28952 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 116 / Thursday, June 18, 2009 / Notices 

southern Beaufort Sea: An Agreement 

between the Inuvialuit Game Council and the 

North Slope Borough Fish and Game 

Committee. In Transactions of North 

American Wildlife and Natural Resources 

Conference 56:337–343. 

Ovsyanikov, N.G. 2006. Research and 

conservation of polar bears on Wrangel 

Island. Pp. 167–171, In J. Aars, N.J. Lunn, 

and A.E. Derocher (eds.), Proceeding of the 

14th Working Meeting of the IUCN/SSC Polar 

Bear Specialist Group, 20–24 June 2005, 

Seattle, Washington, U.S.A. IUCN, Gland, 

Switzerland, and Cambridge, U.K. 

Overland, J.E., and M. Wang. 2007. Future 

regional Arctic sea ice declines. Geophysical 

Research Letters 34: L17705. 

Paetkau, D., S.C. Amstrup, E.W. Born, W. 

Calvert, A.E. Derocher, G.W. Garner, F. 

Messier, I. Stirling, M.K. Taylor, O. Wiig, and 

C. Strobeck. 1999. Genetic Structure of the 

world’s polar bear populations. Molecular 

Ecology 8:1571–1584. 

Parkinson, C.L., D.J. Cavalieri, P. Gloersen, 

H.J. Zwally, and J.C. Comiso. 1999. Arctic sea 

ice extents, areas, and trends, 1978–1996. 

Journal of Geophysical Research 

104(C9):20837–20856. 

Ray, C.E. 1971. Polar bear and mammoth 

on the Pribilof Islands. Arctic 24:9–19. 

Regehr, E.V., S.C. Amstrup, and I. Stirling. 

2006. Polar bear population status in the 

Southern Beaufort Sea. Report Series 2006– 

1337, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. 

Geological Survey, Anchorage, Alaska. 55 pp. 

Regehr, E.V., C.M. Hunter, H. Caswell, S.C. 

Amstrup, and I. Stirling. 2007. Polar bears in 

the Southern Beaufort Sea I: Survival and 

breeding in relation to sea ice conditions, 

2001–2006. U.S. Geological Survey, Alaska 

Science Center, Administrative Report. 45 

pp. 

Rode, K.D., S.C. Amstrup, and E.V. Regehr. 

2007. Polar Bears in the southern Beaufort 

Sea III: stature, mass, and cub recruitment in 

relationship to time and sea ice extent 

between 1982 and 2006. U.S. Dept. of the 

Interior, U.S. Geological Survey 

Administrative Report, Reston, Virginia. 28 

pp. 

Rothrock, D.A., Y. Yu, and G.A. Maykut. 

1999. Thinning of the Arctic sea-ice cover, 

Geophysical Research Letters 26:3469–3472. 

Rush, S.A., K. Borga, R. Dietz, E.W. Born, 

C. Sonne, T. Evans, D.C.G. Muir, R.L. 

Letcher, R.J. Norstrom, and A.T. Fisk. 2008. 

Geographic Distribution of selected elements 

in the livers of polar bears from Greenland, 

Canada, and the United States. 

Environmental Pollution 153 (3): 618–626. 

Schliebe, S.L., S.C. Amstrup, and G.W. 

Garner. 1995. The status of polar bear in 

Alaska, 1993. Pp. 125–139, In O. Wiig, G.W. 

Garner (eds.), Proceedings of the Eleventh 

Working Meeting of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear 

Specialist Group, Copenhagen, Denmark. 

IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, 

UK. v + 192 pp. 

Schliebe, S., T.J. Evans, S. Miller, C. 

Perham, J. Wilder, and L.J. Lierheimer. 2006. 

Polar bear management in Alaska 2000–2004. 

Pp. 63–76, In J. Aars, N.J. Lunn, and A.E. 

Derocher (eds.), Proceeding of the 14th 

Working Meeting of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear 

Specialist Group, 20–24 June 2005, Seattle, 

Washington, U.S.A. IUCN, Gland, 

Switzerland, and Cambridge, U.K. 

Scribner, K.T., G.W. Garner, S.C. Amstrup, 

and M.A. Cronin. 1997. Population genetic 

studies of the polar bear (Ursus maritimus): 

a summary of available data and 

interpretation of results. Pp. 185–196, In 

Dizon, S., J. Chivers, and W. Perrin (eds.), 

Molecular genetics of marine mammals, 

incorporating the proceedings of a workshop 

on the analysis of genetic data to address 

problems of stock identity as related to 

management of marine mammals. Spec. Pub. 

