J.04_C.3_PEIS_Scoping_Meeting_Summary_March_2005.pdf

United States Section International Boundary and Water Commission

Scoping Meeting Summary Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Rio Grande and Tijuana River Flood Control Projects New Mexico, Texas and California

March 2005

Final Report

A i

P:\9129-43926 (IBWC PEIS)\Scoping Meetings\Scoping Report\Table of Contents.doc

Contents

Section 1 Introduction

1.1 Background ...............................................................................................................1-1

1.2 Purpose and Objective .............................................................................................1-2

1.3 Scoping Meeting Synopsis.......................................................................................1-3

Section 2 Advance Notifications

2.1 Notice of Intent .........................................................................................................2-1

2.2 Cooperating Agency Request Letter......................................................................2-1

2.3 Media Notifications..................................................................................................2-1

2.4 Notifications to Agencies, Elected Officials, Organizations, and Individuals .........................................................................................................2-2

Section 3 Summary of Issues and Concerns

Appendices Appendix A Public Notification Materials Item 1 Notice of Intent Item 2 Cooperating Agency Request Letter Item 3 Agencies Requested to Participate as Cooperating Agencies and Responses Item 4 Affidavits of Publication Item 5 Notification Letter and Mailing List Appendix B Scoping Meeting Presentation Materials and Handouts Appendix C Scoping Meeting Registration Sheets Appendix D Written Comment Sheets Received During the Public Comment Period Item 1 El Paso, Texas Meeting Item 2 Las Cruces, New Mexico Meeting Item 3 Presidio, Texas Meeting Item 4 Imperial Beach, California Meeting Appendix E Response Forms Received During the Public Comment Period Appendix F Comment Letters Received During the Public Comment Period Appendix G Comment Letters Received and Postmarked After Close of the Public

Comment Period

A ii

P:\9129-43926 (IBWC PEIS)\Scoping Meetings\Scoping Report\List of Tables.doc

Tables

Table 1-1 Scoping Meeting Sites and Attendance .............................................................1-3 Table 2-1 Newspaper Notifications for the Public Scoping Meetings............................2-1 Table 3-1 Issues Raised Orally at Scoping Meetings (Open House Discussions) .........3-3 Table 3-2 Master List of Individuals or Agencies Submitting Written Comments ......3-6 Table 3-3 Summary of Scoping Comments ........................................................................3-8 Table 3-4 Summary of Issues Identified During Public Scoping ..................................3-11 Table 3-5 Summary of Scoping Comments by Source and Format ..............................3-15 Table 3-6 Summary of Scoping Comments by Subject ...................................................3-16

A 1-1

P:\9129-43926 (IBWC PEIS)\Scoping Meetings\Scoping Report\Section 1.doc

Section 1 Introduction

The United States Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission (USIBWC) has proposed to gather information necessary to analyze and evaluate impacts of management activities for the flood control projects maintained by USIBWC along the Rio Grande and the Tijuana Rivers. The four Rio Grande flood control projects are located between Percha Dam in Sierra County, New Mexico, and the Gulf of Mexico. The Tijuana River flood control project is in the United States portion of the Tijuana River in San Diego County, California.

The findings of this evaluation will be documented in a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS). The environmental review of this project will be conducted in accordance with the requirements of Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, CEQ Regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), other appropriate regulations, and the USIBWC procedures for compliance with these regulations. Copies of the PEIS will be transmitted to federal and state agencies and other interested parties for their review and comment and will be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency in accordance with 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508 and USIBWC procedures.

This report is an administrative record of public comments received during the scoping period (December 10, 2004 to February 7, 2005) and at the scoping meetings that were held on January 11, 12, 13, 19, and 27 in El Paso, Texas; Las Cruces, New Mexico; Presidio, Texas; McAllen, Texas; and Imperial Beach, California, respectively.

This document is organized as follows. Section 1.0 is an introduction, Section 2.0 is a summary of the advance public notifications provided to elected officials, government agencies, organizations and individuals, and Section 3.0 provides a summary of comments received. Appendix A provides public information materials (Notice of Intent, affidavits of publication, notification letters and mailing list). Appendix B provides a copy of the presentation materials used and the handouts provided at the public scoping meetings. Appendix C contains a copy of the registration sheets from the public scoping meetings. Appendices D through G provide public comments received during and after the scoping process regarding the project.

1.1 Background

The USIBWC maintains four flood control projects along the Rio Grande:

1) Canalization Project, extending 105.4 river miles from Percha Diversion Dam in New Mexico to American Diversion Dam in El Paso County, Texas;

2) Rectification Project, extending 86 river miles from American Diversion Dam to Fort Quitman, Texas;

Section 1- Introduction Scoping Meeting Summary

A 1-2

3) Presidio-Ojinaga Flood Control Project, extending over a total length of 15.2 river miles including the Rio Grande and spur levees at Cibolo Creek and Brito Creek in Presidio, Texas; and

4) Lower Rio Grande Flood Control Project (LRGFCP), extending 186 river miles on the Rio Grande from the town of Peñitas, Texas, to the Gulf of Mexico, and including 119.9 miles of interior floodway.

In addition, the USIBWC maintains the Tijuana River Flood Control Project, located in the United States portion of the Tijuana River, containing 2.3 miles of channel starting at the international boundary. This project represents a continuation of the flood control project located in Mexico, and provides flood protection to areas of San Diego, California, in the United States.

The purpose of the proposed federal action is to identify, evaluate, and implement alternatives for the management of existing flood control projects in the Rio Grande and Tijuana River that would allow USIBWC to comply with its mandate for flood protection, water deliveries, and/or boundary stabilization, while creating opportunities to enhance environmental and recreational resources.

The USIBWC, as Lead Agency, proposes to collect information necessary for the preparation of the PEIS. The PEIS will consider a range of alternatives, including the no action alternative, based on issues and concerns associated with the projects. The PEIS will identify, describe, and evaluate the existing environmental, cultural, sociological, economic, and recreational resources; explain the flood control/protection projects; and evaluate the impacts associated with the alternatives under consideration. The types of issues that may be addressed in the PEIS include, but are not limited to, impacts to water resources, water quality, cultural and biological resources, threatened and endangered species, land use, environmental justice, socioeconomics, agricultural lands, and recreation.

