[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 155 (Friday, August 9, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41630-41633]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-20176]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
Record of Decision, U.S. Courthouse Annex, Savannah, Georgia
Action
This is the Record of Decision (ROD) for the construction of a
Courthouse Annex (Annex) in Savannah, Georgia. The proposed Annex will
contain between 165,000 and 180,000 occupiable square feet (osf) of
space including office space, courtrooms, storage space, and special
space. The project may also include 40 secured inside parking spaces.
The proposed Annex is intended to meet 10-year requirements and the 30-
year expansion needs of the U.S. Courts and related agencies in
conjunction with the continued use of the existing Federal Building
Courthouse (FB-CT).
Pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) of 1969, the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations
(40 CFR Part 1500-1508), General Services Administration (GSA) Order
PBS R 1095.4B, GSA conducted an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
for this proposed action. The purpose of the EIS was to identify the
potential impacts resulting from this project. The EIS examined the
alternatives to the proposed action and the impacts of the alternatives
considered. The EIS also addressed mitigation of the adverse impacts.
GSA has made every effort to identify and take into account all of the
concerns expressed about undertaking this proposed action.
The Draft EIS was released for 45 days of public comment February
28. The Final EIS was released for 30 days of public comment ending on
May 28. In addition, notice was provided in the Federal Register, the
Savannah News Press, and through direct mail. Approximately 150 copies
of the Draft and the Final EIS were distributed for comment using a
mailing list of interested parties accumulated through the two years
this project has been in the planning stage.
Public participation was accomplished through notices in the
Savannah News Press, the Federal Register, direct mail, public
meetings, and through regular meetings with stakeholders beginning in
April 1994. GSA recognized early the potential for negative impacts
from this project, and maintaining an ongoing dialogue with the local
community to take their concerns into account.
In April 1994, GSA began the preparation of an EIS and a Cultural
Resource Assessment (CRA). At the same time, as required by Section 106
of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), GSA initiated
consultation with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP),
the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) as well as local
preservation interests.
GSA implemented the Section 106 Review process for the proposed
Annex concurrently with the implementation of NEPA. In order to
determine how this proposed action could affect historic properties,
the CRA documented potentially impacted cultural resources. The CRA
provided an in-depth evaluation of seven potential sites under initial
consideration for the Annex. An architectural history survey was
completed for each of the potential sites. A larger Area of Potential
Effect (APE) surrounding each of the sites was also examined. An
archeological assessment was accomplished through compilation and
review of existing archaeological historic documentation and previously
conducted fieldwork and reports on Savannah.
The CRA reviewed the documentation for each of the seven sites and
identified preservation concerns. This document provided a
comprehensive review of historic resources located on and around each
site. This became the basis for analysis of impacts to historic
resources in the EIS.
GSA solicited comments at five public meetings conducted from
August 1994 through March 1996. In addition, eleven meetings were held
with local organizations and stakeholders to solicit comments and
address concerns. These participating organizations included the City
of Savannah, Historic Savannah Foundation, the Savannah Development and
Renewal Authority, the SHPO, the Georgia Trust for Historic
Preservation, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and the
ACHP.
The Delineated Area (DA) for the Annex was located within the
Central Business Area (CBA) and defined as the area surrounded by Bay
Street on the North, Liberty Street on the South, Martin Luther King
Boulevard on the West, and East Broad on the East.
From April through November 1994, GSA actively solicited alternate
sites through a series of advertisements in the Savannah News Press,
meetings with local stakeholders, and an ``open house'' to receive site
offers on June 28, 1994. No sites were offered. GSA also conducted a
windshield survey and identified additional sites for consideration
that appeared feasible. At a public meeting on December 6, 1994, GSA
identified a total of nine sites within the DA for initial
consideration as potential locations for the Annex. Five of the sites
were adjacent to the existing FB-CT and four were non-adjacent sites.
