11/18/2014 (7) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

technical and economic standpoint and using common sense, rather than simply desirable from the standpoint of the applicant." CEQ, "Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's NEPA Regulations" Question 2a, 46 Fed. Reg. 18026, 18027 (3/23/1981). The Board does not dispute that the economic objectives of the Proposed Project sponsor may be taken into account by the agency in defining its purpose and need, and in identifying the alternatives for consideraition in an EIS. However, those interests should not be given such weight as to exclude other relevant considerations. This is especially so with respect to high speed rail in Florida, where a number of potentially viable options have been carefully studied in planning documents that have been previously prepared in relation to other projects. According to the Orlando -Miami Planning Study, CSX, I-95 and the Florida Turnpike corridors present far fewer environmental impacts and a much sounder basis for public investment than the FECR corridor. However, the referenced alternatives were summarily dismissed in the DEIS without any sort of analysis considering whether the chosen FECR alternative would cause the most negative impacts to: (a) the health and safety of the citizens of the Treasure Coast of Florida, (b) the historical and archeological sites along the Treasure Coast of Florida and (c) the fragile Indian River Lagoon.' FRA cannot simply ignore other legitimate alternatives simply because AAF, the sponsor of the Proposed Project, would like it to do so. 2. Cumulative and Secondary Impacts: The DEIS Fails to Assess the Cumulative and Secondary Impacts of the Proposed Project, in Combination with Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions. Under NEPA, FRA is obligated to examine not only the direct and immediate effects of the Proposed Project, but also its indirect or secondary impacts and its cumulative impacts, in combination with those of other reasonably foreseeable actions. See CEQ's NEPA Regulations, 40 C.F.R. 5§ 1502.16, 1508.8; FRA NEPA Procedures, 64 Fed. Reg. 28550, 28554; USDOT NEPA Procedures, Attachment 2 at 4; see also CEQ, "Considering Cumulative Effects under NEPA" at 11-21 (1/1997). With respect to indirect effects, the CEQ regulations are clear that impacts that are caused by an action, but "are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable" must be thoroughly considered in an EIS. 40 C.F.R. 5 1508.8. More particularly, the growth -inducing impacts of a transportation project must be carefully examined. Id The CEQ regulations are equally clear with respect to cumulative impacts, requiring that the effects of an action must be "added to [those oq other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non -Federal) or person undertakes such other actions." Id. 5 1508.7; see also id. 5 The Indian River Lagoon is North America's most diverse, shallow -water estuary. It spans approximately 156 miles along Florida's east coast. The total estimated annual economic value of the Indian River Lagoon is $3.7 billion, supporting 15,000 full and part-time jobs and providing recreational opportunities for 11 million people per year. The Proposed Project calls for building a new bridge over the St. Sebastian River. The St. Sebastian River is located in Indian River County. It is one of the Indian River Lagoon's natural tributaries. 3(D,—k— Pages 1824679 November 14, 2014