11/18/2014 (7) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Section 3 Section 4(f) Evaluation and Cultural Resources As properly stated in Section 6 of the DEIS, Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Act of 1966 requires DOT agencies to avoid using certain public resources when undertaking transportation projects unless there is no prudent alternative and all necessary action is taken to minimize harm. Section 4(f) resources include publicly owned parks, recreation areas, wildlife and/or waterfowl refuges and historical properties of National, State or local significance. The DEIS includes Section 4(f) comments in both Section 5 and Section 6; however, there are inconsistencies between the two sections. For example, Section 5 does not include historical properties (it should), while Section 6 does. Section 6 refers only to the St. Sebastian River Bridge within Indian River County. 3.1. cultural Resources Upon review of the Cultural Resources section of the DEIS it appears that the Section 106 process implemented can best be characterized as minimalistic. FRA's decision that "...consultation with local entities was not required for Phase II," is perplexing due to the overall size and nature of the Proposed Project which can affect such a vast array of resources (DEIS 4-124). In the NHS Section 106 minutes contained in the appendix of the DEIS, it is clear that the SHPO advised AAF to use the 106 process; however, SHPO also determined that AAF did not need to fully engage local governments/groups/individuals as Section 106 Consulting Parties to fulfill the NEPA public input requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). This is simply not appropriate. CDM Smith feels strongly that this approach does not properly allow the local communities an opportunity to voice their concerns in a forum that is adequate to the important resources within the Project Study Area. The DEIS in regards to the identification, evaluation and effect determinations of historic properties is again minimal in its content with notable absences of known National Register listed and determined eligible resources. Several known archaeological sites that fall within the Proposed Project APE appear to not have been surveyed and evaluated for National Register eligibility and effects. At the very least they are not properly addressed. In addition, it is not clear if an adequate archaeological survey was conducted for portions of the Proposed Project APE. No subsurface testing was done in the N -S FECR Corridor per a letter dated Oct 31, 2013. According to the DEIS, the FECR, a National Register Historic District, falls within the Proposed Project APE and has contributing resources adversely affected (St. Sebastian Bridge), yet the DEIS states that this same district has a no adverse effect determination as a result of the Proposed Project. If a district loses a contributing resource, then the district itself experiences an adverse effect. it is also apparent that not all known historic resources were identified and evaluated within the Proposed Project APE as several National Register Historic Districts are absent from the discussion within the DEIS. 3-1 CDM