Laserfiche WebLink
J <br />Section 3 s : i.� !,lit oi, i, ''d (uL'. Ur dl ki=�c,i �rti�. <br />The DEIS either completely omitted or inadequately addressed numerous historical and archeological sites <br />in Indian River County. <br />Two other areas of concern relating to cultural resources are: <br />1. The DEIS does not indicate that vibration studies were conducted in relation to historic structures <br />and archaeological sites. <br />The DEIS does not examine the construction impacts in relation to historic or archaeological <br />resources (overall construction activities and staging areas are not addressed). <br />While the development of the Proposed Project's APE and methodology appear to have been developed <br />with the input of SHPO, the DEIS's lack of information, and omission of important resources that clearly fall <br />within the Proposed Project's APE are very concerning and raise the question whether the methodology <br />was properly executed. Couple this with the substitutive process used that minimally consulted with local <br />entities results in a DEIS that is lacking in these critical areas. <br />CDM Smith has worked closely with the Indian River County Historian and other local resources to identify <br />a substantial number of properties missing from the DEIS that appear on either the State of Florida's <br />Master Site File system or in the National Register of Historic Places. As stated above, Section 4(f) requires <br />that consideration be given to "historic properties of National, State or local significance." Aside from those <br />properties listed on the NRHP, there are a significant number of properties alongside the corridor that that <br />are of local significance and importance. <br />CDM Smith believes that the Cultural Resources evaluation included in the DEIS is incomplete and <br />recommends that a supplemental DEIS be required prior to issuance of a Record of Decision by the FRA. <br />3-z Smith <br />