Record of Decision, U.S. Courthouse Annex, Savannah, Georgia

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