1.2 Purpose and Objective

The intent of the scoping process is to gather public input to help identify the significant issues and narrow the scope of the PEIS based on comments. The public scoping period must occur as soon as possible after the decision to prepare the PEIS is made, and after the Notice of Intent (NOI) is published in the Federal Register. The USIBWC published the NOI in the Federal Register on December 10, 2004. Public meetings were held in January of 2005 as part of the scoping process, one in each of the five USIBWC flood control project areas. Public comments were accepted through February 7, 2005.

Full public participation by interested federal, state, and local agencies and organizations as well as the general public was encouraged during the scoping process. Notification of the public meetings was made through letters to agencies, organizations, and individuals; newspaper announcements; and publication of the NOI in the Federal Register. Each mailing contained a response form on which comments could be written and submitted. An address to mail comment letters was

A 1-3 provided in all communication to potential stakeholders. Discussion was encouraged during the scoping meetings and verbal comments were noted. Comment forms were distributed during the meetings, and could be turned in during the meeting or mailed to the USIBWC after the meeting.

This document is a record of the public scoping meetings and of advance public notifications, meeting documents, verbal comments received at the meetings, and all written comments received during the scoping period.

1.3 Scoping Meeting Synopsis

The public scoping meetings were held in five locations that were selected to correspond with the five areas in which the USIBWC maintains flood control projects.

Table 1-1 lists the meeting dates, locations and attendance.

Table 1-1 Scoping Meeting Sites and Attendance

Date of Public Scoping Meeting a Meeting Location Attendance b

Tuesday, January 11, 2005 El Paso Marriott

1600 Airway Boulevard El Paso, Texas

Wednesday, January 12, 2005 Holiday Inn Las Cruces

201 East University Avenue Las Cruces, New Mexico

Thursday, January 13, 2005 Presidio Chamber of Commerce

202 West O’Reilly Street Presidio, Texas

Wednesday, January 19, 2005 Four Points Sheraton Hotel

2721 South 10th Street McAllen, Texas

Thursday, January 27, 2005 Imperial Beach City Hall

825 Imperial Beach Boulevard Imperial Beach, California a All meetings started at 6:00 PM, local time b Indicates number of persons who signed the sign-in sheet, not including USIBWC or contractor staff. Actual attendance numbers may have been higher since some people did not sign in.

The meeting rooms were arranged with theater-style seating and a presentation screen in the front of the room. Poster stations in the back of the room covered three topics: Purpose and Need and the NEPA Process, Alternatives Development, and Biological Resources. The posters covered the following subjects:

Purpose and Need and the NEPA Process o Purpose and need o What is NEPA?

o Role of the Scoping Process o The PEIS process o Preliminary alternative evaluation criteria

A 1-4 o Issue areas to be considered in environmental analysis

Alternatives Development o Project area maps o Project area photos o Project area aerial photos o Alternatives formulation process o Preliminary range of alternatives

Biological Resources o Agencies with jurisdiction o Evaluation of impacts o Biological resources in Project area

The meetings began with a Microsoft PowerPoint presentation by USIBWC and their consultant, Camp Dresser and McKee Inc. (CDM), followed by time for attendees to browse through the poster displays and ask questions to individual representatives from USIBWC and their consultant. Attendees were asked to sign in on registration sheets placed at the entrance to the room. Written comment sheets and flip charts were available to attendees to write their comments. Attendees provided oral comments during open house discussions after the formal presentation at the El Paso, Presidio and Imperial Beach meetings. At the Las Cruces and McAllen meetings, participants went directly to the poster stations after the presentation, and asked questions and provided comments to USIBWC and consultant staff individually. All participants were encouraged to provide written comments, even after expressing them orally, and turn them in at the meeting or by mail on or before the February 7, 2005 postmark deadline.

A 2-1

P:\9129-43926 (IBWC PEIS)\Scoping Meetings\Scoping Report\Section 2.doc

Section 2 Advance Notifications

2.1 Notice of Intent

A Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a PEIS was published in the Federal Register by the USIBWC on December 10, 2004. The NOI is included in Appendix A - Item 1.

2.2 Cooperating Agency Request Letter

The USIBWC sent letters to federal agencies, state agencies, and tribal governments soliciting their participation as Cooperating Agencies during the NEPA process. A total of 87 letters were sent on November 16, 2004. Seven responses were received. Of these responses, 5 agencies agreed to be cooperating agencies and 2 declined. The agencies agreeing to be Cooperating Agencies are:

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Los Angeles District

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Galveston District

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), New Mexico Ecological Services State Office

New Mexico Office of Cultural Affairs, Historic Preservation Division

United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), Albuquerque Area Office

A sample copy of the request letter is provided in Appendix A - Item 2. Agencies receiving the request letter, a summary and copies of the responses received are shown in Appendix A - Item 3.

2.3 Media Notifications

A Public Notice announcing the purpose, dates and locations of the scoping meetings was published in the legal section of five local newspapers as shown in Table 2-1.

Copies of the publisher’s affidavits are provided in Appendix A - Item 4.

Table 2-1 Newspaper Notifications for the Public Scoping Meetings

Newspaper Legal Notice Publication Dates

Las Cruces Sun News December 14, 15 and 16, 2004 El Paso Times December 14, 15 and 16, 2004

The International, Presidio, Texas December 16, 23 and 30, 2004 The Monitor, McAllen, Texas December 21, 22 and 23, 2004

San Diego Union-Tribune December 14, 15 and 16, 2004

Section 2- Advance Notifications

A 2-2

P:\9129-43926 (IBWC PEIS)\Scoping Meetings\Scoping Report\Section 2.doc

2.4 Notifications to Agencies, Elected Officials, Organizations, and Individuals

The USIBWC mailed a notification letter for the public scoping meetings to 1,647 elected officials, federal/state/local agencies, organizations, and individuals. The letter, mailed December 10, 2004, contained a description of the USIBWC flood control projects, example lists of potential alternatives, and example lists of potential criteria to be used for evaluating alternatives. Dates and times of scoping meetings, and instructions for submitting written comments were included. A response form was included for recipients to return stating their desire to continue or not continue receiving information on the project. A copy of the letter, a blank response form, and the mailing list for notification are included in Appendix A - Item 5.

