11/18/2014 (7) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

To summarize the problems identified in these comments, the DEIS is grossly inadequate and precludes a meaningful analysis of the Proposed Project. The Board, therefore, requests that no further action be taken by FRA to advance the Proposed Project, unless and until a supplemental DEIS is prepared, and the subsequent requirements of NEPA, Section 4(f), Section 106 and the CZMA are fully satisfied. See 40 C.F.R. � 1502.9(c); FRA NEPA Procedures § 13(e), 64 Fed. Reg. 28554. Set forth below are the Board's comments on the DEIS and Section 4(o Evaluation. Also attached, and incorporated into the Board's comments, are the technical comments prepared by CDM Smith, the environmental consultant the Board retained to review the DEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation. 1. Alternatives: The Alternatives Analysis Provided in the DEIS is So Narrowly Circumscribed by AAF's Financial Interests as to be Meaningless. The alternatives analysis is supposed to be "the heart of the environmental impact statement." 40 C.F.R. � 1502.14. Accordingly, agencies are directed by the CEQ Regulations to "[r]igorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives" that might avoid or minimize the impacts disclosed in an EIS. Id. While every conceivable alternative need not be examined, a "range of reasonable alternatives" meeting the purpose and need of the action must be considered. Id.'` One example provided by USDOT guidance of the sorts of alternatives to be considered are those "related to different locations ... which would present different environmental impacts." USDOT NEPA Procedures at 3. Notwithstanding the significant impacts that operation of a high speed train along the Florida East Coast Railroad ("FECR") corridor would have on the densely populated east coast of Florida, the DEIS lacks a comparative environmental analysis of even one alternative route. Instead, it short circuits the alternatives analysis by narrowly defining the "purpose and need" for the Proposed Project based on RAF's preferences, and then screening out all the other available routes in a "tiered" approach as failing to meet that sharply circumscribed purpose and need. Thus, the DEIS states that "AAF identified its primary objective for the Proposed Project, which is to provide an intercity rail service that is sustainable as a private enterprise." DEIS 2-10 (emphasis added). "Sustainable," according to the document, means that operation of the rail service can "meet revenue projections" and "operate at an acceptable profit level." Id.; DEIS at 3-1. Stepping off from the objective of providing a profitable rail service, the DEIS then applied "AAF evaluation criteria" including "six critical determining factors." Prominent among those factors were those relating to project economics, including the ease with which AAF could acquire property, the ability to "commence construction in the near term to control costs," and limiting the "costs of Z Likewise, USDOT guidance states that an essential element of an alternatives analysis should be a "rigorous exploration and an objective evaluation of the environmental impacts of all reasonable alternative actions, particularly those that might enhance environmental quality or avoid some or all of the adverse environmental effects." USDOT NEPA Procedures, Attachment 2 at 3. 3 O (- >� -- Page 3 1824679 November 14, 2014