#3 of the Society of Marine Mammalogy. 

Serreze, M.C., M.M. Holland, and J. 

Stroeve. 2007. Perspectives on the Arctic’s 

shrinking sea-ice cover. Science 315: 1533– 

1536. 

Smithwick, M., J.W. Martin, S.A. Mabury, 

K. Solomon, C. Sonne, E.W. Born, R. Dietz, 

A.E. Derocher, R.L. Letcher, T.J. Evans, G.W. 

Gabrielsonm, J. Nagy, I. Stirling, and D.C.G. 

Muir. 2005. A circumpolar study of 

perfluoroalkyl contaminants in polar bears 

(Ursus maritimus). Environmental Science 

and Technology 39(15):5517–5523. 

Smithwick, M.J., R.J. Norstrom, S.A. 

Maybury, K. Solomon, T.J. Evans, I. Stirling, 

M.K. Taylor, and D.C.G. Muir. 2006. 

Temporal trends of perfluoroalkyl 

contaminants in polar bears (Ursus 

maritimus) from two locations in the North 

American Arctic, 1972–2002. Environmental 

Science and Technology. 40(4):1139–1143. 

Stishov, M.S. 1991a. Results of aerial 

counts of the polar bear dens on the arctic 

coast of the extreme Northern Asia. Pp. 90– 

92, In Amstrup, S.C., and Wiig, ;. (eds.), 

Polar Bears: Proceedings of the Tenth 

Working Meeting of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear 

Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 

and Cambridge, U.K. 

Stishov, M.S. 1991b. Distribution and 

number of polar bear maternity dens on 

Wrangel and Herald islands, in 1985–1989, 

pp. 91–115 in Amerirkhavov, A.M. (ed.), 

Population and Communities of Mammals on 

Wrangel Island. Moscow, CNIL Glavokhhoty 

RSFSR. (in Russian). 

Stishov, M.S., G.W. Garner, S.M. Arthur, 

and V.G.B. Barnes Jr. 1991. Distribution and 

relative abundance of maternal polar bear 

dens in the Chukotka Peninsula region, 

U.S.S.R. p. 67 in Abstracts, Ninth Biennial 

Conference on the Biology of the Marine 

Mammals, 5–9 December 1991, Chicago, 

Illinois, U.S.A. 

Stroeve, J., M. Serreze, S. Drobot, S. 

Gearheard, M. Holland, J. Maslanik, W. 

Meier, and T. Scambos. 2008. Arctic Sea Ice 

Extent Plummets in 2007. EOS, Transactions, 

American Geophysical Union 89(2):13–14. 

Treseder, L., and A. Carpenter. 1989. Polar 

bear management in the Southern Beaufort 

Sea. Info. N. 15(4):2–4. 

USFWS. Unpublished data (polar bear 

harvest information). Available from: USFWS 

Marine Mammals Office, 1011 East Tudor 

Road, Anchorage, AK 99503. 

Uspenski, S.M. 1986. Research and 

management of polar bear populations in the 

USSR, 1981–85. Pages 133–136 in 

Proceedings of the Ninth Working Meeting of 

the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group, 

IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, 

U.K. 

Verrault, J., D.C.G. Muir, R.J. Norstrom, I. 

Stirling, A.T. Fisk, G.W. Gabrielsen, A.E. 

Derocher, T.J. Evans, R. Dietz, C. Sonne, G.M. 

Sandala, W. Gebbink, F.F. Riget, E.W. Born, 

M.K. Taylor, J. Nagy, and R.J. Letcher. 2005. 

Chlorinated hydrocarbon contaminants and 

metabolites in polar bears (Ursus maritimus) 

from Alaska, Canada, East Greenland, and 

Svalbard: 1996–2002. The Science of the 

Total Environment 351–352:369–390. 

Wade, P.R., and R. Angliss. 1997. 

Guidelines for assessing marine mammal 

stocks: Report in the GAMMS Workshop, 

April 3–5, 1996, Seattle, WA. 93 pp. 

Wilson, D.E. 1976. Cranial variation in 

polar bears. International Conference Bear 

Research and Management 3:447–453. 

Woshner, V.M., T.M. O’Hara, G.R. Bratton, 

and V.R. Beasley. 2001. Concentrations and 

interactions of selected essential and nonessential elements in ringed seals and polar 

bears of Arctic Alaska. Journal of Wildlife 

Diseases. (37):711–721. 

Zdor, Eduard. Personal Communication. 

Executive Director, Association of 

Traditional Marine Mammal Hunters of 

Chukotka. 