In developing a site selection criteria for ranking prospective
sites, GSA developed technical and operational criteria. The courts
expressed strong preference for an adjacent site for security and
operational reasons, but this did not preclude the consideration of
non-adjacent sites. This criteria was developed at the beginning of the
site selection process in April 1994 and used throughout the process to
rank and screen potential sites.
[[Page 41631]]
Utilizing this site selection criteria, two of the four non-
adjacent sites were screened from consideration for technical reasons
on October 25, 1994 and February 16, 1995, respectively.
On August 8, 1994, GSA announced in the Commerce Business Daily a
solicitation for an architect-engineer to provide professional services
to GSA in support of site selection for the proposed Annex. On March 1,
1995, GSA selected Robert Stern as the lead project architect. The team
of design consultants included the project architect, a courts
consultant, a cost consultant, the principal architect-engineer, and a
local Savannah architect.
The initial scope of work tasked the design consultants to focus
its analysis on the seven sites that had been identified by GSA: Five
sites adjacent to the FB-CT and two non-adjacent sites. The consultants
were also tasked to analyze the technical and operational feasibility
of each site and provide recommendations to GSA to assist with site
selection.
The Scope of Work was accomplished by the Design Consultants
beginning in July and concluding November 8, 1995. The task consisted
of four phases:
Phase 1 Data Collection: The Design Consultants collected and
reviewed existing information, local guidelines, regulations, and
standards. Information developed by GSA's EIS and CRA was provided
along with transcripts from the public meetings and all correspondence
received during the scoping process. A public meeting to solicit input
was conducted on July 12, 1995 by the architect.
Phase 2: Program Verification and Site Analysis: This analyzed each
remaining alternative site based on the 10-year needs and 30-year
expansion requirements of the Courts. Tenant agencies were interviewed
to verify requirements. Sites were analyzed based on the site selection
criteria. Analysis of the feasibility of the reuse of the existing
Juliette Gordon Low (JGL) Federal Buildings was completed.
Phase 3: Programmatic Master Planning: The Consultants tabulated
the program elements and allocated functions between the FB-CT and the
Annex. The program fit and space requirements were identified. Required
adjacencies and duplications of functions were outlined for each
potential site
Phase 4 Conceptual Pre-design Analysis: The pre-design analysis
examined and development options for all of the remaining sites.
Volumetric analysis was conducted for each site based on interior
layouts and interior ceiling height requirements. Block and stack
concepts were developed showing mass, scale and contextual fit. Three
successive stages of analysis were performed and 29 initial concepts
were screened to 13 and finally to six concepts. On November 8, 1996,
the relative merits of each of the six concepts, along with final
recommendations, were presented to GSA by the design consultants.
On November 20, 1995, based on analyses provided by the Design
Consultants, GSA's site selection team ranked and screened the
remaining concepts. Four concepts and three siting options were
identified as most feasible options for further study. These four
concepts became the alternatives considered for full analysis in the
EIS.
Alternatives Considered
GSA received authorization to begin the site selection process on
March 15, 1994. At that time the GSA preferred alternative site was the
City block surrounded by Bull, Broughton, State and Whitaker Streets,
also known as site 1A. GSA met with local representatives on April 5,
1994. Local concerns were expressed about the GSA preferred site
because it would adversely impact historic buildings, the City plan
designed by General James Oglethorpe in 1733, and Savannah's nomination
as a World Heritage Site.
From the initial nine potential sites within the DA that were
identified from April through December 1994, two were screened for
technical reasons. The remaining seven sites were analyzed by the
Design Consultants. After the siting feasibility study was completed,
GSA screened the two non-adjacent sites for technical and operational
reasons. This left three sites and four concept options remaining as
the Alternatives considered in the EIS.
In addition to these, the No Action Alternative was also analyzed
in the EIS.
No-Action: Under this alternative, agencies slated for relocation
into the Annex would remain in their current locations and additional
space requirements would be satisfied by leasing action. No
construction would occur to address the Courts' expansion requirements.