Nine of the notification letters sent out were returned as undeliverable. These are shown with a strikethrough in Appendix A - Item 5.

A 3-1

P:\9129-43926 (IBWC PEIS)\Scoping Meetings\Scoping Report\Section 3.doc

Section 3 Summary of Issues and Concerns Issues and resource areas of concern were identified from the comments received during the public scoping meetings and public comment period. The items identified during the scoping process will be used to help determine a final list of issues and resource areas to be addressed in the PEIS.

Comments were received in five formats: oral, response forms, written comment sheets, letters, and e-mails. Oral comments that were made during the scoping meetings and noted by the USIBWC consultant are included in this Section. Response forms were mailed to 1,647 potential stakeholders and those returned to the USIBWC are summarized in this Section. Written comment sheets were distributed during the scoping meetings and were returned to the USIBWC either during the meetings or by mail. Comment letters and e-mails include any letter or e-mail received by the USIBWC regarding the project during the scoping period.

Input received during the scoping process was handled as follows:

1) Oral comments received during the open house discussions and poster sessions were noted and are summarized in Table 3-1.

2) A master list of respondents was prepared based on all the written responses received during the public scoping meetings and public comment period. This list, divided into agencies, organizations, and individuals, is shown in Table 3-2.

Copies of comment sheets, response forms, and comment letters and e-mails received are included in Appendices D, E, F, and G. Response forms expressing a desire not to receive future communication from the USIBWC on this project are not included in Table 3-2 but are included in Appendix E.

3) A potential list of resource areas to be addressed was developed as a guide, prior to the scoping process, and includes the following:

a. Agricultural economics

b. Agricultural land and water use

c. Agricultural social issues

d. Air quality

e. Cultural resources

f. Environmental justice

g. Fisheries and aquatic ecosystems

h. Flood control

i. Geology and soils

j. Groundwater resources

k. Hydroelectric power production and energy

l. Hydrology

m. Indian trust lands

n. Noise

Section 3- Summary of Issues and Concerns

A3 3-2

P:\9129-43926 (IBWC PEIS)\Scoping Meetings\Scoping Report\Section 3.doc

o. Public health and environmental hazards

p. Recreation resources

q. Regional economics

r. Transportation

s. Urban land use

t. Urban water supply economics

u. Utilities and public services

v. Vegetation and wildlife

w. Visual resources

x. Water quality

y. Water supply and water management

4) Scoping comments are summarized in Table 3-3. Comments postmarked after the end of the public scoping period are not included in Table 3-3. Of the 25 potential resource areas to be considered, the comments received addressed 12 areas:

a. Agricultural economics

b. Agricultural land and water use

c. Environmental justice

d. Fisheries and aquatic ecosystems

e. Flood control

f. Hydrology

g. Recreation resources

h. Urban land use

i. Vegetation and wildlife

j. Visual resources

k. Water supply and water management

l. Water quality

5) For each of the resource areas in the responses received, a listing of specific issues raised in the comments was developed. This listing is included in Table 3-4. These issues will assist in defining the scope of the PEIS analysis for their corresponding resource area.

6) Table 3-5 is a summary of the sources of all comments received.

7) Table 3-6 is a summary of the number of comments received and the number of issues identified for each resource area.

A3 3-3

Table 3-1

Issues Raised Orally at Scoping Meetings (Open House Discussions) No. Comment Commentator

EL PASO MEETING

1 Dredge return flow canals so they will drain properly. Beneficially use sediment removed. Investigate effects of meanders on water use, and consider holding lakes instead. Evaluate impact of stagnant areas on mosquitoes.

Robert Kimpal Farm Owner

2 Concerned about the public process. How can we be sure our comments will be taken seriously?

John Kiseda El Paso Zoo Audubon Society

3 What is the percentage of the $66M predicted to be used for Canalization improvements that will go towards habitat enhancement?

Sal Quintanilla Texas Master Naturalist

4 Where will the funding come from for the $122M in projects in the Canalization Reformulation Report? Issues of water delivery, sediment control, and vegetation control (exotic species) are important.

Lorenzo Arriaga U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

5 Consider using herbicide or beetles for control of salt cedar. Pecos River project successfully used beetles.

John Kiseda El Paso Zoo Audubon Society

Will funding request be made for improvements in Rectification Project?

Maria Trunk Friends of the Rio Bosque

7 How will specific projects be documented after PEIS? Will there be a more project-specific EIS? Water rights and water quality, including salinity, eutrophication, bacteria and meeting NM and TX water quality standards should be considered in objectives and performance measures.

John Hernandez

8 What is role of USIBWC in Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) determination? Appropriately weight recreation and public health considerations. Recognize that homeland security and maintenance of international boundary severely limit other available options. Is wastewater treatment within the scope of this project?

Eric Hutson Paso del Norte Health Foundation

9 Will weighting of objectives in Alternative evaluation be made public? Joe Groff 10 Delay of original Canalization EIS was a good idea. It allows for stakeholder input.

John Hernandez

What will happen to the first Canalization EIS? Will issues raised in the original EIS be revisited in this PEIS?

Henry Magallanez Elephant Butte Irrigation District

(EBID)

12 Will this PEIS override the original Canalization EIS? Joe Groff 13 Suggest contacting New Mexico State University cooperative extension officer for Fish and Wildlife Service, Audubon Society, and other local agencies for lists of species sightings in project areas.

John Kiseda El Paso Zoo Audubon Society

What is the time horizon of this proposed activities?

