.; and Washington Mills Co., Inc. to be
individually adequate. Comments from other
interested parties will not be accepted (see 19 CFR
207.62(d)(2)).
E:\FR\FM\15AUN1.SGM
15AUN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 158 (Friday, August 15, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48247-48248]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19373]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND WATER COMMISSION UNITED STATES AND MEXICO
United States Section; Notice of Availability of a Final
Supplemental Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant
Impact for Flood Control Improvements to the Rio Grande Canalization
Project in Vado, New Mexico
AGENCY: United States Section, International Boundary and Water
Commission (USIBWC), United States and Mexico.
ACTION: Notice of Availability of Final Supplemental Environmental
Assessment (SEA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969; the Council on Environmental Quality Final
Regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500 through 1508); and the USIBWC's
Operational Procedures for Implementing Section 102 of NEPA, published
in the Federal Register September 2, 1981, (46 FR 44083); the USIBWC
hereby gives notice that the Final Supplemental Environmental
Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for Flood Control
Improvements to the Rio Grande Canalization Project in Vado, New Mexico
are available.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gilbert Anaya, Environmental
Management Division; United States Section, International Boundary and
Water Commission; 4171 N. Mesa, C-100; El Paso, Texas 79902. Telephone:
(915) 832-4703, email: gilbert.anaya@ibwc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Proposed Action
The USIBWC is considering relocating the Rio Grande river channel
in the Canalization Project Levee System in a 1.08 mile stretch in
Vado, New Mexico and create new levees where no flood control measures
exist in an effort to meet current flood control requirements. The
Preferred Alternative would relocate the river channel approximately
100 feet west due to the river channel moving east against the
Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad. The preferred alternative
would then create a new levee that would tie into existing levee
structures to the north and south of the project area. These
improvements will be subject to availability of funds.
The Supplemental Environmental Assessment assesses potential
environmental impacts of the No Action Alternative and the Preferred
[[Page 48248]]
Alternative. Two additional alternatives were considered but were not
evaluated as they were determined to be more costly, more difficult to
achieve, less reliable, and more difficult to maintain. Potential
impacts on natural, cultural, and other resources were evaluated. A
Finding of No Significant Impact was issued for the Preferred
Alternative based on a review of the facts and analyses contained in
the Supplemental Environmental Assessment when taking the proposed
mitigation into account.
Alternatives Considered
A No Action Alternative was evaluated for the flood control
improvements to the Rio Grande Canalization Project Levee System. This
alternative would retain the existing configuration of the system, and
the level of protection currently associated with this system. Under
severe storm events, current containment capacity may be insufficient
to fully control Rio Grande flooding, with risks to personal safety and
potential property damage, as well as risks to the railroad system.
Design alternatives were conducted and evaluated in the final
design memorandum entitled ``Rehabilitation Improvements for the Vado
East Levee, Do[ntilde]a Ana County, New Mexico,'' dated July 29, 2011.
The final design memorandum evaluated three alternatives as described
below.
Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative would allow the
levees to meet the design criteria to contain flood flows and to comply
with FEMA specifications for the levees in the Rio Grande Canalization
Project Levee System. This would be accomplished by creating a flood
containment levee 1.08 miles in length that would continue from the
current levee system to the north and south of the project area. Fill
material, obtained from commercial sources would be used to create a
levee to meet the 3 foot freeboard criterion established by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). In order to create the levee in
this area, the river channel would have to be relocated 100 feet to the
west and the floodplain would have to be re-established on the eastern
side of the river.
Flood Wall Alternative. This alternative would construct a flood
wall that would tie into the existing levee system to the north and
south of the project. The flood wall would require dredging the river
channel along the section that is currently against the railroad
easement and construction of a concrete or metal wall that would extend
888 feet along the river and existing flood plain to the current
levees. The wall would be 8 feet tall above the flood plain and require
pilings to be driven 40 feet in the ground.
Sheet Pile Wall Alternative. This alternative would construct a
sheet pile wall instead of the flood wall. This wall would follow the
same requirements but would consist of interlocked metal sheets driven
into the ground instead of a concrete wall. Therefore, the pilings
would also have to be driven 40 feet into the ground but would instead
of a few like in the flood wall; all of the pilings across the entire
length would have to be driven down to bedrock.
Availability
Single hard copies of the Final Supplemental Environmental
Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact may be obtained by
request at the above address. Electronic copies may also be obtained
from the USIBWC Web page: www.ibwc.gov/Organization/Environmental/EIS_EA_Public_Comment.html.
Rebecca Rizutti,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2014-19373 Filed 8-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7010-01-P