OBG

Environmental Assessment

Proposed Federal Courthouse Anniston, Alabama

General Services Administration 77 Forsyth Street Atlanta, GA 30303

September 12, 2017

PROPOSED FEDERAL COURTHOUSE, ANNISTON, AL│ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents...... ii 1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Project Background ...... 1 1.2 The NEPA Process ...... 2 2 Description of Proposed Action, Purpose, and Need ...... 3 2.1 Proposed Action ...... 3 2.2 Purpose of the Proposed Action...... 3 2.3 Need for the Proposed Action ...... 3 3 Description of Alternatives ...... 4 3.1 Alternatives Considered ...... 4 3.2 Site selection criteria ...... 4 3.2.1 Minimally Responsive Criteria ...... 4 3.2.2 Technical Criteria ...... 5 3.2.3 Cost Criteria ...... 5 3.3 Screening of Alternatives ...... 6 3.4 Alternatives Evaluated in Detail ...... 7 3.4.1 Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative ...... 8 3.4.2 Alternative 2 – Construction at Block 148, the City Hall Site...... 8 3.4.3 Alternative 3 – Construction at the Block 149 Site ...... 8 3.4.4 Alternative 4 – Construction at the Block 151/159 Site ...... 8 3.5 Public and Institutional Comments ...... 8 4 Affected Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures ...... 11 4.1 Physical Characteristics ...... 11 4.1.1 Floodplain Determination ...... 11 4.1.2 Hydrology Study for Constructability ...... 13 4.2 Socioeconomic/Land Use ...... 14 4.2.1 Comprehensive Planning ...... 14 4.2.2 Economic and Employment Activities ...... 15 4.2.3 Environmental Justice ...... 16 4.3 Community Services ...... 18 4.3.1 Court Security ...... 18 4.4 Cultural Resources ...... 19 4.4.1 Existing Conditions ...... 19 4.4.2 Criteria of Evaluation ...... 19 4.4.3 Impacts and Significance of Effects ...... 19 4.4.4 Mitigation ...... 20 4.5 Transportation and Parking ...... 21 4.5.1 Parking ...... 21 4.5.2 Pedestrian and Bicycle Access ...... 22 4.6 Site Contamination/Hazardous Waste ...... 24 4.6.1 Existing Conditions ...... 24 4.6.2 Criteria of Evaluation ...... 24

OBG, SEPTEMBER 12 , 201 7 | PRE-FINAL| II

PROPOSED FEDERAL COURTHOUSE, ANNISTON, AL│ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

4.6.3 Impacts and Significance of Effects ...... 24 4.6.4 Mitigation ...... 26 4.7 Existing Conditions that will not be Impacted ...... 26 4.8 Cumulative Impacts ...... 27 4.8.1 Land Use ...... 27 4.8.2 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice ...... 27 4.8.3 Transportation and Parking ...... 28 4.8.4 Public Services and Utilities ...... 28 4.8.5 Water Resources ...... 28 4.8.6 Air Quality and Noise ...... 28 4.9 Summary of Impacts ...... 28 4.9.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative ...... 28 4.9.2 Alternative 2 – Construction at City Hall Site ...... 28 4.9.3 Alternative 3 – Construction at Block 149 Site ...... 29 4.9.4 Alternative 4 – Construction at Block 151/159 Site ...... 29 5 References ...... 31 6 List of Preparers ...... 33 7 Agencies, Officials, and others that received the ENvironmental Assessment or Announcement ...... 34 7.1 U.S. Congressional Delegation ...... 34 7.1.1 U.S. Senators ...... 34 7.2 State of Alabama Elected Officials...... 34 7.2.1 Governor’s Office ...... 34 7.3 State Senator and Representative ...... 34 7.4 Federal Agencies ...... 34 7.5 State of Alabama Agencies and Preservation Groups ...... 34 7.6 City of Anniston and Calhoun County Officials and Agencies ...... 35 7.7 Client Agencies ...... 36 7.8 Other Interested Parties ...... 36 8 Figures ...... 38 8.1 Figure 1 – Project Location ...... 38 8.2 Figure 2 – Urban Core and Zoning ...... 39 8.3 Figure 3 – Historic Resource Map ...... 40 8.4 Figure 4 – Site Locations ...... 41 8.5 Figure 5 – FEMA Floodplain Map with Site Locations ...... 43 8.6 Figure 6 – Topographic Map with Site Locations ...... 44

OBG, SEPTEMBER 12 , 201 7 | PRE-FINAL| III

PROPOSED FEDERAL COURTHOUSE, ANNISTON, AL│ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Tables Table 1-1. Chronology of Site Selection and NEPA Consultation Table 3-1. Summary of Sites considered and screened Table 3-2. Comments received during the Public Comment Period Table 4-1. Comparison of Anticipated Impacts Figures – located at the end of Report (see Figures Tab) Figure 1 – Project Location Map Figure 2 – Urban Core, Anniston, Alabama Figure 3 – Downtown Anniston Historic District Boundary Figure 4 – GSA Short-List Site Locations Figure 5 – FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map Figure 6 – Topographic Map Appendices Appendix A – Transcript of the Public Meeting held on December 21, 2016 Appendix B – Copies of Newspaper Articles Appendix C – Agency Correspondence Appendix D – Citizen Correspondence Appendix E – Hydrology Study for Constructability Appendix F – Cultural Resources Assessment Appendix G – Site Security Assessment Appendix H – Phase I Environmental Site Assessments

OBG, SEPTEMBER 12 , 201 7 | PRE-FINAL| IV

PROPOSED FEDERAL COURTHOUSE, ANNISTON, AL│ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND O’Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. (OBG) has prepared this National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Environmental Assessment (EA) on behalf of the General Services Administration (GSA) to identify and address potential onsite and offsite environmental impacts associated with the proposed site acquisition and construction of a new Federal Courthouse for the Northern District of Alabama, Eastern Division in Anniston, Alabama (Figure 1). The current U.S. District Court and court-related agencies occupy space in two separate buildings and do not meet the current United States Court Design Guide (USCDG) or court security requirements. The proposed courthouse will be located within the Urban Core of Anniston (Figure 2); consist of approximately 63,000 gross square feet (gsf); and include two courtrooms, three chambers, and thirteen secured and enclosed parking spaces. The initial identification of need for a new Courthouse in Anniston and consultation with the City of Anniston occurred in the mid-1990s. Formal discussions with the City commenced in 2004 and 2005, and led to the execution of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the City of Anniston to acquire the City Hall Site (i.e., Block 148) for the new courthouse. As part of the NEPA process, GSA solicited comments on the Proposed Action through a mailing conducted on July 22, 2005. In addition, a public meeting was held by the Anniston City Council on March 21, 2005. Several newspaper articles about the project were published by the Anniston Star newspaper in March 2005. After the discovery that the City Hall Site was located within a floodplain, GSA began a new site selection process, as required by Executive Order (E.O.) 11988. A notice seeking sites was published in the Anniston Star in August 2008. Several sites were submitted to GSA for consideration. After undergoing a site screening process, three sites (including the original City Hall Site) were retained for further evaluation. GSA again solicited comments on the Proposed Action through a mailing conducted on February 13, 2009, and a public meeting held on March 9, 2009. An EA was prepared on July 9, 2009. A site was not acquired at that time, due to unavailability of funding and Courthouse Construction Moratorium. Congress appropriated funds to build the courthouse in Anniston in 2016; therefore, the site selection process is being reevaluated herein. Section 106 consultations were reinitiated with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) on November 17, 2016. A chronology of the events in the site selection process is provided in Table 1-1. Table 1- 1. Chronology of Site Selection and NEPA Consultation

Date Event Fiscal Year 2004 Funds allocated to GSA for site selection and design Public meeting by Anniston City Council to discuss the use of City Hall site for the new 3/21/2005 Federal Courthouse Scoping letters mailed to community for 30-day public comment period regarding use of City 7/22/2005 Hall Site Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between GSA and City of Anniston regarding use of the 9/27/2005 City Hall Site signed 10/2005 NEPA process put on hold due to the discovery that the City Hall Site is located in a floodplain 9/01/2008 MOA cancelled by GSA Feasibility Study issued by GSA rejected expansion of the existing building and included 11/2007 preliminary evaluation of Union Depot and Library sites 7/17/2008 Meeting with GSA, City, and stakeholders regarding project status 8/01/2008 Notice seeking sites published in Anniston Star 10/08/2008 GSA open house and stakeholder meetings regarding site selection 11/17/2008 Meeting with GSA, City and stakeholders announcing short list of sites to be evaluated

OBG, SEPTEMBER 12 , 201 7 | PRE-FINAL| 1

PROPOSED FEDERAL COURTHOUSE, ANNISTON, AL│ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Date Event 11/17/2008 NEPA process begins evaluation of additional sites 2/13/2009 Scoping letters mailed to community for 30-day public comment period 2/08/2009 Advertise public meeting 3/09/2009 Public meeting held EA issued by BAT Associates, Inc. NEPA process put on hold due to changes in courthouse 7/09/2009 requirements and unavailability of funding 2016 Congress appropriated funds to build a courthouse in Anniston, AL 5/28/2016 Notice seeking sites published in Anniston Star 6/29/2016 GSA open house and stakeholder meetings regarding site selection 10/07/2016 Short listed sites finalized 11/17/2016 GSA reinitiates Section 106 consultations with SHPO 12/07/2016 Scoping letters mailed to community 12/10/2016 – Advertise public meeting 12/11/2016 12/21/2016 Public meeting held – See Appendix A for meeting transcript. TBD EA/Potential Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) issued – Site decision by GSA TBD Site Selected 1.2 THE NEPA PROCESS The NEPA process requires federal agencies to take into account the potential consequences of their actions on both the natural and human environments as part of their planning and decision-making processes. In order to facilitate these considerations, a number of typical actions that have been determined to have little or no potential for adverse impacts are “categorically excluded” (CATEX) from the detailed NEPA assessment process. Thus, the first step in determining if an action would have an adverse effect on the environment is to assess whether it fits into a defined category for which a CATEX is applicable. If a CATEX is applied, the agency prepares a Record of Categorical Exclusion to document the decision and proceeds with the action. For actions that are not subject to a CATEX, the agency prepares an EA to determine the potential for significant impacts. If the results of the EA indicate that no significant impacts would occur as a result of the action, then the determination is formalized in a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The agency circulates the EA and publicizes the FONSI. The NEPA process is complete when the FONSI is executed. If significant adverse environmental impacts are indicated or other intervening circumstances exist, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) may be prepared. An EIS is a more intensive study of the effects of the actions, and includes more rigorous public involvement requirements. The agency formalizes its EIS decisions in a Record of Decision (ROD). The NEPA process is complete following a 30-day final comment period after publication of the ROD in the Federal Register. GSA will be consulting under Section106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 54 U.S.C. 300101 et seq. and intends to partially fulfill the Section 106 public notification and consultation requirements through the NEPA scoping process.

