New Search
Record of Decision Attachment C -Agency Comment and Responses <br />period expressed concern about displacement of the <br />AutoCraft business, and this letter came from an <br />attorney representing AutoCraft. The displacement <br />of AutoCraft became an issue only after the Chiquita <br />(formerly Agripac) site was identified as the <br />preferred alternative. <br />1.3-The GSA Public Buildings Service, National <br />Environmental Policy Act Desk Guide states on page <br />7-9 that "When GSA prepares a DEIS, if one or more <br />preferred alternatives exist then GSA must identify <br />them. At the time of the FEIS, GSA must identify <br />one preferred alternative." The GSA did not identify <br />a preferred alternative in the draft EIS, because the <br />preferred alternative had not been selected when the <br />document was issued. After the draft EIS was issued, <br />the GSA selected the Chiquita (formerly Agripac) <br />site as the preferred alternative, and the fmal EIS <br />identified this selection. <br />1.4-The intent of the EIS is to "serve as a means to <br />correctly assess environmental impacts to a proposed <br />action"(40 CFR 1502.2). GSA selected the preferred <br />alternative using the information provided by the <br />EIS, as well as other non-environmental information. <br />The GSA does not agree with the general assertion <br />that the environmental document inconsistently <br />evaluated the alternatives. Lacking specific examples <br />of where "some criteria is (sic) analyzed with an eye <br />to the future or what may happen, instead of on the <br />facts and merits as things exist today," a detailed <br />response to this comment cannot be made. <br />1.5-The Archaeological and Historical Resources <br />Assessment (Appendix A of the draft EIS) assessed <br />the historic significance of the buildings on and <br />around the Chiquita (formerly Agripac) site. The <br />report on page 25 discussed the potentially historic <br />....buildings within the Agripac Grouping. The report <br />concluded that of the 10 buildings within the Agripac <br />Grouping, three buildings were eligible for the <br />National Register of Historic Places under Criteria A <br />and C. Two of these buildings (the Eugene Water <br />-rand Electric Board Steam Plant and the Agripac <br />Machine Shop) are offsite, and the third (the Agripac <br />office) is on the project site. These three structures <br />•>are discussed in the draft and fmal EIS. The <br />Archaeological and Historical Resources Assessment <br />did not determine that the Agripac Grouping was a <br />potentially historic district. Seven of the 10 <br />potentially historic buildings have been modified and <br />are not eligible for listing on the National Register. <br />