New Search
Comments and Responses-Leifer 2 <br />2.3-The Chiquita (formerly <br />Agripac) site would not directly <br />affect potentially historic properties <br />and may have a high potential for <br />successful mitigation of adverse <br />effects on nearby historic <br />properties. <br />2.4-The General Services <br />Administration will continue <br />consultation with the Oregon State <br />Historic Preservation Office in <br />order to obtain fmal comment and <br />concurrence in eligibility and effect <br />of the proposed project under <br />Section 106. <br />{Lettsr2) <br />,. un:,aw:pa ram,t cw.wwr, a mwsr~+wnr~ <br />IkMka It,1000 <br />Pape I <br />2.2 Site 3, Gateway Slte, Spri~tidd: There appear to bt ra historic above-guund rcwuress affctkd at this <br />Cond. sik. The silt has the pormtial to yield archaeotogipl remains, given that i[ is located on the <br />McKmtleRivertltxaipiaininanundevelopedagriculttualfield. Futttteratweyworkwauldbe <br />required W detemdne whether the site has arty archaeological signililmttca <br />Slte 4, EN'EB Site, Eugene: The EWEls e]ectrical plant apptxrs to be eligible for National Rtgister <br />listing under crituia A and C. Thc property would be adsaracly affected by alterations to its <br />seeing. The seizing and visual qualilica of the Fast Skimtcr 8uttc Historic District, a Natioml <br />Register-lisped residential district, wvWd be adversetyaffected by the cortaWttion of a large <br />oalkm but7ding itnmediatety adjnccat to its botatduits. Potential itscreaaad trat7ic in the uea <br />could alsoad+Rrselyai[ec[theatmosphericquelitiesnfthoneighbaritooddisirict. Whileetfecu <br />could be mitigated by design and siting o[lhe new building, the residar6al character of the <br />district would nonetheless be compmtmxd. <br />This area •Iso has the possibility of containing archaeological depoaia related to early iadustry <br />that eoutd be considered eligible for National Registtt listing. <br />Site 3, Broadway Site, Eugene: This alterrretive weuW advvsely affect two trees by their removal, and <br />would have an adverse cffmt on the aching and visual qualities of sev,ant potmtially eligible <br />buildings. Tht rclativmly small size ol'thc proposed site may make mitigation Watgh design <br />more cltailmging. <br />This alternative also has some probability of archaeological depoaita flat could be eligibk far <br />Natiomi RegWrr listing far the'a potential [o yield inforrtutilrn on iaduatrial developrnrtri to <br />fiugene. <br />2,3 ~ Site T (Agripacj applatrs to be a viable alternative from the standpoint of historic preservation, since ie <br />seems to have the least IlreUbaat oC diztxtly itttpacting historic properties, and may have a higher <br />plstemial far attxusCul mitigation of adverse effects to the historic properties though siting and design. <br />2.4 ~ More detailed iaCartmtion oa the preferred alttmaive will be needed in order for our ofliet to provide <br />final comment and conetttmtct in eligibility and effect under Section 106. <br />Ifyou have any further questions or need addidaul assistance, Please conoaet the at the SlilrO, extension <br />?29. <br />Sinceretely,, ,~yy~ <br />~l.N1vC/t <br />~Cluistine (\aran <br />Preservation Speciolist <br />New Federal Courthouse 171 Final EIS <br />