Eric Hutson Paso del Norte Health Foundation

15 Salt cedar will not grow in shade, so quickly revegetate after eradication to establish shade. Broad herbicides are not the answer. Consider removing salt tainted soil.

Unattributed

LAS CRUCES MEETING

Public open house discussion did not take place at this meeting. However, the following issues were raised during the informal portion of the meeting:

• Control access to levee roads to avoid damage to levees and vegetation

• Will USIBWC project be coordinated with the City of Las Cruces Rio Grande

Comprehensive Plan?

• Include recreational opportunities near the City of Las Cruces

• Control salt cedar

PRESIDIO MEETING

1 Consider eradication of exotic species and effects of salt cedar removal. Lacy Carlson

A3 3-4

P:\9129-43926 (IBWC PEIS)\Scoping Meetings\Scoping Report\Section 3.doc

Table 3-1 Issues Raised Orally at Scoping Meetings (Open House Discussions)

No. Comment Commentator

Cooperation with Mexico so far has been minimal in Lower Rio Grande Valley. Agency coordination important, especially with Mexico.

Robert Flores Texas Water Development Board

(TWDB)

3 Is coordination with the Mexican Section of the IBWC, Comisión Internacional de Límites y Aguas (CILA), taking place?

Ben DeLuca U.S. Customs and Border Protection

4 Role of Mexican authorities. Make invitations at a more local level. Local agencies are willing to do what they can.

Dora Lopez

5 Consider water quality monitoring, wastewater treatment in Mexico;

$750,000 from North American Development Bank (NADB) to Presidio, what has come out of this money?; salinity of return flows from Mexico;

farming in the U.S. is disappearing due to water quantity and quality; water quality as it pertains to human health issues, and wetlands. Look at issues from the farmer’s perspective. Salt cedar was brought in by a Federal agency, so a Federal agency should get rid of it.

Carlos Nieto

6 When arroyos do not drain they affect farming. Alamito Creek is an example.

Jarrel McCaogh

7 Consider erosion and providing an easement. Carlos Nieto 8 Consider the salt cedar problem and who will finance it? unattributed McALLEN MEETING

Public open house discussion did not take place at this meeting. However, the following issues were raised during the informal portion of the meeting:

• Avoid or reduce habitat fragmentation

• Assess right-of-way and land tenure needs for the creation of wildlife corridors

IMPERIAL BEACH MEETING

Does PEIS have a website? Where can public get more detail?

David Gomez Congressman Bob Filner’s office

2 Public needs more access to information. Consider USIBWC buying additional property as an alternative. Also consider water quality benefits.

Will PEIS look at off-site alternatives, such as downstream improvements?

James Peugh San Diego Audubon Society

3 Are effects downstream of flood control project considered? Consider benefits and impacts both upstream and downstream of project. For example, trash removal is an upstream/downstream issue. State interested in water quality objectives and relationship of project to TMDL program.

Bart Christensen State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)

Look at sustainable design criteria and best practices. Need to consider ongoing projects in Tijuana.

Oscar Romo Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve

(TRNERR)

5 Is flooding in area considered in the Purpose and Need? Consider impacts of water velocity in concrete channel.

Carolyn Lieberman U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

6 Can we comment on all USIBWC flood control projects or just Tijuana River Project?

Josh Goff U.S. Customs and Border Protection

7 Project should use integrated land management and should not conflict with plan to address bacteria levels. There is a potential conflict with other objectives if we only look at flood control.

Ed Kimura Sierra Club

8 City of San Diego does sediment and trash removal downstream of the USIBWC Project. Upstream sediment and trash control is important. Will proposed project affect/exacerbate trash problem? Will there be any improvement to canyon collectors? Are upstream structures being considered? Will project look at increasing capacity to handle sewage flows?

Michael Handal City of San Diego

9 Look at ongoing projects in Mexico as part of hydraulic/hydrologic modeling.

Oscar Romo

TRNERR

A3 3-5

P:\9129-43926 (IBWC PEIS)\Scoping Meetings\Scoping Report\Section 3.doc

Table 3-1 Issues Raised Orally at Scoping Meetings (Open House Discussions)

No. Comment Commentator 10 Consider water quality needs and requirements, including bacteria and nutrients. Project should produce water quality benefit. Look at downstream impacts of sediment removal. Trash removal should be listed as an objective, especially to offset the effects of mowing. Mowing exacerbates trash problems by allowing sediment and trash to pass downstream. Trash creates flooding problems. Is there any data to show that mowing willows actually increases flow capacity? Why are willows being removed? Not in original plan.

James Peugh San Diego Audubon Society

Has project resulted in increased flow rates or flooding?

Carolyn Lieberman U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(USFWS)

A3 3-6

Table 3-2

Master List of Individuals or Agencies Submitting Written Comments Designator Commentator Format Submitted

EL PASO MEETING (EP)

Agencies EP-01 Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) (Ida Munoz) Comment Sheet EP-02 United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) (Lorenzo Arriaga) Comment Sheet Individuals EP-03 John Hernandez Comment Sheet EP-04 Al Blair Comment Sheet EP-05 Robert Kimpel Comment Sheet

LAS CRUCES MEETING (LC)

Agencies

LC-01 La Union SW & Hispanic Farmers and Ranchers of America (HFRA) (Edward Provencio) Comment Sheet

LC-02 Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Socorro Area Office (Cliff Sanchez) Comment Sheet

LC-03 Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) (Andy Hume) Comment Sheet

Organizations

LC-04 Southwest Environmental Center (SWEC) /Amigos Bravos (Nubia Ortiz) Comment Sheet

LC-05 Caballo Soil and Water District (Bruce Redd) Comment Sheet Individuals LC-06 Donaciano Gonzalez Comment Sheet LC-07 Jean Apgar Comment Sheet

PRESIDIO MEETING (PR)

Agencies PR-01 Office of Border Health (Dora Lopez) Comment Sheet PR-02 Texas Department of State Health Services (Rebecca Wainright) Comment Sheet Organizations PR-03 Rio Grande Institute (Tyrus Fain) Comment Sheet McALLEN MEETING (MC) No written comment sheets were received at or as a result of this meeting.