OBG, SEPTEMBER 12 , 201 7 | PRE-FINAL| 2

PROPOSED FEDERAL COURTHOUSE, ANNISTON, AL│ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION, PURPOSE, AND NEED

2.1 PROPOSED ACTION The GSA’s Proposed Action is to acquire a site within the Urban Core of Anniston, Alabama, and construct a new courthouse for the Northern District of Alabama, Eastern Division. This courthouse will consist of approximately 63,000 gsf and will include thirteen secure enclosed parking spaces. The total size requirement for this site is 3 acres. This includes the above-described facility, plus sufficient space for external parking and the appropriate set-back distance from surrounding streets/buildings. 2.2 PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The purpose of the Proposed Action is to meet the courts’ expansion needs and improve operational efficiency and judicial security. The new courthouse would include two courtrooms in order to meet the existing and 10-year space requirements for the U.S. District Court, Magistrate Court, and Bankruptcy Court; and provide space for the co- location of tenants, including the U.S. Marshal Service, and U.S. Attorney. In addition to consolidating court services, the project would provide for the expansion of facilities to meet the projected 30-year requirements. It would also address security and productivity issues by replacing facilities that have no room for expansion. 2.3 NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION The existing Federal Courthouse, constructed in 1906 and expanded in 1935, is overcrowded, does not meet the USCDG standards, does not provide for future expansion, lacks a holding cell for custodial defendants and/or witnesses, and lacks adequate security. The existing Federal Courthouse does not provide room for the current space needs nor the anticipated 30-year expansion. Due to inadequate and non-functional space in the existing courthouse, the bankruptcy administrative function currently leases approximately 9,000 square feet (sf) of space in a building three blocks away. The separation of staff functions and the lack of a secure physical connection between the locations have created serious functional inefficiencies, security concerns, and productivity issues. The existing courthouse also does not meet the current standard security requirements for new courthouses (e.g., separate access to the courthouse by judicial officers and prisoners, as well as secure elevators and parking).

OBG, SEPTEMBER 12 , 201 7 | PRE-FINAL| 3

PROPOSED FEDERAL COURTHOUSE, ANNISTON, AL│ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

3 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

3.1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED The Council on Environmental Quality regulations (related to the preparation of NEPA documents) provides for an analysis of alternatives [Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 1502.14 (40 CFR 1502.14)], including:  An objective evaluation of all “reasonable” alternatives and discussion of reasons for eliminating alternatives that were not subjected to detailed study;  Substantial treatment of each alternative selected for detailed study, so that reviewers may evaluate their comparative merits;  Consideration of reasonable alternatives;  The alternative of taking No Action;  The identification of the GSA’s preferred alternative, if known; and  Identification of appropriate mitigation measures. GSA has developed a project site plan that, once implemented, will meet the operational and security needs of the Court, while providing benefits to the City of Anniston. GSA will work to mitigate adverse impacts that may result from the new courthouse. The plan will also seek to mitigate adverse impacts to the Downtown Anniston Historic District (Figure 3). This chapter describes the process followed to identify and screen eight alternative site configurations to determine which of these sites would best meet the purpose and need based on the site criteria established for the project. Four alternatives (including no action) were identified for detailed evaluation. 3.2 SITE SELECTION CRITERIA Site selection criteria are developed for GSA construction projects prior to the site selection process. The following paragraphs describe the criteria used for this project. The Delineated Area (DA) for this project was defined as the Urban Core of Anniston, which is bound, in general, by East 15th Street to the north, East 9th Street to the south, Wilmer Avenue to the east, and Grove Street to the west. By Executive Order (E.O.) 12072, federal agencies are required to give first consideration to central business districts, or in this case the Urban Core, when they meet the established size requirements. Unless compelling justification is demonstrated otherwise, as a matter of policy, GSA locates courts and court-related agencies downtown, in close proximity to other city, county, state and federal government facilities. The primary criteria for the project were that the site must be located within the DA, and that the site must be of sufficient size to provide approximately 63,000 gsf of office space and a set-back area that meets Interagency Security Committee (ISC) standards. These and other site criteria are listed below. However, this list is not exhaustive, and other considerations related to specific onsite and/or offsite conditions are presented in the discussions in Section 3.3. 3.2.1 Minimally Responsive Criteria  Site must be located within the defined DA, which is the Anniston Urban Core  Site must be of sufficient size and shape to provide approximately 63,000 gsf of office space (including thirteen enclosed parking spaces) and the appropriate set-back distance of 50-feet (totaling an approximately 3 acre site)  Owner(s) must possess a fee-simple, marketable title  Site must be available within the required timeframe

OBG, SEPTEMBER 12 , 201 7 | PRE-FINAL| 4

PROPOSED FEDERAL COURTHOUSE, ANNISTON, AL│ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

3.2.2 Technical Criteria  Site must be suitable for the construction of a facility that meets client needs, as outlined in Massing Test Fits (a floor plan used to confirm that needs and requirements can be accommodated within a specific space), USCDG (as defined in Section 1.1), and Prospectus (a printed statement that describes the space and is sent to prospective buyers, investors, or participants). These are: » Adequate for Court’s 10-year housing needs, expandable to 30-year housing needs » Capable of meeting Court’s mission » Provide a suitable environment for agency and employees » Provide convenience to the public » Adequate space for parking, maneuvering, and security of motor vehicles  Compatible with local comprehensive plans (E.O. 12072)  Compatible with the GSA Sustainable Location index (SLI) criteria and E.O. 13693  Sufficient land area to accommodate 50-foot perimeter security setbacks  Proximity to local amenities (restaurants, retail, parking and other governmental facilities)  Site must have acceptable seismic, floodplain, soil, topographic and foundation conditions to allow construction  Sites will be evaluated in accordance with NEPA to determine the impacts on the environment. Areas of consideration will include: » Parking and traffic (ingress and egress) » Commercial sector and businesses » Historic properties (E.O. 13006) » NHPA as amended, 54 U.S.C. 300101 » Community infrastructure » Surrounding neighborhoods » Natural resources (i.e., plants and animals) » Geology, hydrology, topography, floodplains, wetlands » Local economy » Hazardous conditions or substances » Accessibility for the public, employees, and client personnel » Public and private utilities » Climate change 3.2.3 Cost Criteria  Total site cost must be within authorized funding limitation  Nature and number of onsite improvements/tenants will be considered, such as: » Removal/Demolition/Reuse of existing structures » Removal of hazardous materials » Relocation of business and residential occupants

OBG, SEPTEMBER 12 , 201 7 | PRE-FINAL| 5

PROPOSED FEDERAL COURTHOUSE, ANNISTON, AL│ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 Site preparation costs (on and off-site; i.e., excavation, fill, pile foundations, floodplain mitigation, utility relocations, etc.)  Site must represent overall best value to the Government 3.3 SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES GSA applied the preceding criteria to evaluate several sites that were identified for the Proposed Action. The GSA began its site investigation process on April 7, 2016, and ultimately identified and evaluated eight sites. Two of these sites (Block 148 and Block 149) were offered to the GSA in response to a GSA advertisement seeking Expressions of Interest, dated May 28, 2016. One site (Block 146) was suggested by a private individual during an open house event on June 29, 2016. The remaining five sites (Blocks 206, 151/159, 132, 1, and 131) were self-identified by members of the GSA Site Investigation Team in an effort to identify potential practical alternatives inside the DA and outside of the 1% Annual Chance floodplain. The locations of the sites are shown in Figure 4. A summary of the evaluated sites is listed in Table 3-1. Table 3- 1. Summary of Sites Considered and Screened

Site Passed Site Site Location Site Advantages Site Disadvantages Initial Screen? In Urban Core, adequate size, adjacent to other court facilities, close proximity to Police Dept. and Justice Majority of the Site is within 1% 12th St, 11th St, Dept., preferred by City, Annual Chance floodplain, likely Block 148 Gurnee Ave, Moore Yes single entity with which to to require the demolition of Ave negotiate, property exchange historic structures offered, within bike/pedestrian network, close to local transit and amenities, nearby parking In Urban Core, adequate size, adjacent to other court A small portion of the Site is 11th St, 10th St, facilities, within located in the 1% Annual Chance Block 149 Gurnee Ave, Moore Yes bike/pedestrian network, floodplain, likely to require the St close proximity to local demolition of historic structures transit and amenities, nearby parking Likely to require the demolition of historic structures, far from 10th St, 9th St, Gurnee In Urban Core, adequate size, Block 206 No city hub and amenities, industrial Ave, Grove St outside FEMA floodplain neighborhood, no nearby parking, irregular terrain In Urban Core, adequate size, No nearby parking, likely to outside FEMA floodplain, require the demolition of historic Block W 14th St, 13th St, adjacent to Zinn Park, close structures and closure of Walnut Yes 151/159 Moore Ave, Grove St to walking trail, nearby local Street, overland flow is amenities, aligns with City’s anticipated to impact goals constructability

OBG, SEPTEMBER 12 , 201 7 | PRE-FINAL| 6

PROPOSED FEDERAL COURTHOUSE, ANNISTON, AL│ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Site Passed Site Site Location Site Advantages Site Disadvantages Initial Screen? Incompatible with local In Urban Core, adequate size, development goals, significant outside FEMA floodplain, relocation of existing businesses, close proximity to local requires relocation of main 11th St, 10th St, Noble Block 132 No government, within water/sewer line, requires St, Gurnee Ave bike/pedestrian network, significant demolition, potential close to local transit and for temporary closure of Noble amenities Street, likely to require the demolition of historic structures Incompatible with local development goals, significant In Urban Core, adequate size, relocation of existing businesses, outside FEMA floodplain, requires relocation main 11th St, 10th St, Block 1 No within bike /pedestrian water/sewer lines, requires Wilmer Ave, Noble St network, close to local transit significant demolition, and amenities demolition of historic structures, potential for temporary closure of Noble Street Incompatible with local development goals, significant In Urban Core, adequate size, relocation of existing businesses, outside FEMA floodplain, requires relocation main W 10th St, 9th St, Block 131 No within bike /pedestrian water/sewer lines, requires Wilmer Ave, Noble St network, close to local transit significant demolition, and amenities demolition of historic structures, potential for temporary closure of Noble Street Incompatible with local In Urban Core, adequate size, development goals, removal of W 14th St, w 13 St, outside FEMA floodplain, no park/greenspace (significant Block 146 Gurnee Ave, Moore No demolition cost, no community impact/resistance), St relocation cost, flat terrain, far from law library/County single owner Courthouse, likely demolition of historic structures

3.4 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED IN DETAIL As a result of the screening process, four alternatives were identified for the project:  No Action alternative (no new construction)  Construction of the new Courthouse at the Block 148 Site  Construction of the new Courthouse at the Block 149 Site  Construction of the new Courthouse at the Block 151/159 Site These alternatives are outlined below.