Authority: The authority for this action is 

the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, 

as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et al.). 

Dated: June 9, 2009. 

Marvin Moriarty, 

Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–14346 Filed 6–17–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND 

WATER COMMISSION 

United States Section; Notice of 

Availability of a Final Environmental 

Assessment and Final Finding of No 

Significant Impact for Flood Control 

Improvements to the Arroyo Colorado 

Floodway, Hidalgo and Cameron 

Counties, TX 

AGENCY: United States Section, 

International Boundary and Water 

Commission, United States and Mexico. 

ACTION: Notice of Availability of Final 

Environmental Assessment (EA) and 

Final Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI). 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) 

of the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.), the Council on Environmental 

Quality Final Regulations (40 CFR Parts 

1500 through 1508), and the United 

States Section, International Boundary 

and Water Commission’s (USIBWC) 

Operational Procedures for 

Implementing Section 102 of NEPA, 

published in the Federal Register 

September 2, 1981 (46 FR 44083); the 

USIBWC hereby gives notice of 

availability of the Final Environmental 

Assessment and FONSI for Flood 

Control Improvements to the Arroyo 

Colorado Floodway, a component of the 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 116 / Thursday, June 18, 2009 / Notices 28953 

interior floodways system of the Lower 

Rio Grande Flood Control Project. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rita 

Crites, Environmental Protection 

Specialist, Environmental Management 

Division, United States Section, 

International Boundary and Water 

Commission; 4171 N. Mesa, C–100; El 

Paso, Texas 79902. Telephone: (915) 

832–4781; e-mail: ritacrites@ibwc.gov. 

DATES: The Final EA and FONSI will be 

available June 11, 2009. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Arroyo Colorado is an ancient 

distributary of the Rio Grande, and it 

serves as drainage for crop irrigation, 

municipal wastewater returns, and as a 

floodway during periods of heavy 

precipitation in the Lower Rio Grande 

Valley. The project area includes two 

segments of the flood control levee 

system with a combined length of 11 

miles. 

The USIBWC prepared this EA for the 

proposed action to increase flood 

control of the Arroyo Colorado Levee 

System by raising the elevation of these 

two levee segments for improved flood 

protection. 

The beginning of this project is a 2.1 

mile Divisor Dike near the juncture 

point of the Arroyo Colorado and the 

North Floodway in Hidalgo County, 

extending a total of 6.9 miles to the 

Willacy Canal. The remaining segment 

is 4.0 miles from the Willacy Canal 

ending at White Ranch Road in 

Cameron County, Texas. 

Proposed Action 

The proposed levee rehabilitation 

improvements consist of: (1) Raising the 

top-of-levee elevation, (2) conducting 

geotechnical investigations and testing 

to determine the type and extent of any 

required remediation improvements due 

to slope stability, seepage, levee 

settlement, and any other geotechnical 

issues that may cause levee failure; and 

(3) modifying, if necessary, hardware or 

structures located along the levee 

reaches. Any modifications will be in 

compliance with the Texas Historical 

Commission recommendations. The top 

elevation of the levee-raising 

improvements will be to provide 

containment of flood flows with a 

minimum freeboard of 3 feet for water 

surface elevations as calculated in the 

USIBWC 2003 Hydraulic Model for the 

LRGFCP. A centered levee expansion is 

assumed for most areas of the Arroyo 

Colorado Levee system, except south of 

La Feria reservoir, where levee 

expansion will be offset to the riverside 

of the existing levee. 

The proposed action will increase the 

height of the levee up to 2 feet for 

approximately 8.6 percent of the 11- 

mile segment. Approximately 4 percent 

of the levee segment will be increased 

from 2 to 4 feet, and approximately 2.4 

percent will be increased from 4 to 6 

feet. The existing levee is a raised 

trapezoidal compacted-earth structure 

with a crown width of 16 feet, a typical 

height ranging from 10 to 15 feet, and 

approximately 3:1 side slope ratio 

(horizontal run: vertical rise). For a 

typical levee cross-section at the ACF 

that requires additional fill material to 

the crown the levee footprint would be 

expanded at a 1:6 ratio (crown height: 

footprint length). The footprint 

expansion would be equally divided 

between the riverside and landside 

(centered expansion) or entirely on one 

side (offset expansion). Moderately 

higher increases will be needed in a 

small segment that accounts for less 

than 1.2 percent of the total length. In 

areas where existing topography is too 

steep to allow levee expansion, 

construction solutions, including 

armored banks (riprap) or retaining 

walls, will be used. Excavation outside 

the existing right-of-way is not 

anticipated. 