Additional courtrooms would be provided in nearby leased buildings and
the judiciary would accomplish its expansion needs through a series of
ad hoc lease acquisitions. The courts and related agencies would become
fragmented and over time, and they would face serious problems with
efficiency and security.
Alternative 1--Site 1E--Construction of One Building (GSA Preferred
Alternative): Under this siting alternative, GSA would construct a
single building of 165,000 osf, on the two trust lots currently
occupied by the JGL Buildings A & B. The existing buildings would be
demolished and the Annex footprint would cover both of the trust lots
and President Street between Buildings A & B. The mass and scale of
this Annex would be of similar proportions to the existing FB-CT, and a
tunnel connection between the Annex and the FB-CT would be constructed
under Whitaker Street. Forty secure parking spaces would be provided
either in the basement, or in JGL Building C with a tunnel connection
under York Street.
Alternative 2--Site 1E--Construction of Two Buildings: Under this
option, two larger and less efficient buildings approximately of
180,000 osf would be constructed on the trust two lots. President
Street would be retained for pedestrian traffic. Because of the
required duplication and inefficiency of constructing two buildings,
each building would be approximately 60 feet taller than the existing
FB-CT. Secured parking would be provided either in the basement, or in
JGL Building C with a tunnel connection under York Street.
Alternative 3--Site 1D--Construction of One Building: Under this
option, GSA would construct a single building on the site of the JGL
Building C currently housing the Corps of Engineers. This alternative
would require the demolition of the existing JGL Building C with the
exception of the underground parking, part of existing structural
support, and the elevator core. This alternative would provide 173,000
osf on three floors reaching 58 feet high, or ten feet higher than the
existing FB-CT.
Alternative 4--Site 1A--Construction of One Building: Under this
alternative the Annex would be constructed on the City block surrounded
by Broughton, Bull, State and Whitaker Streets. The building would have
166,000 osf above grade and connect with the existing FB-CT through a
tunnel constructed under State Street with secure parking below grade.
It would require the demolition of 14 buildings that contribute to the
NHLD. The two historic buildings facing Bull Street would be retained.
Broughton Lane would be closed retaining only that portion between the
two historic buildings remaining on Bull Street. The building would be
four stories tall facing Broughton Street and six stories tall facing
State Street.
Issues of Concern: The concerns expressed about this project were
the potential adverse effects to Savannah's
[[Page 41632]]
National Historic Landmark District (NHLD). Savannah's NHLD is
currently listed as Endangered Priority 2 by the National Park Service.
This Endangered status has been caused by the cumulative addition of
incompatible buildings, the cumulative demolition of historic
buildings, and cumulative alterations to the Oglethorpe Plan. Concerns
were also expressed about the potential impact to Savannah's nomination
as a World Heritage Site.
Specific requests were also expressed that GSA should: not demolish
any historic or contributing buildings, should not alter the Oglethorpe
Plan, and the Annex should be compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood in terms of mass, scale, materials, context, fit, and
design. Concerns were expressed that the Annex could create a ``dead
zone'' around Telfair Square during non-business hours. Additional
concerns were the project's negative impact on the current parking
shortages downtown, the potential relocation of the U.S. Post Office
outside downtown, the potential loss of Federal employees downtown
displaced by this project, and potential negative impacts to the City's
efforts to revitalize the Broughton Street retail corridor.
The NHLD is a critical designation for the City of Savannah and
contributes to both the tourist economy of the City, and to the quality
of life within the City itself. Concerns focused on the potential
negative impact that this proposed action could have on the sensitive
and fragile nature of the NHLD and neighborhoods if local concerns are
not taken into account during the planning and design of the Annex.
Environmental Consequences and Mitigation
No Action Alternative: While the No Action alternative would have
no impact on the natural environment, it would result in the continued
inefficient housing of Federal Courts and would have long-term impacts
as the Courts outgrow their current space. Security and efficiency
would be compromised as the Courts 10-year requirements and 30-year
expansion needs would not be met in a single facility. As the Courts
requirements for space increases over time, housing the Court's
functions in non-adjacent buildings would occur in the vicinity of the
FB-CT. This leasing of space could ultimately impact other historic
buildings as leasehold alterations are made to accommodate Court needs.