OBG, SEPTEMBER 12 , 201 7 | PRE-FINAL| 7

PROPOSED FEDERAL COURTHOUSE, ANNISTON, AL│ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

3.4.1 Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative is used as a baseline for comparison with the Action Alternatives (described below). Under the No Action Alternative, the U.S. District Court, Bankruptcy Court and Magistrate Court would continue to occupy the existing courthouse and leased space in a nearby building. Thus, this alternative would represent a continuation of the current conditions in the courthouse and continued reliance on leased space. To provide a valid basis for comparison of the No Action Alternative with the Action Alternatives, it is necessary to extrapolate current conditions for the same planning period as that used to evaluate the Action Alternatives (30 years). Specifically, based on historical trends and existing demands, the area surrounding the existing courthouse will experience continuing urban development and growth over the next 30 years. Therefore, the impact evaluations in Chapter 4 (Affected Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures) will be based on extrapolations of existing conditions for the same planning period. 3.4.2 Alternative 2 – Construction at Block 148, the City Hall Site Alternative 2 is defined by the construction of the new Courthouse at Block 148, the City Hall Site. The City Hall Site encompasses an entire city block (approximately 4.43 acres) within the Anniston Urban Core. The site is bound to the north by 12th Street, to the south by 11th Street, to the east by Gurnee Avenue, and to the west by Moore Avenue. The site is located approximately three blocks west of the existing Courthouse. Under Alternative 2, the three existing buildings on the site would be demolished, and a new Courthouse constructed. The three buildings are the Anniston City Hall, the former offices of the Anniston Water Works and Sewer Board, and a building operated by Calhoun County. The parking lots on the site consist of a lot used by Calhoun County and a lot used by the Anniston City Hall that also is open to the public. This alternative conforms with the plans of the City of Anniston for redevelopment of the west side of downtown. 3.4.3 Alternative 3 – Construction at the Block 149 Site Alternative 3 is defined by the construction of the new Courthouse at Block 149. The Block 149 Site encompasses an entire city block (approximately 4.04 acres) within the Anniston Urban Core. The site is located immediately south of the Block 148 site and is bound to the north by 11th Street, to the south by 10th Street, to the east by Gurnee Avenue, and to the west by Moore Avenue. The site contains one and two-story buildings housing several businesses, including Downing’s General Store and Model City Glass, as well as several vacant buildings. This site is divided into fourteen separate parcels, and also contains two alleys running east to west. Under Alternative 3, the existing buildings on the site would be demolished, businesses relocated, and a new Courthouse constructed. This alternative conforms with the plans of the City of Anniston for redevelopment of the west side of downtown. 3.4.4 Alternative 4 – Construction at the Block 151/159 Site Alternative 4 is defined by the construction of the new Courthouse at the Block 151/159 Site. This site encompasses approximately 3.9 acres within the Anniston Urban Core. This site is bound to the north by West 14th Street, to the south by 13th Street (partially), to the east by Moore Avenue, and to the west by Grove Street. The site currently contains four buildings. A building located on the east side of the property was previously occupied by the Anniston Water Works and Sewer board and is now vacant. Two of the three buildings on the west side of the site are used by the Opportunity Foundation Center as a warehouse and storage building. The third building is currently vacant. This site is divided into seven separate parcels, and is also bisected in a north-south direction by Walnut Avenue. This section of Walnut Avenue will need to be closed if this alternative is selected. Under Alternative 4, the existing buildings on the site would be demolished, businesses relocated, and a new Courthouse constructed. This alternative conforms with the plans of the City of Anniston for redevelopment of the west side of downtown. 3.5 PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL COMMENTS GSA solicited comments on the proposed facility through a mailing dated December 7, 2016. This letter was circulated to over seventy firms, organizations, agencies, and individuals. In addition, a public meeting was held by the GSA on December 21, 2016, to discuss the proposed sites for the new Federal Courthouse. Several newspaper articles about

OBG, SEPTEMBER 12 , 201 7 | PRE-FINAL| 8

PROPOSED FEDERAL COURTHOUSE, ANNISTON, AL│ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

the project were published by the Anniston Star newspaper in December 2016, which informed the community of the proposed project (see Appendix B). Copies of the agency response letters and emails received can be found in Appendices C and D, respectively, along with the transcript of the public meeting held on December 21, 2016 in Appendix A. A summary of the comments received is presented in Table 3-2. Table 3- 2. Comments Received During the Public Comment Period

Date & Form of Public Affiliation/Organization Respondent Public Comment Comment Hopes that transit, East Alabama Regional pedestrian, and bicycle Planning and January 9, 2017 Jack E. Plunk, MCRP modes are accommodated Development Commission Letter in the design of the new (EARPDC) courthouse Recommends compliance Alabama Department on with stormwater January 26, 2017 Environmental Quality Samantha P. Sims, P.E. permitting requirements Letter (ADEM) and all applicable ADEM regulations Recommends NEPA Handbook Section 106 Advisory Council on Tom McCulloch, Ph.D., January 25, 2017 review and initiation, Historic Preservation R.P.A. Letter including notification to SHPO and the National Park Service. Block 149/Model City January 26, 2017 Supports use of Block 149 James Tyson Glass Letter Site. Block 149/Wildes Air January 20, 2017 Supports use of Block 149 David and Lisa Browning Conditioning Co., Inc. Letter Site. Walt Williamson and January 15, 2017 Supports use of Block 149 Block 149 other Block 149 occupants Letter Site. Citizen/Christian & December 22, 2016 Supports use of Block 148, David C. Christian Associates Architects, Inc. Electronic Mail the City Hall Site. January 11, 2017 Supports use of Block 148, City of Anniston Kent Davis Electronic Mail the City Hall Site. Citizen/Home Realty January 19, 2017 Supports use of Block 149 David Dethrage Company Electronic Mail Site. January 14, 2017 Supports use of Block 148, Citizen Fred Couch, Jr. Letter the City Hall Site. Does not support the use of the Block 149 Site due Stan Austin, Regional January 26, 2017 U.S. National Park Service to the newly established Director Letter Freedom Riders National Monument. Citizen/Parker House Bed Megan and Scott January 19, 2017 Supports use of Block 148, and Breakfast Brightwell Letter the City Hall Site. Anniston Historic John H. Valieant, March 30, 2017 Supports use of Block 148, Preservation Commission Chairman Letter the City Hall Site.

OBG, SEPTEMBER 12 , 201 7 | PRE-FINAL| 9

PROPOSED FEDERAL COURTHOUSE, ANNISTON, AL│ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Date & Form of Public Affiliation/Organization Respondent Public Comment Comment Recommends that rip rap be installed and maintained during construction to protect State of Alabama the shoreline of Snow Department of Creek and the unnamed Conservation and Natural April 12, 2017 drainage ditch connected Taconya D. Goar Resources Wildlife and Letter to Snow Creek from Freshwater Fisheries erosion. Indicates that Division environmental impacts should be minimized during construction with erosion control and re- vegetation procedures. Asks that Best Management Practices be U.S. Environmental considered during April 14, 2017 Protection Agency NEPA Christopher A. Militscher construction to minimize Electronic Mail Program Office noise and dust emissions, and that public input is considered. Indicates that Block 151/159 is the most preferable, and that the Alabama Historical City Hall Site and Block Lee Anne Wofford April 17, 2017 Commission 149 Site be completely avoided due to the Freedom Riders National Monument.

OBG, SEPTEMBER 12 , 201 7 | PRE-FINAL| 10

PROPOSED FEDERAL COURTHOUSE, ANNISTON, AL│ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

4 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES

This chapter describes the existing environmental conditions that may be affected by the alternatives, the potential environmental impacts that may occur, and, if necessary, the appropriate measures to mitigate potential adverse impacts. The purpose of this chapter is to determine whether the action is likely to have a significant effect on the quality of the environment. The alternatives evaluated, which are described in detail in Section 3.4, are:  Alternative 1 – No Action  Alternative 2 – Construction at the City Hall Site  Alternative 3 – Construction at the Block 149 Site  Alternative 4 – Construction at the Block 151/159 Site The extent of information provided for each environmental subject area is commensurate with the detail necessary for analysis related to the “importance of the impact” (40 CFR 1502.15). Each section, addressing an environmental subject area, is organized into four main subheadings:  Existing Conditions – Describes the current characteristics of each site as a basis for the impact analysis.  Criteria of Evaluation – Defines the criteria used to determine the level of potential impacts.  Impacts – Describes the potential consequences of each alternative with respect to the particular criteria in the following impact categories: No Impact, Minor Negative Impact, Moderate Negative Impact, Major Negative Impact, or Beneficial Impact. » Minor Negative Impact – The effect would be noticeable, but would be relatively small and would not affect the function or integrity of the resource. A minor negative impact is lesser in importance, or is only suspected and not guaranteed. Minor negative impacts can be mitigated. » Moderate Negative Impact – The effect would be readily apparent and would influence the function or integrity of the resource. A moderate negative impact is of higher importance, but can be mitigated. » Major Negative Impact – The effect would be substantial and would result in severely adverse changes to the resource. A major negative impact would be difficult to mitigate.  Mitigation – Identifies measures that may be undertaken to reduce impacts to an acceptable level, if necessary. The environmental subject areas treated in this chapter were determined through an internal and public scoping process. These subject areas are: Floodplain Determination (Section 4.1.1), Hydrology Study for Constructability (Section 4.1.2), Comprehensive Planning (Section 4.2.1), Economic and Employment Activities (Section 4.2.2), Environmental Justice (Section 4.2.3), Court Security (Section 4.3.1), Cultural Resources (Section 4.4), Parking (Section 4.5.1), Pedestrian and Bicycle Access (4.5.2), and Site Contamination and Hazardous Waste (section 4.6). Subject areas not covered in the EA are listed in Section 4.7, Section 4.8 covers Cumulative Impacts, and Section 4.9 provides a summary of impacts/benefits of the four alternatives. 4.1 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 4.1.1 Floodplain Determination 4.1.1.1 Existing Conditions Flooding potential is generally described in terms of flooding recurrence intervals, such as the 1% Annual Chance or 0.2% Annual Chance flood. The 1% Annual Chance floodplain is the area projected to be inundated by a storm that has a 1% probability of occurring in any year. The 0.2% Annual Chance floodplain is the area projected to be inundated by a storm with a 0.2% probability of occurring in any year. The 1% Annual Chance floodplain is the national standard on which floodplain management and the National Flood Insurance Program are based.