The EA assesses potential 

environmental impacts of the proposed 

action and the no action alternative. 

Potential impacts on natural, cultural, 

and other resources were evaluated, and 

mitigation measures were incorporated 

into the proposed action. A Finding of 

No Significant Impact was issued for the 

proposed action based on a review of 

the facts and analyses contained in the 

EA. 

Summary of Findings 

Pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

guidance (40 CFR 1500–1508), The 

President’s Council on Environmental 

Quality issued regulations for 

implementing NEPA, which included 

provisions for both the content and 

procedural aspects of the required EA. 

The USIBWC completed an EA of the 

potential environmental consequences 

of raising the Arroyo Colorado 

Floodway (ACF) levee system to meet 

current requirements for flood control. 

The EA, which supports this Finding of 

No Significant Impact, evaluated the 

proposed action and no action 

alternative. 

Levee System Evaluation 

No Action Alternative 

The no action alternative was 

evaluated as the single alternative action 

to the proposed action. The no action 

alternative will retain the current 

configuration of the ACF levee system, 

with no impacts to biological and 

cultural resources, water resources, land 

use, soil, community resources, or 

environmental health issues. In terms of 

flood protection, however, current 

containment capacity under the no 

action alternative may be insufficient to 

fully control Rio Grande flooding under 

severe storm events, including 

associated risks to personal safety and 

property. The levee system will not 

meet FEMA requirements for levee 

system certification. 

Proposed Action 

Biological Resources 

Biological resources in the vicinity of 

the levee systems are dominated by 

agricultural fields, rangelands, and nonnative grasslands. There are some 

woody species along the margins of the 

Arroyo Colorado, drainage ditches from 

irrigation fields, and adjacent to borrow 

pits. The 160-foot wide biological 

survey corridor, centered on the existing 

levee, includes approximately 221 acres, 

primarily composed of non-native 

grasslands dominated by buffelgrass and 

king ranch bluestem. 

The proposed action will raise the 

levee using a centered expansion, 

except in areas south of La Feria 

reservoir, where an offset expansion 

will be utilized. The proposed levee 

expansion will remove non-native 

grasslands on the levee slopes and 

adjacent areas. Native grasses will be 

planted immediately after the 

completion of the project, and the levee 

expansion will not occur in wooded 

areas. Less than one-half acre of nonjurisdictional wetlands will be affected, 

but no jurisdictional wetlands will be 

affected by the levee expansion. No 

habitats used by federally or state-listed 

threatened or endangered species will 

be impacted by the levee expansion. 

In areas adjacent to sensitive areas 

such as water bodies, levee expansion 

may be altered to an offset expansion 

toward the riverside of the levee to 

avoid impacting sensitive resources. In 

areas where the existing topography is 

too steep to allow levee expansion, 

construction solutions, including 

armored banks, will prevent erosion of 

the levee slopes. The construction 

solutions will not affect sensitive 

habitats, including wooded areas, 

habitats for threatened and endangered 

species, or jurisdictional wetlands. 

Cultural Resources 

Improvements to the ACF levee 

system may adversely affect prehistoric 

and historic archaeological resources. 

28954 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 116 / Thursday, June 18, 2009 / Notices 

Some areas adjacent to the toe of the 

levee contain intact archaeological 

resources. Adverse effects to 

archaeological resources may occur 

from the use of heavy equipment during 

levee construction that could disturb 

surface or shallowly buried deposits. 

Adverse effects may also occur to 

archaeological deposits that will be 

buried by the addition of the fill 

material on the surface above them. 

Alternatively, levee footprint expansion 

may protect archaeological resources by 

capping with fill material, preserving 

those resources in place. 

Architectural resources may be 

adversely affected by levee height 

increases or by expansion of the levee 

footprint. Potential effects include 

vibration and ground disturbance from 

the use of heavy equipment during 

construction. Design for levee 

improvements is primarily considering 

avoidance of the structures as much as 

possible. However, if structures have to 

be removed or modified, USIBWC will 

consult with the Texas Historical 

Commission (THC) to determine the 

appropriate level of documentation 

prior to any modification. In addition to 

documentation, mitigation of impacts to 

cultural resources may include their 

replacement with ‘‘in-kind’’ structures 

that will look and operate the same. 

Native American resources may be 

affected by the levee improvements; 

consultation with the Native American 

tribes is ongoing to identify resources or 

concerns regarding the project. 

