Record of Decision New Federal Courthouse

New Search

Record of Decision Attachment C -Agency Comment and Responses 1.6-Please refer to page 200 of the final EIS where it states that `"The (Archaeological and Historical Resources Assessment) study makes no recommendation for dealing with these structures in the event that the Riverfront site is selected for the federal courthouse. In the event that this site is selected, the GSA may recommend that the historic features of the Bright Oak Meat and At Home, Inc. structures be catalogued prior to demolition, given the poor quality of these two structures. Acknowledging the historic value of the structure that currently houses Ruthie B's, the GSA would work with the city of Springfield to move the Ruthie B's building to a nearby location in the city, if possible." 1.7-The environmental documents disclosed the infom~lation collected regarding the history of the AutoCraft site, as well as the fact that there have been no documented releases of hazardous materials at the site. The final EIS states that the AutoCraft shop is the site of a potential release (page 103) and states that "the AutoCraft property is also an area of concern because of its historical use of hazardous materials." The ~ final EIS also states that a phase II site investigation would be FEIS negkas w state that this entire silo. not just the A@ripec office buHding, could potemiallybc included in an historic district or incLakd on the National Register of ' ffisWric Places is The hbtorie survey ofAlt~ative l 'tident~ad a potential hielork disfrid tFmt appears to be eligiNe for the National Register". (p. 9). Both Altermtivs l and Alternative 2 have historic diahktpotential and therefore; should be treated the same. Testimotry was I provided at the public on the DEIS regarding an irGerest is rsbcathtg, ratlsr than i.s demolisliu~, eayhistoric stiuctnres on the Dowmown Ritnerfroat Sitq but that is not addressed in the FEI$. H~rdons Mater;als The ownets ofAUtoCraft deified access to its site for purposes of enviroumeatal t.~ mvesngatan Vlrithout the imormation from a phase II environmental site investigation ofthis property, how can Ahernative 1 and Alternative 2 be adequately and fa'vly d in terms of possffik environl cotrtamination? There is no merdioti ofunderground storage tanks at the Chiquita site, or details about what a phase n enviromnedal side investigation ravesled. Food processing, which h~ a.s oexwred at the Chiquita site siaoe 1895, historically involved tin in the ~bB process. Irrigation equipmera has been repaindhoated at the site. This typically;uvolves degreasers, zinc and other ppy metals. Tte drscaxdon ofpotential envnonnrental cordatmnation at AutoCtxB is min'unai, and does mt address the former use of the sits as a dry cleaner. This type of activity imroives deave orgazue solvents tha(maysinkiata the.aquifer. None ofthis is addressed.. Without t.9 anon-site , it is ~t posstbk for CrSA to determine it'solvent co~amination B piesem at the former dry cleaner location., Feasting environmental investigations indsate that the potential exists. givcnthe krown chiorofonn contamination; for dry ckaaer solvent to have oordamimted 8roandcra<er:et the sits, as well as potential oonrammaeonfrom otter nearby sites.: ~ _ - ,no~ - The arreiysis of businesses-that might rekrarte (p. 12) is rot balanced between Alternative i.tol Land 2, since both comnamitks have adequate space m which to nkroate businesses. ForAkemative 2 it states thatthere world be ~ significant adverse impact. The FE13 has not made a s'vm'lar conchrsive statement fior Alternative 1. This section aces rwt adequately aiswsathe positive to Spini~ekt's urbert cote ' that would resuif from the sd'mg ofUi Fedenil Courthouse. Federal Property Management Regulations (41 CFEt Cimpter 101-17.003) ccquires that "serious 1.1a comidetetion sha0 6e given to the impact that a locedion wffi have on improving the social, economic, emdmnmertal a~ cuh~aat conditionsof the wmmtmitia.:. both positive and negative impacts of space acquisition aMions shall be weighed with the objective of obteuring maxmnm socioecmwmk benefits from these actions." 'the FF.IS z< conducted prior to purchase of the site. In the absence of permission to conduct an onsite investigation, the GSA considered the information available, concluded that likelihood of significant hazardous materials contamination was low, and accepted the risk of selecting the Chiquita (formerly Agripac) site as the preferred alternafive. 1.8-Please refer to page 103 of the final EIS. The phase II site assessment sampled the area identified as the location of former underground storage tanks and concluded that there is "petroleum hydrocarbon soil contamination throughout the top several feet of the unpaved area on the Chiquita (formerly Agripac) property " 1.9-Additional information regarding the AutoCraft site and the potential for contamination is contained in the phase I environmental site assessment. The draft and final EIS presented a summary of this information. The final EIS states on page 100 that the AutoCraft site "was first developed in the 1890s as a lumber yard and subsequently has been used by a planing mill, irrigation equipment supplier, muffler shop, drapery cleaning shop, and auto body repair shop: ' The phase II investigation for the Chiquita site included soil borings in close proximity to the AutoCraft shop. These borings did not indicate the presence of contaminated ground water. 1.10-The socioeconomic analysis concluded that neither site would have a significant adverse impact on the socioeconomics of the area. The low vacancy rate in Springfield indicates, as stated in both the draft and final EIS, that new commercial space would need to be constructed (page 113). Given the higher vacancy rate in Eugene, it is less likely that commercial space would need to be constructed.,