OBG, SEPTEMBER 12 , 201 7 | PRE-FINAL| 11

PROPOSED FEDERAL COURTHOUSE, ANNISTON, AL│ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Floodplain determinations are based on E.O. 11988, which states that each agency shall determine whether the proposed action will occur in a floodplain using a detailed floodplain map of the area, if available. FEMA has identified floodplain boundaries and mapped areas within the City of Anniston that are subject to inundation from a 1% and 0.2% Annual Chance flood. Floodplain determinations are based on the areas identified and mapped by FEMA. According to the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Community Panel 01015C0312E, effective March 16, 2016, portions of the City Hall Site (approximately 80%) and the Block 149 Site (approximately 1%) are located within the floodplain, while the Block 151/159 Site is not located within the floodplain (Figure 5). The current version of the FEMA FIRM and Flood Insurance Study (FIS) does not indicate that there is a floodplain associated with the unnamed tributary flowing under the Block 151/159 Site. E.O. 11988 defines a critical action as “any activity for which even a slight chance of flooding would be too great.” The federally-funded proposed courthouse is considered a critical action, meaning that it must be located outside of both the 1% and 0.2% Annual Chance floodplain, unless no practicable alternatives exist. 4.1.1.2 Criteria of Evaluation An alternative may have the potential for a significant impact on flood risk if it would place structures within a 1% and 0.2% Annual Chance flood hazard area and violate E.O. 11988 for floodplain management. 4.1.1.3 Impacts and Significance of Effects Alternative 1 - No Action The No Action alternative would have no impact on the potential for flooding and flooding-related damage in the Anniston area. Alternative 2 – Construction at City Hall Site Since approximately 80% of this site overlaps with the FEMA designated 1% Annual Chance and 0.2% Annual Chance floodplain, there is a major negative impact. As discussed below, the eight-step process from E.O. 11988 must be performed if it is determined that no practicable alterative exists and this Site is selected for the proposed courthouse. Alternative 3 – Construction at Block 149 Site Approximately 1% of this site overlaps with the FEMA designated 1% Annual Chance floodplain and 0.2% Annual Chance floodplain. The eight-step process from E.O. 11988 must be performed if it is determined that no practicable alterative exists and this Site is selected for the proposed courthouse, and if development will occur in the 1% of the site located in the floodplain. The design decision has been made by the GSA Project Manager that development would not occur in the 1% of the site located in the floodplain, therefore, this alternative would not place structures within a 1% Annual Chance floodplain, or a 0.2% Annual Chance floodplain, and there is no impact. Alternative 4 – Construction at Block 151/159 Site Based on the FEMA flood map for Calhoun County, this alternative is not located within a 1% Annual Chance floodplain, or a 0.2% Annual Chance floodplain, therefore there is no impact. The eight-step process from E.O. 11988 does not need to be performed if this Site is selected for the proposed courthouse, since this site is not located in the 1% or 0.2% Annual Chance floodplain based on the FEMA flood map for the City of Anniston. No mitigation would be necessary. 4.1.1.4 Mitigation Mitigation Specific to Alternative 2 – Construction at City Hall Site Approximately 80% of the City Hall Site overlaps with the 1% Annual Chance floodplain and 0.2% Annual Chance floodplain; therefore, compliance with the FEMA eight-step process and E.O. 11988 would be required.

OBG, SEPTEMBER 12 , 201 7 | PRE-FINAL| 12

PROPOSED FEDERAL COURTHOUSE, ANNISTON, AL│ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

4.1.2 Hydrology Study for Constructability 4.1.2.1 Existing Conditions The East Branch of Snow Creek flows in an underground culvert through the northwest corner of the City Hall Site. The unnamed tributary of the East Branch of Snow Creek flows under the northwestern portion of the Block 151/159 Site. A Hydrology Study was conducted to evaluate constructability in regards to the impacts/risks from site hydrology and the East Branch of Snow Creek and the unnamed tributary on Block 151/159 (Appendix E). Data from the FEMA FIS and FIRM was used for the evaluation on the City Hall Site and the Block 149 site. Field data and hydrology modeling were used for the evaluation on the Block 151/159 Site. The purpose of the study was to evaluate constructability on the Sites based on data gathered. 4.1.2.2 Criteria of Evaluation The Proposed Action or an alternative may have the potential for a significant impact based on site constructability if it would expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death based on the hydrology of the site. 4.1.2.3 Impacts and Significance of Effects Alternative 1 - No Action The No Action alternative would have no impact to constructability based on the hydrology of the site. Alternative 2 – Construction at City Hall Site The City Hall Site is in an urban area and consists almost entirely of buildings or paved surfaces. The only unpaved portions are small landscaped areas around the perimeter of the site. Construction of this alternative is not expected to cause any impacts to the East Branch of Snow Creek, which flows through the corner of the site within a buried channel, nor is it expected to impede or redirect flow. Based on the hydrology study (Appendix E), overland flow during precipitation events is anticipated. Design considerations mentioned in Appendix E can mitigate hydrology risks and impacts to people or structures. The City of Anniston’s City Engineer indicated that the Public Works Department keeps a detailed work order system that tracks maintenance and projects, and that they do not have work orders or recorded damages related to site hydrology for the City Hall Site over the last 10 years. Although potential risks and impacts based on hydrology exist, mitigation from courthouse design and the lack of historical impacts on the site indicate that there is a minor negative impact to site constructability. Alternative 3 – Construction at Block 149 The Block 149 Site consists of approximately 90% buildings and other impervious surfaces, with three small vacant lots, and does not contain a body of water. A definitive determination of the constructability at Block 149 could not be made due to the limited accuracy of data for the site, and the lack of proposed grading plans for construction on the block. Based on the available data, overland flow is anticipated to be larger than overland flow at the City Hall Site. This could put people or structures at a higher risk of impacts due to site hydrology, therefore there is a moderate negative impact to site constructability. Alternative 4 – Construction at Block 151/159 Construction of this alternative is not expected to impact the unnamed tributary of the East Branch of Snow Creek, which flows through the northwestern portion of the site within a buried channel. Approximately 40% of this site currently comprises semi-natural cover (e.g., grass and forbs). Currently, this cover allows some precipitation to infiltrate into the subsurface, thereby reducing runoff. Construction of a courthouse on this site would remove some of this “water storing” capacity. Based on the hydrology study (Appendix E), overland flow during precipitation events is anticipated. Although design considerations mentioned in Appendix E can mitigate hydrology risks and impacts to people or structures, the decrease in “water storing” capacity combined with a larger anticipated amount of overland flow than the City Hall Site would cause a moderate negative impact to site constructability.

OBG, SEPTEMBER 12 , 201 7 | PRE-FINAL| 13

PROPOSED FEDERAL COURTHOUSE, ANNISTON, AL│ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

4.1.2.4 Mitigation Mitigation for Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 – Construction at City Hall Site, Block 149 Site and Block 151/159 Site Impacts to site constructability can be mitigated during design of the proposed courthouse. Damage risks include corrosion of metal parts, mold, cracking, uplift of floors, and damage to interior finishes. Design considerations to mitigate these risks are listed in Appendix E. A definitive determination of the constructability at Block 149 could be made by conducting a detailed survey of the block. During construction, GSA will adhere to BMPs that would be specified in the Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan prepared during project design. If waters of the United States (i.e. streams, ditches, and wetlands) are impacted, such as the streams located on the City Hall Site or the Block 151/159 Site, the Army Corps of Engineers should be contacted to determine if additional mitigation is required. Both Snow Creek and the unnamed tributary on Block 151/159 are waters of the United States, according to the definition in 40 CFR 230.3(s). 4.2 SOCIOECONOMIC/LAND USE 4.2.1 Comprehensive Planning 4.2.1.1 Existing Conditions The City of Anniston prepared a strategic plan in April 2014 to create a community action agenda for the City’s future. Development of the strategic plan involved a significant amount of public contribution. The plan details key goals for the city, which include reducing the number of vacant and dilapidated buildings, enhancing the physical appearance of the community, and creating safe access routes and signage for pedestrians and bicyclists. The West Anniston Master Plan was developed by the KPS Group, Inc., for the Anniston Housing Authority, Anniston City Schools, and the City of Anniston in April 2014. Objectives in this Plan include connecting the West Anniston neighborhoods with the Anniston Urban Core. The City of Anniston updated the zoning map in 2016. The Action Alternatives described herein are all located within an area designated as Urban Core (Figure 2). The intent of the Urban Core district is to maintain and improve the City’s historic downtown commercial area and, at the same time, foster adaptive reuse, redevelopment, and new construction that contributes to the vitality of the district by promoting walkability, a mix of uses, and activity in design and practice. 4.2.1.2 Criterion of Evaluation An alternative may have the potential for a significant impact if it would conflict with any comprehensive land use plans that were approved by agencies having jurisdiction in the planning area. 4.2.1.3 Impacts and Significance of Effects Alternative 1 – No Action The No Action alternative would have a minor negative impact on comprehensive planning in Anniston. It would not conform with at least one goal from the Strategic Plan – the removal of vacant and dilapidated buildings. Alternative 2 – Construction at City Hall Site Construction at the City Hall Site would require effective coordination with the City of Anniston to ensure that site plans remain consistent with redevelopment plans. This alternative fits in with the City’s plans to relocate the City Hall and other facilities, and create a consolidated area of government facilities on the adjacent blocks. The City of Anniston has proposed a building swap if the City Hall Site is selected, and would move into the existing federal courthouse once the new federal courthouse is constructed. City officials indicated that this site would best support the City of Anniston’s development plans and save the City money that could be used for the betterment of the entire city. The site is located in West Anniston and would help connect West Anniston to the Urban Core. Therefore, from a comprehensive city planning perspective, this alternative has a beneficial impact.