Under NEPA, there will be no 

significant impacts (i.e., ‘‘unresolvable’’ 

adverse effects under National Historic 

Preservation Act [NHPA]) to cultural 

resources because all cultural resources 

will be identified and evaluated for 

National Register of Historic Places 

(NRHP) eligibility. Any impacts to 

National Register of Historic Placeseligible resources will be mitigated prior 

to implementation of levee height 

increases or footprint expansion, in 

consultation with the Texas Historical 

Commission and Native American 

Tribes. 

Water Resources 

Flood control improvements to the 

ACF will increase flood containment 

capacity to control the design flood 

event with a negligible increase in water 

surface elevation. Levee footprint 

expansion will not affect water bodies. 

Land Use 

Footprint levee expansion, where 

required, will take place completely 

within the existing ROW. No urban or 

agricultural lands will be affected. 

Soil 

Improvement activity contributing to 

soil disturbance will include 

geotechnical investigations and adding 

soil to the top and sides of the levee. 

Levee fill material will come from local 

commercial sources and not from 

borrow areas in the floodplain. The 

disturbance of soil will occur within 

areas where soil has been disturbed and 

modified by prior levee construction 

and maintenance activities. Therefore, 

alteration of soil previously 

unassociated with the existing levee 

will not occur. 

Community Resources 

In terms of socioeconomic resources, 

the influx of federal funds into Hidalgo 

and Cameron Counties from the flood 

control improvement area will have a 

positive but minor local economic 

impact. The impact will be limited to 

the construction period, and represent 

less than 1 percent of the annual county 

employment, income, and sales values. 

No adverse impacts to 

disproportionately high minority and 

low-income populations were identified 

for construction activities. Moderate 

utilization of public roads will be 

required during construction; a 

temporary increase in access road use 

will be required for equipment 

mobilization to staging areas. 

Environmental Health Issues 

Estimated air emissions of five criteria 

pollutants during construction will be 

discontinuous and represent less than 

0.13 percent of the annual emissions 

inventory within the air quality control 

region of Hidalgo, Cameron, and 

Willacy Counties. There will be a 

moderate increase in ambient noise 

levels due to construction activities. No 

long-term and regular exposure is 

expected above noise threshold values. 

A database search indicated that no 

waste storage and disposal sites were 

within the proposed ACF levee 

improvement area, and none will affect, 

or be affected by, the levee improvement 

project. 

Best Management Practices 

When warranted due to engineering 

considerations, or for protection of 

biological or cultural resources, the 

need for levee footprint expansion will 

be eliminated by levee slope adjustment 

or use of retaining walls or armored 

banks. Best management practices 

during construction will include 

development of a storm water pollution 

prevention plan to avoid impacts to 

receiving waters, and use of sediment 

barriers and soil wetting to minimize 

erosion. 

To protect vegetation cover, the 

embankment improvement areas will be 

re-vegetated with native herbaceous 

species. To protect wildlife, 

construction activities will be scheduled 

to occur, to the extent possible, outside 

the March to August bird migratory 

season. 

Availability 

Single hard copies of the Final 

Environmental Assessment and Finding 

of No Significant Impact may be 

obtained by request at the above contact 

information. Electronic copies may also 

be obtained from the USIBWC Home 

Page at http://www.ibwc.gov/ 

Organization/Environmental/ 

reports_studies.html. 

Dated: June 12, 2009. 

Robert McCarthy, 

General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. E9–14314 Filed 6–17–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7010–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree 

Under the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act 

Notice is hereby given that on June 3, 

2009, a proposed Consent Decree in 

United States v. General Electric Co., 

Civil Action No. 1:09–cv–00545, was 

lodged with the United States District 

Court for the District of New Mexico. 

The Consent Decree resolves the 

United States’ claims against General 

Electric Company (‘‘GE’’) at the South 

Valley Superfund Site located in 

Albuquerque, New Mexico. Those 

claims were brought under Section 107 

of the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation and Liability 

Act, 42 U.S.C. 107. The Site consists of 

several industrial facilities, including an 

aircraft manufacturing plant currently 

owned and/or operated by GE and 

formerly owned and/or operated by the 

United States Air Force (‘‘USAF’’), the 

United States Department of Energy 

(‘‘DOE’’), and others. 

The Consent Decree requires that GE 

pay a lump sum of $257,670.00 to 

reimburse the United States for past 

response costs, a lump sum of $71,715 

toward the United States’ future 

response costs, and interest accrued on 

these two sums during the period from 

November 1, 2002 to the date of entry 

of the Consent Decree. The Consent 

Decree also memorializes the obligation 

of the USAF and DOE to pay a lump 

sum of $2,605,330.00 in reimbursement 

for past response costs and a lump sum