02/02/2016 (3) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

!3 Attorney's Matters - B.C.C. 2.2.16 Office of INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Dylan Reingold, County Attorney Virilliatn K. DeBraA Deputy County Attorney Kate Pingolt Cotner, Assistant County attorney MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Dylan Reingold, County Attorney �r ATTORNEY DATE: January 20, 2016 SUBJECT: All Aboard Florida St. Johns River Water Management District Permit Outside Counsel BACKGROUND. On November 13, 2015, the St. Johns River Water Management District (the "District") received an Individual Environmental Resource Permit ("ERP") application for the All Aboard Florida project (the. "Project"). Specifically, the ERP application is for Segment D08 of the Project which spans approximately 67 miles from SR 528 in eastern Brevard County to the Indian River County — St. Lucie County Line. The ERP application includes bridge work at Horse Creek, Goat Creek, North Canal, Main Canal and South Canal along with work in multiple areas involving installation of additional tracks requiring stormwater treatment. The ERP application states that an exemption request was been granted for the replacement of approximately 51 miles of rail; installation of new additional proposed track totaling 74,250 LF of additional track in addition to the restoration of the historic double track; and installation of approximately 3.2 miles of upland train crossovers (pedestrian crossovers). The ERP application also does not include the potential future replacement of the St. Sebastian River, Crane Creek, Turkey Creek, and Eau Gallie River bridges, which are proposed to be submitted for permitting after conclusion of the pending review by the State Historic Preservation Officer. On December 25, 2015, the District posted notice of the ERP application and opened up a 14 day comment period for the submission of questions, objections, comments or information regarding the Project's ERP application. On January 6, 2016, Indian River County submitted comments to the District raising questions concerning the inconsistency of the Rail Cross Sections and the Normal Typical Sections for the Project and the impact of that inconsistency on the wetland impact analysis. The comments also addressed issues relating to the lack of information concerning the impact of the drainage swales on wetlands. Finally, the comment questioned the appropriateness of the ERP application to rely on the Project FEIS, which was generated during a flawed and incomplete NEPA process. Approved for February 2, 2016 BCC Meeting Attorne 's Matters COUNTY ATTORNEY F ULW"yUakCdE7,EWtBCC'Aarxb Mee MHA&wad Fonda Duanu Femk Artornry.dx Indian River Co. A oved Date Admin. 1 7 Co. Atty. Budget Department Rist: Management 3-/ -- lig.