OBG, SEPTEMBER 12 , 201 7 | PRE-FINAL| 14

PROPOSED FEDERAL COURTHOUSE, ANNISTON, AL│ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Alternative 3 – Construction at Block 149 Site This alternative conforms to the City’s designated land uses, as it is located in the Urban Core. Block 149 is not directly adjacent to current government buildings, but is in close proximity. It would conform with a goal from the Strategic Plan in that it would remove vacant and dilapidated buildings (this may have negative cultural resources impacts, as discussed in Section 4.5). The site is in West Anniston and would help connect West Anniston to the Urban Core. Therefore, from a comprehensive city planning perspective, this alternative has a beneficial impact. Alternative 4 – Construction at Block 151/159 Site This alternative conforms to the City’s designated land uses, as it is designated as Urban Core. It is not adjacent to other government facilities, which would conflict with the City’s desire to create a consolidated area of government facilities on adjacent blocks. The site is located in West Anniston and would help connect West Anniston to the Urban Core, therefore, from a comprehensive city planning perspective, this alternative has a beneficial impact. 4.2.1.4 Mitigation No mitigation would be needed. 4.2.2 Economic and Employment Activities 4.2.2.1 Existing Conditions The largest sectors of employment in Calhoun County in 2015 were services (47.7%), manufacturing (17.3%), and trade (14.2%). Civilian employment in the County was 47,401 in 2015, which is about the same as it was in 2010 at 47,720. The unemployment rate has only increased slightly from 11.7% in 2010 to 12.3% in 2015. The City Hall Site contains several surface parking areas and three buildings, two of which are local government buildings: Anniston City Hall and Calhoun County Task Force. The third building is owned by the City of Anniston and is used for practice space and storage by a local theater group. The Anniston City Hall contains all the City’s offices in approximately 30,000 sf of office space. The Calhoun County Task Force contains approximately 8,000 sf of space. The Block 149 Site contains commercial businesses, such as Downing’s General Store, Model City Glass, and Wildes Air Conditioning Co., as well as tenant spaces of general contractors and plumbers. The remaining buildings on the site are either vacant or used for storage. The Block 151/159 Site contains the former Anniston Water Works and Sewer Board office and vacant storage space, the Opportunity Foundation Center warehouse and distribution center, and a vacant building. All three sites are within the Anniston Urban Core and are within three blocks west of Noble Street, which has numerous retail and service businesses, including restaurants. The section of Noble Street close to the City Hall and Block 149 Sites has a high density of businesses. 4.2.2.2 Criteria of Evaluation An alternative may have the potential for a significant impact on the local economy and unemployment conditions if it would: a. Displace businesses in the planning area with resulting job losses and reductions in economic activity. b. Directly or indirectly cause large economic or employment growth in the planning area. 4.2.2.3 Impacts and Significance of Effects Alternative 1 – No Action The No Action Alternative would have no impact on the economy and employment in the Anniston area. Alternative 2 – Construction at City Hall Site

OBG, SEPTEMBER 12 , 201 7 | PRE-FINAL| 15

PROPOSED FEDERAL COURTHOUSE, ANNISTON, AL│ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

This alternative will displace the local government offices and about 100 employees in the two buildings. It is expected that these functions and staff would likely relocate to the existing Courthouse building. These facilities and their employees would suffer a short-term negative impact from the disruption caused by relocation. The relocation of employees from the existing courthouse and leased space to the new facility may cause slight changes in retail and restaurant demand, but due to the small distance involved (two blocks); this would have no impact on the overall economy of downtown Anniston. The U.S. Court would vacate approximately 9,000 sf of leased office space. This alternative would fit in with the City of Anniston’s redevelopment plans for the area, which involve relocating City Hall to a nearby block. If this site is selected, the City has offered to exchange properties and move into the old courthouse building. The City believes that these plans will encourage further redevelopment of this section of downtown. Therefore, this alternative would have a beneficial impact on net economic and employment activities in the planning area. Alternative 3 – Construction at Block 149 Site This alternative would displace the three commercial businesses, as well as the tenants currently occupying the site. It is expected that these businesses would relocate to other downtown facilities. These facilities and their employees would suffer a short-term minor negative impact from the disruption caused by relocation. As in Alternative 2, there would be no impact on the overall economy from shifting of demand. Therefore, this alternative would have a beneficial impact on net economic and employment activities in the planning area. Alternative 4 – Construction at Block 151/159 Site This alternative would displace the Opportunity Foundation Center. It is expected that this center will relocate to another downtown facility. This facility and its employees would suffer a short-term minor negative impact from the disruption caused by relocation. As in Alternatives 2 and 3, there would be no impact on the overall economy from shifting of demand. Therefore, this alternative would have a beneficial impact on net economic and employment activities in the planning area. 4.2.2.4 Mitigation GSA procedures require that relocation assistance be provided to any businesses or residents displaced by the Proposed Action. Assistance may include providing relocation expenses, assisting with leases, and adjusting construction schedules. This would minimize the negative impact to the affected occupants. 4.2.3 Environmental Justice 4.2.3.1 Existing Conditions E.O. 12898 (The White House, 1994) directs that “…each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations…”. GSA is a member of the Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice (EJ) and includes a level of EJ study as a part of its NEPA review and analysis. The process followed by GSA to identify potential disproportionate impacts associated with the Proposed Action and to ensure that compliance with this directive was initiated early during NEPA scoping includes:  Identification of the potentially affected population in the study area;  Characterization of the study area with respect to minorities and low-income populations;  Determination of potentially significant adverse impacts of the Proposed Action and alternatives; and  Evaluation of the potential for disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations in the study area.

OBG, SEPTEMBER 12 , 201 7 | PRE-FINAL| 16

PROPOSED FEDERAL COURTHOUSE, ANNISTON, AL│ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

As in most southern cities, Anniston has experienced racial tensions during the civil rights era. On May 14, 1961, a bus of Freedom Riders was attacked by a mob of whites in Anniston. This event led to the creation of a Biracial Human Relations Council, which was a model for race relations in the south. These events are described in the Cultural Resources Assessment (Appendix F). A primary EJ concern in Anniston involves the accessibility of facilities to historically minority neighborhoods. These neighborhoods are primarily located west of Noble Street, referred to as West Anniston. All three potential sites are within this area. Minorities comprised 56.4% of the population in the City of Anniston in 2010, including approximately 44.7% Blacks or African Americans. In addition, 2.7% of the population was identified as Hispanic. In comparison, minorities comprised 26.4% of Calhoun County’s population, including 20.6% Blacks or African Americans. The existing Courthouse, the City Hall Site, the Block 149 Site, and the Block 151/159 Site are all located in Census Tract 8. Census Tract 8 had a population of 1,379 persons in the 2010 Census, of which 48.8% were minorities (including 43.7% African Americans). Hence, the surrounding area has a similar concentration of minorities to the city. Census Tract 8 had a per capita household income of $18,304, which was lower than the per capita income in the city ($19,878), the State ($24,091), and Calhoun County ($21,374). The percentage of individuals with income below the poverty level in the census tract (26.8%) was lower than the percentages in the City (31.7%), but higher than in the County (20%), and State (18.5%). Hence, the surrounding area has a somewhat lower proportion of low-income population than the region. The West Anniston Master Plan was developed by the KPS Group, Inc., for the Anniston Housing Authority, Anniston City Schools, and the City of Anniston in April 2014, as a guide to “combat the generational effects of poverty, increase the economic opportunity, and improve the overall quality-of-life for residents of the West Anniston community.” Objectives in this Plan include connecting the West Anniston neighborhoods with the Anniston Urban Core. 4.2.3.2 Criteria of Evaluation An alternative may have the potential for a significant impact on EJ if it would: a. Have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on minority populations. b. Have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on low-income populations. 4.2.3.3 Impacts and Significance of Effects Alternative 1 – No Action The No Action alternative would have no impact on minority or low-income populations in the Anniston area. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 – Construction at City Hall Site, Block 149 Site, and Block 151/159 Site These sites are between the Anniston Urban Core and the historically minority neighborhoods to the west. All three sites are at least two blocks closer to these neighborhoods than the existing Courthouse, which provides minority populations more convenient access to Court facilities. The alternatives would encourage development of the west side of downtown. This redevelopment would have an indirect minor positive impact on the adjacent historically minority and low-income neighborhoods immediately to the west. 4.2.3.4 Mitigation No mitigation would be needed.

OBG, SEPTEMBER 12 , 201 7 | PRE-FINAL| 17

PROPOSED FEDERAL COURTHOUSE, ANNISTON, AL│ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

4.3 COMMUNITY SERVICES 4.3.1 Court Security 4.3.1.1 Existing Conditions Court security is under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. The U.S. Marshals Service is responsible for security inside of the building, while the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is responsible for security outside. The existing courthouse does not meet current security requirements, such as separate entrances for prisoners, a holding cell for custodial defendants and/or witnesses, secure elevators, and secure parking. In addition, the location of some support offices in a separate building, has created security concerns. Security features for the design of the proposed facility would be provided in accordance with criteria of the USCDG and the U.S. Marshals Service to protect this facility against vehicular and other known threats. A detailed evaluation of the security environment for the immediate neighborhood of each of the three potential sites was prepared for GSA on January 19, 2017. This security assessment is a separate document from this EA (Appendix G). 4.3.1.2 Criterion of Evaluation An alternative may have the potential for a significant impact if it would directly or indirectly affect Court security. 4.3.1.3 Impacts and Significance of Effects Alternative 1 - No Action Under the No Action alternative, the existing security concerns regarding leased space, secure parking, lack of a holding cell, and secure elevators would remain. Therefore, continued use of the existing facilities would have a major negative impact on court security. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 - Construction at City Hall Site, Block 149 Site, and Block 151/159 Site By selecting either of the three sites, a new Courthouse will be constructed, which will allow for the design and implementation of better security. The proposed facility would be constructed in accordance with the USCDG criteria and the security criteria of the U.S. Marshals Service. Therefore, Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would have a beneficial impact on security for the court and court-related agencies, when compared to the No Action Alternative. The security assessment performed for this project, included in Appendix G, noted that Alternative 4 (The Block 151/159 Site) is the least desirable of the three sites from a security standpoint. This site ranked lowest in derived security (least amount of adjacent security agencies), on-site standoff (based strictly on the size of the available lot), possible low level transient risks (increased potential of “victims” nearby based on proximity to Zinn Park and the proposed “Chief Ladiga” trail), and examination of ingress/egress (further from a primary emergency response route). Reddy Ice, where ammonia is used to commercially produce ice, is located across from Block 151/159. This is considered an industrial hazard (although the Anniston Fire Department Chief did note that this is a low-level hazard and is no greater than routine hazards such as old, wooden buildings). When compared to the No Action Alternative, the beneficial impact of constructing a new Court House in accordance with USCDG criteria would outweigh these minor negative impacts. The security assessment indicated that Alternative 3 (the Block 149 Site) was more desirable than Alternative 4 (the Block 151/159 Site), but less desirable than Alternative 2 (the City Hall Site), from a security perspective. This site had the least amount of security from police protection due to it being located more than one block away from the responding police station. Gas and Supply, an industrial gas vendor, is located across from Block 149, which is considered an industrial hazard (although the Anniston Fire Department Chief did note that this is a low-level hazard and is no greater than routine hazards such as old, wooden buildings). When compared to the No Action Alternative, the beneficial impact of constructing a new Courthouse in accordance with USCDG criteria would outweigh these minor negative impacts.