The No Action Alternative could ultimately cause the U.S. Courts to
look outside the CBA for their space needs. The loss of the Federal
Courts downtown would have a negative impact to Savannah's NHLD.
Summary of Construction Alternatives: Considering the four
alternatives that involve the construction of an Annex, all of the
alternatives would have little or no long-term impact on the natural
environment. There would be minimal or no impact to the following
categories: Housing, Open Space and Recreation Facilities, Utilities
and City Services, Subsurface and Geological Conditions, Vegetation and
Wildlife, Natural Hazards, Ambient Air Quality, Ambient Noise, Natural
or Depletable Resources, and Hazardous Substances or Contamination. All
of the construction alternatives are in substantial compliance with
City zoning requirements. Potential archaeological disturbance is not
likely except for Site 1-A, and all appropriate regulations and
procedures would be followed if archaeological resources are found
during construction. Sites 1-C and 1-D have been previously disturbed.
All of the construction alternatives will produce temporary
negative impacts during construction. These impacts would be short term
and would include disruptions due to increased noise levels, increased
dust and emissions, disruptions due to temporary street closures,
construction related traffic, and temporary loss of utility services.
These impacts would be minimized through proper construction mitigation
techniques and with good advance planning. By working closely with the
City, unavoidable disruptions during the two year construction phase
could be minimized but not totally avoided.
Alternative 1--Site 1E--Construction of One Building (GSA Preferred
Alternative): This alternative would involve the demolition of the JGL
Buildings A & B and constructing an Annex of 165,000 osf on the entire
site including President Street. This would remove that portion of
President Street which is part of the Oglethorpe Plan. This loss would
be unavoidable and only partially mitigated through design
considerations. This alternative replaces two smaller buildings which
are in proportion with surrounding buildings, with a larger Annex of
similar mass to the current FB-CT. This additional mass and the loss of
that section of President Street will cause some negative visual
impacts. These cumulative impacts could affect the status of the NHLD.
This alternative would demolish two 27,000 osf government-owned
buildings that would have remaining economic life. This alternative
would also require the relocation of 145 employees currently housed in
buildings A and B.
Alternative 2--Site 1E--Construction of Two Buildings: Under this
alternative an Annex of 180,000 osf would be constructed on two trust
lots leaving President Street open to pedestrian traffic. These
buildings would be substantially taller than the current FB-CT and
would be out of context on that site in terms of the mass and scale.
This alternative would demolish two government-owned buildings that
have remaining economic life. This would have the same negative impacts
as Alternative 1 and potentially affect the status of the NHLD. This
alternative would also require the relocation of 145 employees
currently housed in buildings A and B.
Alternative 3--Site 1D--Construction of One Building: Under this
alternative, GSA would demolish all of the JGL Building C except the
elevator core, the basement parking, and part of the structural
support. No historic buildings would be demolished and no alterations
to the Oglethorpe Plan would occur. This alternative would demolish a
145,000 osf government-owned building that has remaining economic life.
This alternative may have positive impacts on the NHLD if the new Annex
is more visually compatible with the surrounding neighborhood than the
current JGL Building C.
This alternative would require the relocation of 714 Corps of
Engineer employees. This action itself would cause additional impacts.
If these employees were relocated within the NHLD, adverse impacts are
likely depending on the location selected and whether leasing or new
construction was the selected acquisition. If this action caused these
employees to relocate outside Savannah's NHLD, or to relocate outside
Savannah altogether, adverse economic impacts to the NHLD would occur
due to the loss of employment within the City. These future potential
impacts cannot be accurately measured until alternative courses of
action are identified and considered.
