New Search
Record of Decision Attachment C -Agency Comment and Responses <br />1.34-The statement that GSA <br />claims "legal ignorance to the <br />known contaminants" is incorrect. <br />The GSA states that the <br />AutoCraft property is a "potential <br />release site" (final EIS page 103) <br />and "an azea of concern" (final <br />EIS page 103). Because access to <br />the AutoCraft property was <br />denied prior to issuance of the <br />final EIS, GSA was unable to <br />conduct onsite evaluations of the <br />property. The GSA committed to <br />conducting phase II testing of the <br />site prior to purchase and <br />development of the site. The <br />final EIS states on page 104 that <br />"Mitigation measures described <br />above would likely preclude all <br />significant adverse impacts that <br />could result from identified <br />hazazdous material. Required <br />mitigation would not be <br />determined until the extent of soil <br />and ground water contamination <br />has been delineated at Norm's <br />Auto Repair for Alternative 1, <br />option A, or until a site inspection <br />and possibly a phase II <br />environmental site investigation <br />is conducted at the AutoCraft <br />property for Alternative 2. <br />Additional mitigation measures <br />might be required." As shown in <br />the final EIS, contamination at <br />Norm's Auto Repair Shop has not <br />yet been delineated. The Chiquita <br />site was not elevated over the <br />Riverfront site based upon a "lack <br />have to pay for the move and Sad a suitable ktcation Ttn City ass~ed the Spr;n~gfield <br />i~ Community Ikvelopment Co ration with a move of a solar-type stnutune a few <br />years ago from West D to32°~StceG. 7lre cost of moving the stnrcttQe was S11,700. An <br />estimate of moving Ruth B's is $20,OOp. <br />LEGAL ISSUES <br />Because a was GSA's own affirmative decision to not inchuk the Autot'xad sne in the <br />draft alternatives, a seems especielly.onerous to ~w have the GSA claim legal ignorance <br />to the known contamitimts that will be Eauid on the site: Then. further user such hrclr of <br />1.3a knowledge to elevate Allenmtive 2; Option A over the other ahemetives which have their.. <br />hazardous materials ck~arcy delineated and evaluated. It would be prudent to eracuete the <br />AutoCraft site and then reopen the EIS process to include that information in a <br />comparative evahiation to then accurately determine the,preferred emvomtzental site.. <br />CONCLUSION <br />In order to fiilly evalusae all ofthe oatnmt fast akernatives, andmstrro ilia public's, as <br />well as otter govmmu:nfal entities', conurrems are adequately received and evaluated, <br />the GSA shoukt do the following: <br />1. Delay its January I8, 2001 date for a Record of Decision on the eourthouse <br />prom <br />2. Obtain as quickly as posss96ie a plisse I emironrt~otal assessment on the <br />AukoCraft property a~ ittclode that information is a sappk~rental NEPA <br />1.35. document, available Sn public conwem. <br />3. Cordoct or inbhtde, it'done, the foil comparative analysis between the <br />Aherriative 1 s~ Ahemative 2 sites and iachrde such detailed analysis inthe <br />supplemental NEPA doctmrent. <br />4. -After the compktc information is known amt craica0y evacuated; then make <br />the preferred aaemative decision on the preferred enviromnental coutthorisc <br />site. <br />5. Inuhrde in the FEIS a full discussion of how arty sne noar lire rarlroad tracks <br />meets the standards set oat in the united states Coarts Des;mr Guide w}ien <br />other saes farther Sum the rar~coad tracks have heerr found umcceptabk. <br />Thanlr you for your wnsideration of this information. The City of Spriog&ekl is <br />submitting as Soal offer wader separate covef by separate letter. <br />.' <br />sincerely, yy <br />tdney . Lh~'i/Verr <br />c: John.Blund, Public Buadiogs service <br />s <br />of knowledge," as claimed in the comment. <br />The GSA has recently conducted a site investigation <br />of the AutoCraft property, including a phase II <br />hazardous materials investigation. The phase II <br />analysis did not conclude that contamination was <br />present above action levels on the AutoCraft <br />property. The draft and final EIS identified the past <br />and current uses of the AutoCraft site and stated that <br />it is a potential release site and an azea of concern. <br />This information provides the public with the <br />opportunity to comment on the merits of the project <br />alternatives. A supplemental NEPA document is not <br />warranted. <br />The draft and final EIS provided a full compazative <br />evaluation of the alternative sites and included <br />detailed analyses. <br />Preparation of a supplemental EIS would not provide <br />substantive new information. <br />The closest edge of the proposed facility at the <br />Chiquita site would be approximately 250 feet away <br />from the railroad tracks, which would not affect the <br />facility. Additional information is not needed to <br />evaluate the facility vie-a-vie the rain-nerd. <br />1.35--In order to evaluate the large number of <br />comments received after publication of the final EIS, <br />the GSA delayed issuance of the record of decision. <br />