IMPERIAL BEACH MEETING (IB)

Organizations IB-01 TRNERR (Oscar Romo) Comment Sheet

OTHER COMMENTS RECEIVED (OC)

Agencies OC-01 El Paso Water Utilities (EPWU) (Ed Archuleta) Response Form OC-02 City of El Paso, TX (Rick Conner) Response Form OC-03 Presidio County, TX (Jerry Agan) Response Form OC-04 City of Rio Hondo, TX (Santiago Saloana) Response Form OC-05 Texas Office of the Governor (Mike Morrissey) Response Form OC-06 Elephant Butte Irrigation District (EBID) (Lee Peters) Response Form OC-07 Village of Hatch, NM (Judd Nordyke, Mayor) Response Form OC-08 Comanche Nation (Donnita Sovo) Response Form

OC-09 New Mexico State University (NMSU) Cooperative Extension (Denise McWilliams) Response Form

OC-10 Texas House of Representatives (Aaron Peña) Response Form OC-11 California Coastal Commission (Mark Delaplaine) E-mail OC-12 USFWS (Carlsbad, CA) (Therese O’Rourke) Letter

A3 3-7

P:\9129-43926 (IBWC PEIS)\Scoping Meetings\Scoping Report\Section 3.doc

Table 3-2 Master List of Individuals or Agencies Submitting Written Comments

Designator Commentator Format Submitted OC-13 USFWS (Albuquerque, NM) (Susan MacMullin) Letter OC-14 California State Water Resources Control Board (Bart Christensen) Letter OC-15 U.S. Customs and Border Protection (San Diego) (David Brown) Letter Organizations OC-16 TX Master Naturalist Trans Pecos Chapter (Paul Aston) Response Form OC-17 R.J. Brandes Co. (James Machin) Response Form OC-18 The Nature Conservancy (Sonia Najera) Response Form OC-19 SWEC/Amigos Bravos (Nubia Ortiz) Letter OC-20 San Diego Audubon Society (James Peugh) Letter OC-21 Rio Grande Institute (Tyrus Fain) Letter OC-22 Friends of the Rio Bosque (Maria Trunk) Letter

OC-23 Hubert & Hernandez, P.A. Law Offices for Elephant Butte Irrigation District (EBID) (Gary Esslinger) Letter

OC-24 SWEC (Kevin Bixby) Letter Individuals OC-25 Carl Boyd Response Form OC-26 Arlan Raatz Response Form OC-27 Jack Briggs Response Form OC-28 Leon Silverstrom Response Form

OC-29 Louis Lamit Response Form and Letter

OC-30 Kevin Doyle E-mail OC-31 Thomas Schuster Letter OC-32 Rebecca Miller Letter Other Comments Received – Postmarked After Close of Public Comment Period (AC) Agencies AC-01 NRCS Socorro Area Office (Cliff Sanchez) E-mail Individuals AC-02 William Forbes Letter

LC

Las Cruces Meeting 01/12/05

EP El Paso Meeting 01/11/05 PR Presidio Meeting 01/13/05 MC McAllen Meeting 01/19/05 IB Imperial Beach Meeting 01/27/05 OC Other comments received by mail/fax/e-mail AC Other comments received by mail/fax/e-mail – postmarked after close of public comment period

A 3-8

Table 3-3 Summary of Scoping Comments

Resource Area Designator

Geographical Area

Referenced Commentator AE AL EJ FA FC HG RR ULU VW VR WQ WS NC

EL PASO MEETING

Agencies

EP-01 RGW TCEQ X X

EP-02 CAN USBR X X

Individuals EP-03 ALL John Hernandez X EP-04 RGW Al Blair X EP-05 RECT Robert Kimpel X X

LAS CRUCES MEETING

Agencies LC-01 ALL La Union SW & HFRA X X X X LC-02 ALL NRCS Socorro Area Office X X LC-03 CAN Las Cruces MPO X X X X Organizations LC-04 CAN SWEC/Amigos Bravos X X LC-05 CAN Caballo Soil & Water District X Individuals LC-06 CAN Donaciano Gonzalez X LC-07 CAN Jean Apgar X

PRESIDIO MEETING

Agencies PR-01 ALL Office of Border Health X

PR-02 ALL Texas Department of State Health Services X X

Organizations PR-03 RGW Rio Grande Insitute X

A3 3-9

P:\9129-43926 (IBWC PEIS)\Scoping Meetings\Scoping Report\Section 3.doc

Table 3-3 Summary of Scoping Comments

Resource Area Designator

Geographical Area

Referenced Commentator AE AL EJ FA FC HG RR ULU VW VR WQ WS NC

IMPERIAL BEACH MEETING

Organizations

IB-01 TR TRNERR X X

OTHER COMMENTS RECEIVED

Agencies

OC-01 ALL EPWU X

OC-02 ALL City of El Paso, TX X OC-03 ALL Presidio County, TX X OC-04 ALL City of Rio Hondo, TX X OC-05 ALL Texas Office of the Governor X

OC-06 ALL EBID X

OC-07 ALL Village of Hatch, NM X OC-08 ALL Comanche Nation X OC-09 ALL NMSU Cooperative Extension X X X X OC-10 ALL Texas House of Representatives X OC-11 TR California Coastal Commission X X X X X X X X OC-12 TR USFWS (Carlsbad, CA) X X OC-13 CAN USFWS (Albuquerque, NM) X

OC-14 TR CA State Water Resources Control Board X

OC-15 TR U.S. Customs and Border Protection (San Diego, CA) X

Organizations

OC-16 RECT TX Master Naturalist Trans Pecos Chapter X X

OC-17 ALL R.J. Brandes Co. X OC-18 ALL The Nature Conservancy X OC-19 CAN SWEC/Amigos Bravos X X X X OC-20 ALL San Diego Audubon Society X X X