Alternative 4--Site 1A--Construction of One Building: Under this
alternative, a single building Annex would be constructed on Broughton
Street. Broughton Lane would be permanently lost and 14 contributing
buildings would be demolished. The Broughton Street Revitalization
program would be severely impacted by removing a block of commercial
buildings creating a retail ``dead zone''. Two historic buildings would
be preserved on Bull Street between Broughton Street and State Street,
and that portion of Broughton
[[Page 41633]]
Lane between the buildings would be retained. This alternative would
cause adverse effects to Savannah's historic resources and could have
negative impacts to the status of the NHLD.
Mitigation of Cultural and Historic Resources. In order to mitigate
and minimize the impacts that have been identified, GSA will continue
to consult with the local community, the SHPO, the ACHP, the NPS, as
well as other preservation groups that have been identified. This
consultation will lead to the development and ultimate signing of a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between GSA and the consulted parties
including the SHPO, the ACHP, the NPS, pursuant to 36 CFR 800.5(e) and
800.10, which are the implementing regulations of the National Historic
Preservation Act. The stipulations of the MOA will identify elements of
the mitigation plan which GSA will implement.
The mitigation plan will identify the elements that GSA will
implement to mitigate impacts to historic resources. It will address
the stages of design review and will identify elements of new
construction that are compatible with the historic and architectural
qualities of the NHLD. It will address the issues of scale, massing,
and materials, and will be responsive to the Secretary of Interior's
Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic
Buildings. GSA recognizes that concerns have been expressed by the NPS
and others about the mass and scale of the proposed Annex. GSA is
committed to reduce the mass above grade of the Annex to the greatest
extent practical.
The City of Savannah has established a committee to work closely
with GSA to identify issues and maintain a climate of cooperation
throughout this project. GSA has committed to work with this committee
and to participate in regular meetings to address issues and to keep
the lines of communication open.
The City has identified three additional issues of concern about
this project: exacerbation of parking shortages, the potential loss of
the U.S. Post Office downtown, and the potential loss of federal
employment downtown due to relocation caused by this proposed Annex.
As mitigation, GSA has committed to cooperate with the City's
effort to development of a perimeter parking and shuttle system. GSA
committed to assist the City in their efforts to find a suitable
downtown location for the U.S. Post Office. GSA has committed to keep
federal agencies that are relocated as a result of this project within
the CBA of Savannah.
Rationale for Decision
The proposed project will meet the 10-year requirements and 30-year
expansion needs of the U.S Courts in Savannah, Georgia. The proposed
construction will result in a one-time consumption of non-renewable
resources including land, energy and materials. Certain negative
environmental impacts will occur regardless of the alternative
selected.
The technically and operationally preferred alternative, which is
also the GSA preferred alternative, is the construction of a single
building on site 1-E. This technically preferred alternative best meets
the projects objectives and criteria as recommended by the design
consultants.
The alternative with the greatest adverse impact to the NHLD is
Alternative 5, site 1-A, because it would demolish 14 historic
buildings and permanently close Broughton Lane. It would also impact
the City's efforts to revitalize the Broughton Street retail corridor.
The alternative with the least environmental impact would be
Alternative 4; a single building on site 1-D. This alternative would
require no loss of historic resources, however it would cause a major
agency relocation within the NHLD as 714 U.S. Army Corps of Engineer
employees would be displaced. Additionally, JGL Building C, with
145,000 osf of government-owned space, would be mostly demolished with
useful economic life remaining.
Therefore, giving consideration to all of the factors discovered
during the two year environmental process, it is the decision to
proceed with the GSA preferred alternative, which is the demolition of
JGL Buildings A & B, and the construction of a single Courthouse Annex
of 165,000 osf on site 1-E, adjacent to the FB-CT in Savannah, Georgia.
Approved: July 16, 1996.
Carole Dortch,
Regional Administrator (4A).
Dated: July 24, 1996.
Phil Youngberg,
Regional Environmental Officer (4PT).
[FR Doc. 96-20176 Filed 8-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-23-M