11/18/2014 (7) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Section 4(f) Resource. Regulations codified at 23 C.F.R. Part 774" and the FRA NEPA Guidance establish the process for FRA's compliance with Section 4(f). As discussed in the Board's Section 106/1-Estoric Resources Comment above, FRA failed to consult with local governments in the Section 106 process, and as a result, failed to identify in the DEIS significant historic resources listed on the National Register. These historic resources are protected Section 4(f) Resources, and the potential for the Proposed Project to "use" them must be assessed in the Section 4(f) Evaluation. See 23 C.F.R. § 774.11((e), (f). In particular, the Section 4(0 Evaluation must assess whether there are prudent and feasible alternatives to any use of these resources, and ensure that the Proposed Project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to them. Without correcting these substantial omissions -- and addressing any and all other Section 4(f) Resources that were overlooked in the analyses performed thus far -- FRA may not approve the Section 4(f) Evaluation. 10. Coastal Zone Management Act Consistency: The DEIS does not Provide a Basis for Determining Consistency with the Florida Coastal Zone Management Program. The Florida Coastal Management Program ("FCMP"), codified in Chapter 380, Part II of the Florida Statutes, has been approved by the U.S. Department of Commerce pursuant to the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act ("CZMA"), 16 U.S.C. § 1451 et seq., in 1982. 7 Fed. Reg. 47056 (Oct. 22, 1982). As a result, under the CZMA all federal activities affecting a coastal use or resource in Florida, including the provision of RRIF funding, must be consistent with the FCMP "to the maximum extent practicable." Id.; 16 U.S.C. §� 1456(c)(1)(A), (c)(2); 15 C.F.R. � 930.50. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection ("FDEP") is responsible for evaluating whether federal activities are consistent with the FCMP, and must either concur or object to a consistency certification submitted for the Proposed Project. 15 C.F.R. §§ 930.62, 930.63. While FRA may intend for FDEP to rely on the information provided in the DEIS in making this determination, it is so lacking in substance as to preclude FDEP from relying upon it. There is no meaningful discussion in the DEIS of whether and how the Proposed Project is consistent with the 24 statutory programs that comprise the FCMP. Instead, the document presents a "Draft Consistency Determination" consisting of Table 5.2.5-1, DEIS at 5-65, that includes a column with only the most cursory discussion of consistency. One example well illustrates this point. The FCMP identifies Chapter 267, Historical Resources as an "enforceable policy" for purposes of federal consistency. That statute declares that "[t]he rich and unique heritage of historic properties in this state, representing more than 10,000 years of human presence, is an important legacy to be valued and preserved for present and future generations." Accordingly, state agencies are directed to avoid taking or assisting in any action that would substantially alter in a way that is While the Section 4(o Regulations are promulgated by FHWA and FTA, FRA has recognized them in the DEIS as being applicable to the Proposed Pro)ect. See, e.g., DEIS at 6-3. 'Page 25 1824679 November 14, 2014