AAF – SHPO MEETING MINUTES   

1

Meeting Minutes

Thursday, March 28, 2013  

All Aboard Florida – SPHO Meeting

Location: RA Gray Building ‐ 500 South Bronough Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399

Attendees:

Ginny Jones (FHDR/SHPO) Alex Gonzalez (FECI)

Dan McClarnon (FDHR/SHPO) Jose Gonzalez (FECI)

Tim Parsons (FHDR/SHPO) Melvin Brown (HNTB)

Ken Hardin (Janus) Charlene Stroehlen (AMEC)

Amy Streelman (Janus) Dan Baker (Transystems)

1. Introductions: Jose G. provided the introductions and purpose of the meeting.  

2. Overview of Project and Status: Jose G. provided an overview of the project including the two

major corridors (East‐West and North‐South); project purpose, provide passenger rail service

between Miami and Orlando, discussed document type, an EIS, and the lead agency, FRA, and

the schedule (12 months).

3. Area of Potential Effect: Ken H. led the discussion regarding the Area of Potential Effect (APE)

for the North‐South corridor. SHPO agreed the same approach used for the Miami to West

Palm Beach EA/FONSI should be used for the North‐South corridor. SHPO also agreed the

archeology/historic building survey for the East‐West corridor can be based on existing data

and previous studies. Exceptions would be if potential critical areas are identified. Approach to

these areas, if identified, would be discussed with SHPO to determine appropriate action.  

North‐South APE will include resources directly adjacent to the rail corridor and within the rail

corridor. Reconnaissance survey work will be conducted for the North‐South corridor. East‐

West APE will be based on previous cultural resources work as well as the alternative with the

worst case scenario in terms of possible effects.  

Overview of FEC System:  Amy provided an overview of the existing rail system (North‐South

corridor). Most of the bridges to be replaced are simple structures made of metal, wood and

concrete.  The infrastructure of the historic bridges has degraded over time and Florida East

Coast Railroad has been maintaining the bridges over the years. None of the older bridges are

anticipated to have the original infrastructure.  The historic nature is based on the rail system

and the original footprint from the rail Right of Way, not the specific materials used in the

original bridges.  Discussion did cover the dynamic nature of the railroad and associated

bridges, and how the evolution over time is necessary in order for it to remain a viable

transportation corridor.  

4. Historic Bridges: Open discussion regarding the three eligible historic bridges. The three bridges

identified to date include the Oleta and the North and South Forks of the Middle River. These

three bridges do not require Coast Guard Permits. The replacement of the bridges are required

due to the safety and speed required for the proposed passenger rail system.  The cross  
AAF – SHPO MEETING MINUTES   

2

sections of the new bridges were discussed and photos of the existing bridges were reviewed.  

Hand rails are required for safety of passenger disembarking from a train in the case of

emergency and maintenance.  Some bridges require replacement of the deck structure.  There

may be a slight gradual increase in rail height, 6 to 12 inches, in the bridge structure when going

from a timber to a concrete deck. Examples of historic bridges installed in the early 1960’s have

a similar concrete deck structure.

Specific bridge discussions included Eau Gallie, built in 1925; AAF proposes to replace the bridge

deck.  The bridge over the St Lucie is to remain a single track; the train will be required to slow

to 20 miles per hour over this structure.  There is a movable bridge over the Lockahatchee.  We

will be adding the historic 2nd track back to the bridge.  There is a Bascule Bridge across the

Sebastian which requires electrical rehabilitation.

SHPO indicated they will not object to the replacement of the three bridges (Oleta and the

North and South Forks of the Middle River), although they indicated they would further discuss

this with their Architectural group. The architects at FHDR/SHPO will guide the team, not

provide final review, in terms of appropriate suggestions for the bridge replacements/repairs so

they are in keeping with the Secretary of the Interiors Standards.  

North South Corridor: One archeological site of interest along the North‐South corridor is at

Hobe Sound National Wildlife Refuge, Mile Posts 274‐275.  There is a proposed curve reduction,

which will stay within the existing maintained right of way and there will be double track added.

The double track is to be placed in its historical location. SHPO indicated that they did not have

issues with the activities proposed in this area.   

5. Consultation with Affected Parties:  Section 106 Consultation will be required.  Consultation

with the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) will be required with the Seminole and the

Miccosukee Indian Tribes of Florida.  SHPO is willing to assist FRA with the Tribal consultation

process.  It is recommended that meetings, suggested at their offices, be scheduled soon to

involve the tribes early in the process. SHPO felt that the upcoming public meetings where Ken

H. would be present to speak about Section 106 would be acceptable as well. Due to past

consultation meetings in the affected communities (i.e. West Palm Beach, Fort Lauderdale,

Miami), additional separate meetings are unnecessary.   

6. Schedule:  Construction of the project is expected to begin in 2014.

7. Open Forum: Based on the discussions regarding the resources and proposed plans, SHPO felt a

Conditional No Adverse Effect finding was possible. SHPO will work with AAF and Janus to

develop design plans that minimize the impacts to historic nature of the project.

8. Conclusion/Next Steps: Conference call with FRA regarding the APE/Methodology.