A3 3-10

P:\9129-43926 (IBWC PEIS)\Scoping Meetings\Scoping Report\Section 3.doc

Table 3-3 Summary of Scoping Comments

Resource Area Designator

Geographical Area

Referenced Commentator AE AL EJ FA FC HG RR ULU VW VR WQ WS NC

OC-21 RGW Rio Grande Institute X X X

OC-22 RECT Friends of the Rio Bosque X X X

OC-23 CAN EBID X X X X

OC-24 RECT,CAN SWEC X X X X X

Individuals OC-25 ALL Carl Boyd X OC-26 ALL Arlan Raatz X OC-27 ALL Jack Briggs X OC-28 ALL Leon Silverstorm X OC-29 ALL Louis Lamit X X X OC-30 ALL Kevin Doyle X OC-31 RGW Thomas Schuster X X OC-32 RECT, CAN Rebecca Miller X X X

RECT Rectification Project AE Agricultural Economics CAN Canalization Project AL Agricultural Land and Water Use PRES Presidio Project EJ Environmental Justice LRGV Lower Rio Grande Valley Project FA Fisheries and Aquatic Ecosystems TR Tijuana River FC Flood Control RGW Rio Grande Watershed projects HG Hydrology ALL All projects, or general comment RR Recreation Resources ULU Urban Land Use VW Vegetation and Wildlife VR Visual Resources WQ Water Quality WS Water Supply and Water Management

NC Keep Informed or Request for Information, but no comment

A3 3-11

Table 3-4

Summary of Issues Identified During Public Scoping Resource Area Issue Source Commentator Agricultural Economics effects on pecan crop • comment letter • Rebecca Miller analyze economic effects of shifting water rights from agriculturally productive to non-productive use

• comment letter • EBID

Agricultural Land and Water Use use dredged sediment beneficially • public meeting (EP)

• written comment sheet

• Robert Kimpal end grazing leases • written comment sheet • La Union SW & HFRA Environmental Justice cooperate with Mexican agencies/CILA • public meeting (PR) • Robert Flores

• Ben DeLuca

• Dora Lopez increase public access to information • public meeting (PR)

• public meeting (IB)

• written comment sheet

• David Gomez

• San Diego Audubon Society

• Joe Groff

• Dora Lopez use sustainable design criteria and best practices

• public meeting (IB)

• written comment sheet

• TRNERR

do not favor one state over another and consider disadvantaged populations

• comment letter • EBID

Fisheries and Aquatic Ecosystems protect current fish species and promote wildlife habitat

• comment letter

• response form

• written comment sheet

• NRCS

• Las Cruces MPO

• USFWS

• San Diego Audubon Society

• Rio Grande Institute

• SWEC (Kevin Bixby)

• Louis Lamit construct fish passages • comment letter • SWEC/Amigos Bravos (Nubia Ortiz)

Flood Control control flooding that inhibits the use of local roads

• written comment sheet • Donacio Gonzalez

A3 3-12

P:\9129-43926 (IBWC PEIS)\Scoping Meetings\Scoping Report\Section 3.doc

Table 3-4 Summary of Issues Identified During Public Scoping

Resource Area Issue Source Commentator

Flood Control (cont’d) recontour Tijuana River for flood control • comment letter • San Diego Audubon Society use holding ponds, wetlands and lakes for flood control

• written comment sheet

• comment letter

• Robert Kimpal

• SWEC (Kevin Bixby) adequate personnel to control major floods

• response form • Carl Boyd use two-dimensional modeling such as FLO-2D for flood control studies

• comment letter

• written comment sheet

• SWEC/Amigos Bravos (Nubia Ortiz)

• SWEC (Kevin Bixby)

• Jean Apgar eliminate mowing if not necessary for flood control

• comment letter • San Diego Audubon Society

Hydrology do not channelize or destroy river meanders

• written comment sheet

• comment letter

• La Union SW & HFRA

• Las Cruces MPO

• Thomas Schuster improve flow of river and enlarge floodplains

• written comment sheet • SWEC (Kevin Bixby) dredge return flow canals for proper drainage

• public meeting (EP)

• public meeting (PR)

• written comment sheet

• Robert Kimpal

• Jarrel McCaogh continue to dredge the channel • comment letter • EBID

• Rebecca Miller do not dredge the channel • comment letter • Thomas Schuster do accurate sediment loading analysis • comment letter • SWEC (Kevin Bixby) investigate effects of stagnant water on mosquitoes

• public meeting (EP)

• comment letter

• Robert Kimpal

• EBID

Recreation resources promote recreation through bike and walking trails

• written comment sheet

• public meeting (PR)

• response form

• comment letter

• Las Cruces MPO

• SWEC/Amigos Bravos (Nubia Ortiz)

• TX Dept. of State Health Serivices

• NMSU Cooperative Extensión

• Rio Grande Institute

A3 3-13

P:\9129-43926 (IBWC PEIS)\Scoping Meetings\Scoping Report\Section 3.doc

Table 3-4 Summary of Issues Identified During Public Scoping

Resource Area Issue Source Commentator

Recreation resources (cont’d) prohibit the use of motorized vehicles in the riverbed

• response form

• comment letter

• Las Cruces MPO

• SWEC/Amigos Bravos (Nubia Ortiz)

Urban land use purchase more property as an Alternative

• public meeting (IB)

• comment letter

• San Diego Audubon Society

• SWEC/Amigos Bravos (Nubia Ortiz) act within California Coastal Management Program

• comment letter • California Coastal Commission remove brush and sediment to deter illegal border crossings

• comment letter • U.S. Customs and Border Protection act within existing regional, State and local land use plans discourage land development near river • comment letter • SWEC (Kevin Bixby)

Vegetation and wildlife remove salt cedar and replace with native species of vegetation

• response letter

• written comment sheet

• public meeting (EP)

• public meeting (PR)