OBG, SEPTEMBER 12 , 201 7 | PRE-FINAL| 18

PROPOSED FEDERAL COURTHOUSE, ANNISTON, AL│ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

The security assessment listed the City Hall Site as the most desirable location from a security standpoint. The two security categories for which it was not ranked as the most appropriate site were impact from surrounding properties, which looked at the amount of standoff beyond the actual site, and examination of ingress/egress. The site was not the most desirable in examination of ingress/egress as it is not the closest in proximity to a primary emergency response route (10th Street) and it is not the quickest route to and from Birmingham (Highway 202). This site is closer to these routes than the Block 151/159 Site. 4.3.1.4 Mitigation No mitigation would be needed. 4.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES 4.4.1 Existing Conditions GSA will be consulting under Section106 of the NHPA, 54 U.S.C. 300101 et seq. and intends to partially fulfill the Section 106 public notification and consultation requirements through the NEPA scoping process. Section 106 of the NHPA of 1966 requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. Since the Proposed Action constitutes an undertaking, because it involves federal property and funding, a determination is necessary as to whether the undertaking may cause an adverse effect to historic properties. A detailed Cultural Resources Assessment (CRA) was prepared in September 2017, for the three Action Alternatives (Appendix F). The detailed report includes an architectural survey as well as an archaeological assessment. All three sites are located within the Downtown Anniston Historic District, which is under a historic preservation ordinance, and will be subject to design review guidelines. 4.4.2 Criteria of Evaluation An alternative may have the potential for a significant impact on cultural resources in the planning area if it would: a. Adversely affect properties eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), including archeological, historical, architectural, and Native American or traditional heritage resources. b. Disturb or alter unknown archeological resources eligible for the NRHP. c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or unique geologic feature of cultural importance. d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of a formal cemetery. 4.4.3 Impacts and Significance of Effects Alternative 1 - No Action The No Action alternative would have no impact on cultural resources in the Anniston area. Alternative 2 – Construction at City Hall Site This alternative calls for the demolition of the three buildings, two of which are contributing resources to the Downtown Anniston Historic District, and construction of a new Courthouse. The project will have a direct negative effect on two NRHP contributing structures, which would be demolished for the new courthouse. The project has the potential to have a secondary, indirect negative effect on the historic buildings within the NRHP, particularly in terms of its visual impact, as the new structure will be larger than the two structures it will replace, under Criterion “a”. A limited subsurface archaeological investigation has not been completed at this site, however, the site is mostly developed and would have been disturbed from previous building and landscaping. Based on the proximity of the City Hall Site to the Freedom Riders National Monument, the construction of the proposed courthouse has the potential to cause an indirect negative effect to the former Greyhound Bus Station.

OBG, SEPTEMBER 12 , 201 7 | PRE-FINAL| 19

PROPOSED FEDERAL COURTHOUSE, ANNISTON, AL│ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

No culturally significant paleontological or geologic features are known to be present in the project area. There are also no known human remains in the area and the potential for undiscovered human remains are low. Thus, no effect relating to criteria "c" and "d" is expected. Construction of a new courthouse at this site is considered to have an overall moderate negative impact on cultural resources. Alternative 3 – Construction at Block 149 Site Implementation of this alternative would create direct and indirect negative effects on historic resources in the Downtown Anniston Historic District, and harm the integrity of the larger Historic District. The direct negative effect would be caused by demolition of fourteen buildings contributing to the District. The project has the potential to have a secondary, indirect negative effect on the historic buildings within the NRHP, particularly in terms of its visual impact, as the new structure will be larger and have different massing than the commercial block it will replace, under Criterion “a”. A limited subsurface archaeological investigation has not been completed at this site, however, the site is mostly developed and would have been disturbed from previous building and landscaping. Based on the proximity of the Block 149 Site to the Freedom Riders National Monument, the construction of the proposed courthouse has the potential to cause an indirect negative effect to the former Greyhound Bus Station; the effects to the station would be similar to those on the neighboring blocks, along West 11th Street, including traffic and noise from construction. In a letter dated January 26, 2017, the Regional Director of the National Park Service suggested that of the three alternative building sites, the Block 149 Site would be the least appropriate, as the demolition of the historic small-scale commercial structures on that block would adversely affect the ability of the Monument to “convey its historic associations” and damage its “integrity of setting.” Construction of a new courthouse at the Block 149 Site is considered to have an overall major negative impact on cultural resources. Alternative 4 – Construction at Block 151/159 Site Implementation of this alternative would create direct and indirect negative effects on historic resources in the Downtown Anniston Historic District and harm the integrity of the larger Historic District. The direct negative effect would be caused by demolition of three buildings contributing to the District. However, most of the resources on the Block 151/159 Site have undergone alterations to their facades, including changes to windows and door opening, which compromise integrity of materials and workmanship. The project has the potential to have a secondary, indirect negative effect on the historic buildings within the NRHP, particularly in terms of its visual impact, as the new structure will be larger and have different massing than the commercial block it will replace, under Criterion “a”. A limited subsurface archaeological investigation has not been completed at this site, however, the site was mostly developed at one point and would have been disturbed from previous building and landscaping. Construction of a new courthouse at the Block 151/159 Site is considered to have an overall minor negative impact on cultural resources. 4.4.4 Mitigation Mitigation for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 – Construction at the City Hall Site, Block 149 Site, or Block 151/159 Site Additional consultation with SHPO, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), and other parties who have demonstrated interest under NHPA consultation requirements will be necessary for all three proposed action alternatives. Additional information concerning the consultation process can be found in the Section 106 Applicant Toolkit on ACHP’s website at http://www.achp.gov/apptoolkit.html. Development of a MOA, to minimize or mitigate the adverse effects, will also be necessary. The timeline for this process is a minimum of two months. During this process, specific mitigation options will be discussed between GSA and the consulting parties. A draft MOA will be sent to the consulting parties and, based on comments received, the MOA will be revised.

OBG, SEPTEMBER 12 , 201 7 | PRE-FINAL| 20

PROPOSED FEDERAL COURTHOUSE, ANNISTON, AL│ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

It is recommended that the US Courthouse be designed in scale, mass and materials that are sympathetic with the historic structures of the Downtown Anniston Historic District to mitigate any potential adverse secondary effect. Visual issues should be addressed during the Courthouse design to minimize its impacts. The CRA recommends that the project design for each proposed Alternative include efforts to identify and evaluate archaeological deposits once a building site is selected, and during demolition while existing structures and hardscaped surfaces are removed. Mitigation Specific to Alternative 2 – Construction at the City Hall Site This alternative has the potential for an indirect negative affect to the planned Freedom Riders Monument. Additional consultation with the National Park Service is recommended to mitigate these impacts. Mitigation Specific to Alternative 3 – Construction at Block 149 Site Significant impacts from this alternative to the planned Freedom Riders Monument would be difficult to mitigate, as this site is directly adjacent to the monument. The National Park Service indicated that it is the least favorable option, as it would detract from the “historic associations” of the monument. 4.5 TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING An established network of local streets and arterials serve the sites of the Proposed Action and the existing Courthouse. Access to the City of Anniston is also available by rail and air. Air service is provided to the area at the Anniston Municipal Airport. Rail access is provided in the east-west direction by Amtrak. 4.5.1 Parking 4.5.1.1 Existing Conditions The City of Anniston published a Downtown Anniston Multimodal Plan in 2016, with the purpose of establishing “an overall framework for multimodal access, circulation, service, and parking in the Downtown core of Anniston.” Most of the public streets in Downtown Anniston have store-front parking that totals over 350 on-street parking spaces. The City also provides an additional 982 public parking spaces in the downtown core, 120 of which are located on the City Hall Site. During the December 6 and 7, 2016 OBG site visit, the City Hall parking lot appeared to be at least 50% vacant. On-street parking is available along the northern, eastern, and western perimeter of the City Hall Site. The Block 149 Site contains parking areas in the internal alleyways and a small lot with about five spaces available on the southwest portion of the site. Parking is primarily used by businesses located on the site. On-street parking is available along the northern, eastern, and southern perimeter of the Block 149 Site. The Block 151/159 Site contains a surface lot used by the Opportunity Foundation Center’s medical equipment storage and distribution building (approximately ten spaces). Some street parking is available along Walnut Avenue and W 13th Street. An article published by the Anniston Star on June 20, 2014, indicated that residents perceive parking to be limited since it is not often available directly in front of stores at which they are shopping; but in reality, Anniston has an abundance of parking. The article quoted Jack Plunk, principal planner for Anniston-based East Alabama Regional Planning and Development Commission and Toby Bennington, City Planner, stating that there is an abundance of parking available throughout downtown. 4.5.1.2 Criteria of Evaluation An alternative may have a potentially significant impact on parking if it would: a. Permanently remove a substantial number of parking spaces from the planning area. b. Substantially conflict with goals or policies for vehicle access and parking in the downtown Anniston area.

OBG, SEPTEMBER 12 , 201 7 | PRE-FINAL| 21

PROPOSED FEDERAL COURTHOUSE, ANNISTON, AL│ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

4.5.1.3 Impacts and Significance of Effects Alternative 1 - No Action The No Action alternative would have no impact on parking. Alternative 2 – Construction at City Hall Site Construction at this site would remove approximately 120 surface parking spaces currently present on the site, but would create about thirteen secure parking spaces within the facility. Most of these parking spaces are currently used by employees of the City of Anniston and Calhoun County, who will be relocated to other facilities. The Proposed Action would consolidate existing court personnel from a nearby leased location, as well as displace the current occupants of the site. This action would slightly shift parking demand in the immediate area, but not increase the overall net demand of the city. Public parking is available on the blocks northeast, northwest, and west of this site. The removal of approximately 120 spaces of surface parking will have a moderate negative impact on parking in the Urban Core. While not all of these spaces are frequently used, this is a reasonably large number of spaces lost for a city the size of Anniston. Alternative 3 – Construction at Block 149 Site This alternative would have a minor negative impact on parking, as only a small, approximately five-space surface lot would be removed. Demand by court employees would shift to the lots adjacent to the new site, but no net demand for parking will be generated. The nearest public parking to this site is on the City Hall Site (adjacent to the north). Alternative 4 – Construction at Block 151/159 Site This alternative would have a minor negative impact on parking, as only a small number of spaces available for on street parking along Walnut Avenue, which runs through the middle of the block, would be removed. Parking provided for the Opportunity Foundation Center and other street parking spots would be removed, but this would have a minimal impact as these businesses will be relocated. Demand by court employees would shift to the lots adjacent to the new site. The nearest public parking to this site is south of the site, in the parking lot used by the Cheaha Brewing Company restaurant. Restaurant personnel interviewed indicated that if they are busy, this parking lot can fill up quickly, especially at night. This may have a minor negative impact on this parking area, since it is currently used by the restaurant. Parking would be available at the City Hall Site, two blocks southwest of the site. 4.5.1.4 Mitigation It is recommended that GSA work with the City of Anniston to develop additional surface parking to replace the spaces lost under these alternatives. This would mitigate the negative impact to the supply of parking spaces. 4.5.2 Pedestrian and Bicycle Access 4.5.2.1 Existing Conditions The East Alabama Regional Planning and Development Commission (EARPDC) responded to an agency coordination letter providing input on each alternative. The letter states that each site is either directly on or within ½ block of the north/south rail corridor planned as a rails-to-trails conversion project called the Chief Ladiga Trail. This project is designed to extend the current 90-mile rail-trail to downtown Anniston, in hopes of bringing more tourists to Anniston. The EARPDC asks that pedestrian and bicycle modes be accommodated in the design of the new courthouse. An Anniston Area Bicycle/Pedestrian Program Integration Study Report was prepared in July 2013 (hereafter referred to as the Bicycle/Pedestrian Study). This Study was conducted to “move forward with an integrated concept for bicycle/pedestrian facilities in Anniston and its immediate surroundings.” This Plan discusses the Chief Ladiga Trail extension project and recommends bicycle routes on 11th street and 12th street.

