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
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.