11/18/2014 (7) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

(1951) at 171. This narrow canal on both the west and east sides of the railroad bridge and Old Dixie Highway Bridge has yielded fossilized bones for decades. Since it did not identify these significant historical resources in the course of the Section 106 process, FRA failed to assess whether project construction would affect these resources by disturbing paleo artifacts lying beneath the surface; whether vibration from increased freight and new passenger operations could damage those artifacts; and whether the lateral expansion of active rail operations would foreclose or hinder future artifact recovery efforts. Likewise, the DEIS failed to address ways to avoid, minimize or mitigate any adverse effects on these resources. In addition, the DEIS fails to identify two affected architectural resources within Indian River County. Thus, nothing is said in the document about the Old Town Sebastian Historic District East or Old Town Sebastian Historic District West. There are over 40 contributing sites or buildings in these two districts, both of which are listed on the National Register. By failing to identify these districts, the DEIS neglected to mention that the FECR corridor bisects them, or to account for the contextual effects (such as noise, vibration, safety and visual impacts) that increased rail traffic associated with the Proposed Project would have on them. Nor did it address the measures that could be implemented to address those effects. The omissions from the Section 106 Historic Resources analysis noted in these comments provide a few examples of the deficiencies resulting from the exclusion of local authorities from the Section 106 consultation. It is highly likely that additional resources located within other jurisdictions along the corridor were also overlooked as a result of the exclusionary consultation process that was employed. For that reason, FRA should reinitiate the Section 106 consultation by extending invitations to all affected local authorities and other parties entitled to participate under the NHPA Regulations, 9. Section 4(f): The Section 4(f) Evaluation Failed to: Identify Significant Resources; Evaluate How the Proposed Project Would Use Those Resources; Whether There are Any Feasible and Prudent Alternatives To Those Uses; and Whether All Possible Planning Has Been Taken to Minimize Harm. Section 4(� of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, prohibits USDOT agencies, including FRA, from approving a project if it "uses" a Section 4(f) Resource" unless (i) there is no prudent and feasible alternative to that use, and (ii) the project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the Section 4(o Resource. Pub. L. 89-670 (1966) (now codified at 49 U.S.C. 5 303(c)). A project's "use" of a Section 4(f) Resource can either be direct, by physically impacting a resource, or "constructive", when a project's proximity impacts are severe enough to impair a 14 Section 4(o protects the following resources: publicly owned land of a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, State, or local significance, or land of an historic site of national, State, or local significance (as determined by the Federal, State, or local officials having jurisdiction over the park, area, refuge or site). 49 U.S.C. § 303(c). `30) -A —Page 24 ] 824679 November 14, 2014