• TCEQ

• NRCS

• La Union SW & HFRA

• Rio Grande Institute

• John Kiseda

• Lacy Carlson

• Carlos Nieto

• Bruce Redd protect and restore riparian habitat • public meeting (EP)

• public meeting (PR)

• comment letter

• NRCS

• Paul Aston

• Tyrus Fain

• SWEC (Kevin Bixby)

• John Kiseda

• USFWS Carlsbad

• SWEC/Amigos Bravos (Nubia Ortiz)

• Friends of the Rio Bosque

• Thomas Schuster release regular flood flows from Caballo Dam to promote native vegetation and sustain channel geometry

• comment letter • SWEC (Kevin Bixby)

A3 3-14

P:\9129-43926 (IBWC PEIS)\Scoping Meetings\Scoping Report\Section 3.doc

Table 3-4 Summary of Issues Identified During Public Scoping

Resource Area Issue Source Commentator Vegetation and wildlife (cont’d) do not mow in floodplain • comment letter • SWEC/Amigos Bravos (Nubia Ortiz)

• San Diego Audubon Society mow in floodplain • comment letter • EBID

• U.S. Customs and Border Protection protect and restore habitat for listed and sensitive species

• comment letter • USFWS (Carlsbad)

Visual Resources clean up trash along the Rio Grande • written comment sheet • La Union SW & HFRA

• Las Cruces MPO enhance scenery by means of flora/fauna in Rio Bosque Wetlands Park

• comment letter • Friends of the Rio Bosque

Water quality salinity, eutrophication, bacteria, and state standards in scope of work

• comment letter

• public meeting (EP)

• public meeting (IB)

• CA State Water Resources Control Board

• Eric Hutson

• Carlos Nieto

• Ed Kimura

• San Diego Audubon Society

• EBID

use of herbicides and effects on Rio Grande

• written comment sheet • TCEQ trash and sediment collection in scope of work

• comment letter

• public meeting (IB)

• written comment sheet

• CA State Water Resources Control Board

• San Diego Audubon Society

• Michael Handal

• Jim Peugh

• Oscar Romo

TMDL coordination • comment letter • CA State Water Resources Control Board

Water supply and water management no water can be used, lost or wasted without water rights

• Rebecca Miller explore all options to obtain water rights for river restoration measures

• comment letter • SWEC (Kevin Bixby)

EP El Paso meeting 01/11/05 PR Presidio meeting 01/13/05

IB Imperial Beach meeting 01/27/05

A 3-15

Table 3-5 Summary of Scoping Comments by Source and Format

Source No. of

Comments

1. SOURCE OF COMMENTS

a. Cooperating Agencies Cooperating Agency Request Letters Sent by USIBWC 87 Responses Received: (1) Will Participate 5

(2) Unable to Participate 2

(3) No Response 80

b. Sources of Comment Letters and Affirmative Response Forms Received Federal Agencies 3 TX State Agencies 2 NM State Agencies 0 CA State Agencies 1 TX Local Agencies 4 NM Local Agencies 3 CA Local Agencies 1 Irrigation or Water Districts 2 Organizations 8 Individuals 8

c. El Paso Scoping Meeting Persons in Attendance 23 Written Comment Sheets Received 5

d. Las Cruces Scoping Meeting Persons in Attendance 27 Written Comment Sheets Received 7

e. Presidio Scoping Meeting Persons in Attendance 23 Written Comment Sheets Received 3

f. McAllen Scoping Meeting Persons in Attendance 16 Written Comment Sheets Received 0

g. Imperial Beach Scoping Meeting Persons in Attendance 11 Written Comment Sheets Received 1

2. FORMAT OF COMMENTS RECEIVED

Written Comment Sheets 16 Response Forms Received (affirmative) 18 Letters Received 12 Email Comments Received 2 Total Comments Received 48

A3 3-16

P:\9129-43926 (IBWC PEIS)\Scoping Meetings\Scoping Report\Section 3.doc

Table 3-6 Summary of Scoping Comments by Subject

Description No. of

Comments

1. NUMBER OF COMMENTS RECEIVED FOR EACH RESOURCE AREAa Air Quality 0 Agricultural economics 2 Agricultural land and water use 3 Agricultural social issues 0 Cultural resources 0 Environmental justices 3 Fisheries and aquatic ecosystems 8 Flood control 9 Geology and soils 0 Groundwater resources 0 Hydroelectric power production and energy 0 Hydrology 7 Indian trust lands 0 Noise 0 Public health and environmental hazards 0 Recreation resources 8 Regional economics 0 Transportation 0 Urban land use 4 Urban water supply economics 0 Utilities and public services 0 Vegetation and wildlife 18 Visual resources 5 Water quality 4 Water supply and water management 6 Keep informed or request for information, but no comment 18

2. NUMBER OF ISSUES IDENTIFIED FOR EACH RESOURCE AREAb Agricultural economics 2 Agricultural land and water use 2 Environmental justice 4 Fisheries and aquatic ecosystems 2 Flood control 6 Hydrology 7 Recreation resources 2 Urban land use 5 Vegetation and wildlife 6 Visual resources 2 Water quality 4 Water supply and water management 2 a Comments received as indicated on Table 3-3 b Tabulated from comments received as indicated on Table 3-4

APPENDIX A

ITEM 1

Notice of Intent

71853Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 2004 / Notices

WI030008 ((Jun. 13, 2003)) WI030032 ((Jun. 13, 2003))

Volume V Missouri

MO030003 (Jun. 13, 2003) MO030005 (Jun. 13, 2003) MO030007 (Jun. 13, 2003) MO030018 (Jun. 13, 2003)

Nebraska NE030003 (Jun. 13, 2003) NE030007 (Jun. 13, 2003) NE030010 (Jun. 13, 2003) NE030011 (Jun. 13, 2003) NE030041 (Jun. 13, 2003)

Volume VI

Alaska AK030001 (Jun. 13, 2003)

Oregon OR030001 (Jun. 13, 2003) OR030007 (Jun. 13, 2003)

Washington WA030011 (Jun. 13, 2003)

Volume VII

None

General Wage Determination Publication

General wage determinations issued under the Davis-Bacon and related Acts, including those noted above, may be found in the Government Printing Office (GPO) document entitled ‘‘General Wage determinations Issued Under the Davis- Bacon And Related Acts’’. This publication is available at each of the 50 Regional Government Depository Libraries and many of the 1,400 Government Depository Libraries across the country.

