11/18/2014 (7) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

would adversely affect the character, form, integrity, or other qualities which contribute to [t]he historical, architectural, or archaeological value of [a historic] property" unless there is "no feasible and prudent alternative" and timely steps are taken either to avoid or mitigate the adverse effects, or to undertake an appropriate archaeological salvage excavation ...." F.S. Sec. 267.061. Table 5.2.5-1 dismisses any concerns with respect to this policy with the statement that "[b]ased on the information available, the Project would have no adverse effect on archaeological sites along the N -S corridor." DEIS at 5-68. However, as discussed in the Board's Section 106/Historic Resources Comment above, the cultural resources analysis presented in the DEIS was prepared without any meaningful consultation with local authorities, and entirely missed several significant historic resources in Indian River County alone. Since the conclusion set forth in Table 5.2.5-1 is not backed up by the facts, it provides no basis for a determination that the Proposed Project is consistent with this enforceable policy. The treatment of other enforceable policies in Table 5.2.5-1 is equally conclusory and unsubstantiated. As a result, the consistency analysis presented in the DEIS cannot serve as a basis for a determination of consistency with the FCMP. 11. Consistency with Scoping: The Analyses Committed to in the Scoping Report are Absent from the DEIS In order to assure that the scope of a DEIS covers all matters of environmental concern identified by an agency in light of comments made by the public, the CEQ regulations clearly require that "[d]raft environmental impact statements ... be prepared in accordance with the scope decided upon in the scoping process." 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9(a). Contrary to this mandate, the DEIS deviates in critical respects from commitments made by FRA in the scoping report issued on June 28, 2013, (Attachment 8.1.13 to the DEIS, the "Scoping Report"). For example, with respect to alternatives the Scoping Report indicates that "[t]he EIS will consider additional/ alternative stations, including locating stations closer to city/government center[s]. This may include stations in Cocoa/Port Canaveral, Fort Pierce, Melbourne, Port Canaveral, Stuart, St. Lucie, and other cities along the Proposed Project corridor. The EIS will also consider alternative rail alignment locations west of the current corridor, including parallel to the Florida Turnpike." Scoping Report at 18 (emphasis added). Notwithstanding these commitments, the DEIS offers no substantive analysis of either topic. The Board assumes that by promising consideration of alternative routes FRA intended to include in the DEIS something more than the application of AAF's profit -based criteria to screen all alternative routes out of substantive environmental review. Yet as discussed above, such a substantive analysis was omitted from the DEIS. Moreover, no real consideration at all was paid to additional stations along the N -S corridor. In addition, the Scoping Report commits that `[t]he EIS will assess the primary and secondary (or induced) social and economic impacts of the Proposed Project, which may include relocating residences and businesses, changes in business patterns, employment, local school enrollment, community infrastructure, property values, and tax valuation/revenues. Both local and regional social Sol -A- Page 26 1824679 November 14, 2014