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

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