OBG, SEPTEMBER 12 , 201 7 | PRE-FINAL| 22

PROPOSED FEDERAL COURTHOUSE, ANNISTON, AL│ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

The Chief Ladiga Trail, once completed, will run adjacent to the west of the Block 151/159 Site. The 11th street bike lanes will be between the north of the Block 149 Site and the south of the City Hall Site. The 12th street bike lanes will be directly north of the City Hall Site. Bike lanes are also proposed along Noble Street, which borders the current federal courthouse. 4.5.2.2 Criteria of Evaluation An alternative may have a potentially significant impact on pedestrian and bicycle access if it would: a. Permanently remove a substantial number of pedestrian/bicycle routes from the planning area. b. Substantially conflict with goals or policies for pedestrian/bicycle access in the downtown Anniston area. 4.5.2.3 Impacts and Significance of Effects Alternative 1 - No Action The No Action alternative would have no impact. Alternative 2 – Construction at City Hall Site This alternative does not remove a substantial number of pedestrian/bicycle routes, nor does it conflict with goals or policies in the Bicycle/Pedestrian Study. Both 11th street and 12th street, which border the City Hall Site, will be converted to shared-use bikeways for bicyclists and motor vehicles. These shared-use bikeways will connect to the proposed Chief Ladiga trail extension. While construction on the site may cause congestion and lead to short-term negative impacts to the bike routes, there will be no long-term impacts that meet criterion “a” or “b.” Alternative 3 – Construction at Block 149 Site This alternative will remove two alleys within the Block 149 Site. These alleys are typically only used by owners and tenants of buildings on this site, and are not designated as pedestrian/bike routes. Therefore, this alternative does not remove a substantial number of pedestrian/bicycle routes. This alternative does not conflict with goals or policies in the Bicycle/Pedestrian Study. This study proposed that 11th street be converted to a shared-use bikeway for bicyclists and motor vehicles. This shared-use bikeway will connect to the proposed Chief Ladiga trail extension. As with Alternative 2, construction on the site may cause congestion and lead to short-term negative impacts to the bike route; however, there will be no long-term impacts to the bike routes that meet criterion “a” or “b.” Alternative 4 – Construction at Block 151/159 Site This alternative will remove Walnut Avenue, which runs north-west through the center of the Block 151/159 Site. Walnut Avenue is not designated as a principal, minor, or proposed arterial and is not designated as a pedestrian/bike route. This alternative does not conflict with goals or policies in the Anniston Area Bicycle/Pedestrian Program Integration Study provided that it does not cause interruption to the proposed Chief Ladiga extension project, which will run adjacent to the west of the Block 151/159 Site. As with Alternatives 2 and 3, construction on the site may cause congestion and lead to short-term negative impacts to the bike route; however, there will be no long-term impacts to the bike routes that meet criterion “a” or “b.” 4.5.2.4 Mitigation It is recommended that GSA work with the EARPDC and the City of Anniston to accommodate pedestrian and bicycle modes in the design of the new courthouse.

OBG, SEPTEMBER 12 , 201 7 | PRE-FINAL| 23

PROPOSED FEDERAL COURTHOUSE, ANNISTON, AL│ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

4.6 SITE CONTAMINATION/HAZARDOUS WASTE 4.6.1 Existing Conditions A search for hazardous materials sites has been conducted for the three potential Action Alternative sites as part of GSA’s due diligence requirements. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for each site is included in this report as Appendix H. None of the sites are included on any federal lists of hazardous waste sites. However, a search of state databases revealed that the City of Anniston operated three Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) for storage of gasoline on the City Hall Site. Based on figures in the ADEM tank closure report, the USTs were actually located to the north of the City Hall Site. All three USTs were removed in June 1995. A reconnaissance of the Block 149 Site revealed one building that appears to be a former service station with evidence of USTs. This site is not on the ADEM list of USTs – probably because the service station ceased operations prior to enactment of UST regulations. The Block 149 Site also contains two buildings that appear to be former auto repair businesses. Oil staining and improper storage of oil containers were observed in one of these former auto repair buildings. A tuxedo rental store that performed dry cleaning activities was previously located on the site. All of these observations suggest that environmental contamination may be present, but no releases have been documented. Evidence of USTs or other activities that pose a risk of environmental contamination were not observed on the Block 151/159 Site; however, documentation provided by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) indicated that there is potential contamination from the property located adjacent to the south of the Block 151/159 Site, as well as on the southwest corner of the Block 151/159 Site. Due to the age of the existing buildings on the three potential sites, it is likely that some asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) and lead-based paints (LBPs) are present. ACMs in the Anniston City Hall may have been removed during renovations conducted in 1999. Several contaminated sites are present in the Urban Core. These include the Anniston Justice Center site, located adjacent to the north of the City Hall Site, and the former Chalk-line site, an apparel factory located 1½ blocks west of the Block 149 Site. Soil contamination at these sites was remediated by the City of Anniston; however, groundwater contamination is still present (Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM), 2010; Bullock Environmental, 2012; ADEM, 2013). Groundwater at the Anniston Justice Center site is contaminated with benzene, lead, sec‐butylbenzene, and naphthalene (Bullock Environmental, 2012), and groundwater at the former Chalk-line site is contaminated with lead and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (ADEM, 2010). 4.6.2 Criteria of Evaluation An alternative may have the potential for a significant impact if it would: a. Create a hazard to public health or the environment through the use, handling, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials or wastes. b. Create reasonably foreseeable conditions that would have the potential for improper release of hazardous materials into the environment. c. Locate facilities on a site included on a list of hazardous material or waste sites compiled in accordance with federal and state laws. d. Subject humans to soils with concentrations of hazardous materials in excess of health advisory limits. 4.6.3 Impacts and Significance of Effects Alternative 1 - No Action The No Action alternative would have no impact on site contamination or hazardous waste in Anniston. OBG, SEPTEMBER 12 , 201 7 | PRE-FINAL| 24

PROPOSED FEDERAL COURTHOUSE, ANNISTON, AL│ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Alternatives 2 – Construction at City Hall Site This location has a high potential for soil or groundwater contamination due to past adjacent site activity. The Anniston Justice Center, where groundwater contamination is present, is located adjacent to the north of the site. Historical information identified environmental concerns associated with historical use of the surrounding properties as gas stations, automotive repair facilities, and drycleaners. Although contamination is not known to be present, GSA anticipates that further due diligence investigations will be required if this site is selected. Therefore, there is a minor negative impact from this alternative. Implementation of the Proposed Action would require removal of any interior building components that contain asbestos and LBP, as well as hazardous materials, prior to demolition of the buildings. Appropriate surveys would be performed before demolition, to ensure worker safety, as required under the Occupational Safety and Health Act [Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 1926.1101 (29 CFR 1926.1101)]. ACMs and LBPs will be removed by licensed contractors in accordance with federal and state regulations, and disposed in a landfill permitted to receive these types of waste. If soil and/or groundwater contamination is identified, assessment and remediation will be conducted in accordance with federal and state regulations. Because ACM and LBP abatement activities will be conducted in compliance with applicable federal and state laws, and wastes generated by these activities will be properly transported and disposed, impacts associated with the Proposed Action will be mitigated appropriately. Therefore, these alternatives would have no impact on public health and the environment from hazardous materials, wastes, or constituents. Alternative 3 – Construction at Block 149 Site This location has the highest potential for soil or groundwater contamination of the three potential Action Alternative sites due to past site activity. One building on the site appears to be a former service station with evidence of USTs. Two buildings appear to be former auto repair businesses, with oil staining and improper storage of oil containers observed in one of these former auto repair buildings. A tuxedo rental store that performed dry cleaning activities was previously located on the site. In addition to environmental concerns located on the site, historical information identified environmental concerns with historical use of surrounding properties as gas stations, automotive repair facilities, and drycleaners. A Preliminary Assessment of the Anniston Scrap Company site, located adjacent to the southeast of the Block 149 site, identified metals and PCB impacts to soils on the site with the potential to impact groundwater and surface water (ADEM Environmental Services Branch, 2010). The Block 149 Site is located downgradient of this area. Although contamination is not known to be present, GSA expects that further due diligence investigations will be required if this site is selected. Therefore, there is a minor negative impact from this alternative. As with alternative 2, implementation of the Proposed Action would require removal of interior building components that contain asbestos and LBP, as well as hazardous materials, prior to demolition of the buildings. Alternative 4 – Construction at Block 151/159 Site This location has potential for soil or groundwater contamination. Although there are no visual indications of environmental contamination, the potential is based on a Preliminary Assessment of the L & N Railroad site, located adjacent to the south of the Block 151/159 Site at a topographically lower elevation, as well as on the southwest corner of the Block 151/159 Site. The L & N Railroad Depot is no longer present, however, the Preliminary Assessment identified PCBs in one of the four samples collected on the L & N Railroad site (ADEM Environmental Services Branch, 2009). Although contamination on the Block 151/159 site is not known to be present, GSA expects that further due diligence investigations will be required if this site is selected. Therefore, there is a minor negative impact from this alternative. As with Alternatives 2 and 3, implementation of the Proposed Action at Block 151/159 would likely require removal of interior building components that contain asbestos and LBP, as well as hazardous materials, prior to demolition of the buildings. OBG, SEPTEMBER 12 , 201 7 | PRE-FINAL| 25

PROPOSED FEDERAL COURTHOUSE, ANNISTON, AL│ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