General wage determinations issued under the Davis-Bacon and related Acts are available electronically at no cost on the Government Printing Office site at http://www.access.gpo.gov/davisbacon.

They are also available electronically by subscription to the Davis-Bacon Online Service (http:// davisbacon.fedworld.gov) of the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) of the U.S. Department of Commerce at 1–800–363–2068. This subscription offers value-added features such as electronic delivery of modified wage decisions directly to the user’s desktop, the ability to access prior wage decisions issued during the year, extensive Help desk Support, etc.

Hard-copy subscriptions may be purchased from: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402, (202) 512–1800.

When ordering hard-copy subscription(s), be sure to specify the State(s) of interest, since subscriptions may be ordered for any or all of the six separate Volumes, arranged by State.

Subscriptions include an annual edition (issued in January or February) which includes all current general wage determinations for the States covered by each volume. Throughout the remainder of the year, regular weekly updates will be distributed to subscribers.

Signed in Washington, DC this 2nd day of December, 2004.

John Frank, Acting Chief, Branch of Construction Wage Determinations.

[FR Doc. 04–26812 Filed 12–9–04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–27–M

INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND

WATER COMMISSION, UNITED

STATES AND MEXICO

United States Section; Notice of Intent To Prepare a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Its Flood Control Projects Within the Rio Grande and Tijuana River Basins

AGENCY: United States Section, International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare a programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS).

SUMMARY: This notice advises the public that pursuant to section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, the United States Section, International Boundary and Water Commission (USIBWC) proposes to gather information necessary to analyze and evaluate impacts of management activities for the flood control projects maintained by USIWB along the Rio Grande, from Percha Dam in Doña Ana County, New Mexico, to the Gulf of Mexico; and in the United States portion of the Tijuana River in San Diego County, California. The findings of this evaluation will be documented in a PEIS.

This notice is being provided as required by the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR 1501.7) and the USIBWC’s Operating Procedures for Implementing Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, to obtain suggestions and information from other agencies and the public on the scope of issues to be addressed in the PEIS. Public meetings will be held to obtain community input to ensure all concerns are identified and addressed in the PEIS.

DATES: The USIBWC will conduct five public meetings at the following locations and dates: (1) El Paso, Texas on January 11, 2005, from 6 to 9 p.m.

m.s.t. at the El Paso Marriot, 1600 Airway Blvd., El Paso, Texas 79925; (2)

Las Cruces, New Mexico on January 12, 2005, from 6 to 9 p.m. m.s.t. at the Holiday Inn, 201 E. University, Las Cruces New Mexico 88005; (3) Presidio, Texas on January 13, 2005, from 6 to 9 p.m. c.s.t. at the Presidio Chamber of Commerce, 202 W. Oreilly Street, Presidio Texas 79845; (4) McAllen Texas on January 19, 2005, from 6 to 9 p.m. c.s.t. at the Four Point Sheraton Hotel, 2721 S. 10th Street, McAllen, Texas 78503; and (5) City of Imperial Beach (San Diego County), California on January 27, 2005, from 6 to 9 p.m. P.s.t., at the Imperial Beach City Hall, 825 Imperial Beach Boulevard, Imperial Beach, California 91932.

Full public participation by interested federal, state, and local agencies, as well as other interested organizations and the general public is encouraged during the scoping process which will end 60 days from the date of this notice. Public comments on the scope of the PEIS, reasonable alternatives that should be considered, anticipated environmental problems, and actions that might be taken to address them are requested.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Comments will be accepted for 60 days following the date of this notice by Daniel Borunda, Environmental Protection Specialist, USIBWC, 4171 N.

Mesa Street, Suite C–100, El Paso, Texas 79902. Phone: (915) 832–4701, FAX:

(915) 832–4167, e-mail:

danielborunda@ibwc.state.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1. Proposed Action

The USIBWC maintains the following four flood control projects along the Rio Grande, in the United States:

A. Canalization Project, extending 106 miles from Percha Diversion Dam in New Mexico to American Diversion Dam in El Paso County, Texas.

B. Rectification Project, extending 86 miles from American Diversion Dam to Fort Quitman, Texas.

C. Presidio-Ojinaga Flood Control Project, approximately 15 miles in length and located along the Rio Grande within the sister cities of Presidio, Texas and Ojinaga, Chihuahua, Mexico, D. Lower Rio Grande Flood Control Project (LRGFCP), extending 180 miles between the town of Peñitas, Texas, to the Gulf of Mexico.

These projects were constructed with the objectives of providing flood control to urban, suburban, and agricultural areas adjacent to the river; stabilizing the International Boundary between the United States and Mexico (Rectification Project, Presidio-Ojinaga Project, and LRGFCP); and ensuring water deliveries (Canalization Project, Presidio-Ojinaga

VerDate jul<14>2003 18:51 Dec 09, 2004 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10DEN1.SGM 10DEN1

71854 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 2004 / Notices

Project, and LRGFCP). In addition, USIBWC maintains the Tijuana River Flood Control Project, located in the United States portion of the Tijuana River, extending 2.3 miles from the international boundary. This project provides flood protection to areas in the United States.

The proposed federal action that will be evaluated in the PEIS may include activities to ensure adequate flood control and water deliveries per international agreements and treaties, while identifying opportunities for enhancements to the riparian ecosystem and the development of recreational opportunities.

2. Alternatives The USIBWC, as the lead agency, proposes to collect information necessary for the preparation of a PEIS and to analyze alternatives for the management of the flood control projects to ensure compliance with the projects’ mandates (flood protection, water deliveries and/or boundary stabilization) while creating opportunities for habitat restoration and recreation.