New Search
Record of Decision Attachment C -Agency Comment and Responses <br />Attachment C <br />Agency Comment Letters and Responses <br />1. City of Springfield <br />1.1-The draft environmental <br />impact statement (EIS) evaluated <br />the existing conditions and <br />environmental impacts <br />associated with the five <br />alternative sites under <br />consideration at that time. The <br />final EIS evaluated the existing <br />conditions and environmental <br />impacts associated with the two <br />sites that were deemed practical <br />and stated the GSA's preferred <br />alternative. <br />The document provides a <br />compared and reasoned analysis <br />between the alternatives. The <br />document discusses the impacts <br />on each element of the <br />environment for each alternative <br />and states the expected degree of <br />impact. For example, the <br />Summary of Impacts section for <br />Biological Resources (page 8 of <br />the final EIS) presents <br />informafion that 15 trees would <br />be removed from the 12iverfront <br />site and that this would not be a <br />significant impact. The <br />{ document then states the fact that <br />no trees would be removed from <br />the Chiquita (formerly Agripac) <br />site and that this would not be a <br />~ ' significant impact. The other <br />elements of the environment are <br />addressed in a similar manner. <br />1 2-After issuance of the draft <br />_. <br />~. 9PRIxGFlRtD ~ <br />.. .. <br />OFFICE OFTHF MAYORlCITY COUNC2 ~:~ 225 f•7FTHS7AEET <br />SPAlNCF1E10, OFT 87477. <br />January 17, 2000 (se q 72c~s7a~ <br />FiSX(5AfJ 72S•2383 <br />eBwna <br />' ~'e <br />Mr. L. Jay Pearson f ~l~ <br />Regional Administrator ~ ~/ f <br />U.S. General services Administration F~, <br />-400 ISm St SW ~jYEO <br />Auburn, WA 98001-6599 <br />SUBJECT: City of Sprmgfietd Comments on Fl'nal EnviromneNal impact <br />Statenxrrc <br />Dear Mr. Pearson: <br />Whea trtekirtg your Record of Decision iegardmg the U.S. District Courthouse, the <br />Spdngfiekt city Counc~ and [ wantto make side you have sufticientand appropriate <br />information to address the throe general categories ofcritetia hn your decision matia: <br />l) emiromnental issues; 2) site sudatitlity; mtd3) ecommics Toward that end, we', <br />provide yon with the following. <br />ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES <br />The Emirotnnemal Impact Statement is deficient for the following reasons: l) it failed to <br />Y.i I wnduct a compared aad reasoned a between the preferred environmental <br />aheroative artd the other rejected ahemative.; 2) it behnedly included the AutoCraR site in <br />i.Z the Preferred ahernative withoutelaxmg to suppkmmt the Envbonmentali~aa <br />I StatemcM and without leaving the public comme~ period open Sor further discussion of <br />rids expanded alternative; and, 3) it fat'kd to include the preferred alten~tive in the IhaR <br />is Enviionmeutal Impact Statement to tbeFederal CmntMuse. Oa ibex poirds, please see <br />AttachnreM A, dated January 8, 2001 to the Mayor aad CouncO from the Office of City <br />Attorney. <br />1n addition, we believe the criteria for determining the prefrrrcd site were incoreiatenttY <br />s.a aPP~• T~ FEIS analyoes some criteria based oa aaioas chat may occur and some , <br />based on current conditions. In other woods, some criter~ is aoalyied with an eye to the <br />fiiture or what may happen, instead of on the Ease and merits as th'mgs eiost today. '' <br />We also have speci5c cotes, as follows: <br />Historic and Culmzel Resources <br />The analysis of Alteirmtive 2 does tint adequately address the fact that the Chiquita site is <br />>..s the bcatioa ofthe historic Bhrc Lake Cooperative.. It is tine oldest continuously operating <br />cooperative food piocessing facility is the United States. The impoitara:e of this site to <br />lire comnamity's agricultural history cannot be dismissed withom cottytderation The <br />EIS, the AutoCraft property was added to the <br />Chiquita (formerly Agripac) site alternative. The <br />draft EIS included the southern portion of the <br />AutoCraft property as part of the Broadway site <br />alternative. At the time the draft EIS was issued, it <br />was assumed that if the Broadway site alternative <br />were selected, the AutoCraft business might be made <br />nonviable and both properties would have to be <br />acquired. A letter from the property owners' attorney <br />stating that taking either portion of the business <br />would make tht; entire business unworkable <br />confirmed this assumption. The draft EIS addressed <br />the economic impacts of acquiring the AutoCraft <br />property and explained that it had been impossible to <br />conduct an onsite hazardous materials investigation <br />because the owner had denied access to the property. <br />The draft EIS stated that the property was an area of <br />potential concern for hazardous materials as well as a <br />potential release site. Adding the AutoCraft property <br />to Alternative 2 was not deemed a substantive change <br />and did not warrant preparation of a supplemental <br />EIS. <br />Because the AutoCraft property was included as part <br />of the Broadway site alternative (Alternative 5) in the <br />draft EIS, the public was provided an opportunity to <br />comment on the displacement of AutoCraft. Only <br />one comment letter received during the comment <br />