4.6.4 Mitigation There is a potential for contamination, based visual observations, reported concentrations of regulated constituents on adjacent sites, and/or historical information, on each of the three potential Action Alternative sites. Investigation of the potential contamination has not been conducted on the sites; therefore, contamination is suspected, but not known. A Phase II ESA is recommended for all three Action Alternative sites. Contamination identified at the selected site would be remediated based on federal and state regulations. 4.7 EXISTING CONDITIONS THAT WILL NOT BE IMPACTED As part of the analysis process for this EA, several areas of the potentially-affected environment were evaluated and found not to be impacted by any of the alternatives evaluated in this EA. Therefore, these issues were not addressed in this document. These issues are:  Landforms and Topography  Geology and Soils  Vegetation and Wildlife  Ambient Air Quality  Ambient Noise Levels  Weather-Related Hazards  Seismic Conditions  Radon  Land Use  Police Protection  Fire Protection  Medical Facilities  Educational Facilities  Open Space/Recreation  Electrical Power  Natural Gas  Potable Water  Wastewater  Stormwater  Solid Waste Management  Telecommunications  Traffic  Mass Transit  Species of Special Concern - The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) tool was used to screen for endangered species on each of the three sites. The IPaC indicated that no endangered species would be impacted by the Alternatives. The State of Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries Division commented that the proposed project is “unlikely to adversely affect any state-protected species.” The three sites are not located in designated wetlands. OBG, SEPTEMBER 12 , 201 7 | PRE-FINAL| 26

PROPOSED FEDERAL COURTHOUSE, ANNISTON, AL│ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

4.8 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Cumulative impacts are defined as “the impact on the environment, which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such actions” (40 CFR 1508.7). There would be no cumulative impacts from the No Action Alternative, since no new office space, new parking area, new public services, new utilities, or new transportation infrastructure would be used. Recent planning efforts in the delineated area (Anniston Urban Core) that are relevant to the cumulative impacts assessment include the following:  Chief Ladiga Trail Extension: The City of Anniston is in the process of extending the Chief Ladiga Trail 7.2 miles into downtown Anniston. As of May 25, 2017, the Anniston City Manager was reported to have said that the City is still working hard on its long delayed project, and is getting very close to obtaining the remaining land necessary for the extension.  The Freedom Riders National Monument: The National Park Service Freedom Riders National Monument website indicates that planning activities for the monument include development of a management plan. The goal of this plan will be to preserve the site’s resources and provide an outstanding experience for visitors. The National Park Service website indicated that planning will be coordinated with the City of Anniston and Calhoun County, as well as the public and other stakeholders. The public is invited to share ideas for the future of the monument.  Anniston Civil Rights Trail: The Anniston Civil Rights and Heritage Trail Committee began the Anniston Civil Rights Trail project in 2010. It currently includes nine historic sites marked with brown and gold historic markers in Anniston Alabama. Potential cumulative impacts are discussed below. 4.8.1 Land Use All three potential Action Alternative sites are located within the Urban Core, and are located within an area designated as “Urban Core.” There is no major foreseeable construction in the immediate delineated area. Although there would be some construction associated with the Chief Ladiga Trail Extension, it is not anticipated to be significant (the only construction would include re-surfacing and paving of the trail). The Chief Ladiga Trail Extension, Freedom Riders National Monument, and Anniston Civil Rights Trail are expected to bring more tourists to downtown Anniston, contributing to an increase in economic activity and redevelopment of the City. Construction of the courthouse on either of the three potential Action Alternative sites also contributes to redevelopment. Therefore, no adverse cumulative impacts on land use from the proposed action and development associated with the Chief Ladiga Trail Extension, the Freedom Riders National Monument, or the Anniston Civil Rights Trail projects are anticipated for any of the sites. 4.8.2 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice The Chief Ladiga Trail Extension will bring bicyclists and pedestrians to downtown Anniston and through West Anniston, and will help connect the neighborhoods of West Anniston to the Urban Core. The Freedom Riders National Monument and the Anniston Civil Rights Trail help convey Anniston’s historic associations. All three projects will attract tourists and increase economic activity in the area. As discussed in Section 4.2.3, the three potential Action Alternative sites are at least two blocks closer to the minority neighborhoods in West Anniston than the existing Courthouse, which provides minority populations more convenient access to Court facilities. Therefore, there are beneficial cumulative impacts on socioeconomics and environmental justice for the proposed action and development associated with the Chief Ladiga Trail Extension, the Freedom Riders National Monument, and the Anniston Civil Rights Trail projects.

OBG, SEPTEMBER 12 , 201 7 | PRE-FINAL| 27

PROPOSED FEDERAL COURTHOUSE, ANNISTON, AL│ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

4.8.3 Transportation and Parking The Chief Ladiga Trail Extension, Freedom Riders National Monument, and Anniston Civil Rights Trail should not have an adverse impact on traffic and parking (no parking spaces in the Urban Core will be removed); therefore, there are no cumulative impacts on parking. The Chief Ladiga Trail Extension may increase the number of pedestrians and cyclists in the area, however, since the proposed courthouse does not impact transportation, there would be no cumulative impacts to transportation from the proposed action and development associated with the Chief Ladiga Trail Extension, the Freedom Riders National Monument, and the Anniston Civil Rights Trail projects. 4.8.4 Public Services and Utilities The Chief Ladiga Trail Extension, Freedom Riders National Monument, and Anniston Civil Rights Trail should not overburden public services and utilities, therefore, no cumulative impacts are anticipated from the proposed action and development associated with the Chief Ladiga Trail Extension, Freedom Riders National Monument, and Anniston Civil Rights Trail projects. 4.8.5 Water Resources The Chief Ladiga Trail Extension, Freedom Riders National Monument, and Anniston Civil Rights Trail should not have an impact on water resources (the Chief Ladiga Trail Extension will add a minimal amount of impervious surfaces, and the Freedom Riders National Monument and Anniston Civil Rights Trail are already in a largely impervious areas); therefore, there will be no cumulative impacts to water resources from the proposed action and development associated with the Chief Ladiga Trail Extension, Freedom Riders National Monument, and Anniston Civil Rights Trail projects. 4.8.6 Air Quality and Noise As mentioned above, minimal construction would be seen from the Chief Ladiga Trail Extension, and no construction would occur for the Freedom Riders National Monument or the Anniston Civil Rights Trail. Minimal adverse impacts related to air quality and noise would result from demolition and construction activities associated with construction of the new courthouse over the long term; therefore, no cumulative impacts to air quality and noise are anticipated from the proposed action and development associated with the Chief Ladiga Trail Extension, Freedom Riders National Monument, and Anniston Civil Rights Trail projects. 4.9 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS The following section provides a narrative summary of the benefits and impacts associated with the Alternatives evaluated in this EA. Table 4-1 also summarizes these impacts. 4.9.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative is used as a baseline for comparison, because it documents the impacts to the courts from continued overcrowding in the existing courthouse, operating at a separate leased location, and not meeting documented expansion requirements. This alternative has one major negative impact, one moderate negative impact, and one minor negative impact. It would have a major negative impact on Court security, and would have a moderate negative impact because it would not achieve the purpose and need for the Proposed Action. The existing facility does not meet the projected 10-year or 30-year space requirements of the court. The existing overcrowded conditions, use of nearby leased space, and inefficient operations would continue. It also does not meet current security requirements. In addition, this alternative would not encourage redevelopment of downtown Anniston as in other alternatives, which is a minor negative impact on Comprehensive Planning. However, the potential negative impacts associated with construction would be avoided. 4.9.2 Alternative 2 – Construction at City Hall Site Under Alternative 2, the Anniston City Hall and other buildings on the site would be demolished, and a new courthouse constructed. This alternative would achieve the purpose and need for the action. It would have a beneficial impact on court security, economy and employment, environmental justice, and comprehensive planning. OBG, SEPTEMBER 12 , 201 7 | PRE-FINAL| 28

PROPOSED FEDERAL COURTHOUSE, ANNISTON, AL│ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

It has one major negative impact, two moderate negative impacts, and two minor negative impacts. It has a major negative impact due to the site being in the 0.2% Annual Chance floodplain. It has a moderative negative impact due to cultural resources and parking. Construction at the City Hall Site would require demolition of two historic structures. The full extent of impacts and possible mitigation for cultural resources will require consultation with the Alabama SHPO and other parties who have demonstrated interest under NHPA consultation requirements. A minor negative impact due to site constructability based on hydrology and potential environmental contamination is also expected. A Phase II ESA is recommended. 4.9.3 Alternative 3 – Construction at Block 149 Site Under Alternative 3, the existing buildings on the site would be demolished, and a new Courthouse constructed. This alternative would achieve the purpose and need for the action. It would have a positive impact on economy and employment, court security, comprehensive planning, and environmental justice. It has one major negative impact, one moderate negative impacts, and two minor negative impacts. This alternative has a major negative impact on cultural resources. The Regional Director of the National Park Service suggested that this alternative would be the least appropriate with respect to the proposed Freedom Riders National Monument, and construction at the Block 149 Site would require demolition of fourteen historic structures. The full extent of impacts and possible mitigation will require consultation with the Alabama SHPO and other parties, including the National Park Service, who have demonstrated interest under NHPA consultation requirements. This alternative will have a moderate negative impact due to site constructability based on hydrology. There is also a minor negative impact due to a high potential for environmental contamination (a Phase II ESA is recommended) and parking. 4.9.4 Alternative 4 – Construction at Block 151/159 Site Under Alternative 4, the existing buildings on the site would be demolished, and a new Courthouse constructed. This alternative would achieve the purpose and need for the action. It would have a beneficial impact on economy and employment, comprehensive planning, environmental justice, and court security, although, relative to the other Action Alternatives, it was ranked least secure in the security assessment (Appendix G). It has one moderate negative impact and four minor negative impacts. This alternative has a moderate negative impact on site constructability due to the hydrology on the site based on observations and a site-specific hydrology study (Appendix E). There is a potential for minor negative impacts to cultural resources (construction at the Block 151/159 Site would require demolition of three historic structures), parking, and site contamination. The full extent of impacts and possible mitigation for cultural resources will require consultation with the Alabama SHPO and other parties who have demonstrated interest under NHPA consultation requirements.

OBG, SEPTEMBER 12 , 201 7 | PRE-FINAL| 29

PROPOSED FEDERAL COURTHOUSE, ANNISTON, AL│ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Table 4- 1. Comparison of Anticipated Impacts

Alternative 4 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Area of Impact Block No Action City Hall Block 149 151/159 Moderate Achieve Purpose and Need Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial Negative Major Floodplain Determinations No Impact No Impact No Impact Negative Minor Moderate Moderate Hydrology Study for Constructability No Impact Negative Negative Negative Minor Comprehensive Planning Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial Negative Economic & Employment Activities No Impact Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial Environmental Justice No Impact Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial Major Court Security Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial Negative Moderate Major Minor Cultural Resources No Impact Negative Negative Negative Moderate Minor Minor Parking No Impact Negative Negative Negative Pedestrian & Bicycle Access No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact Minor Minor Minor Site Contamination No Impact Negative Negative Negative

OBG, SEPTEMBER 12 , 201 7 | PRE-FINAL| 30

PROPOSED FEDERAL COURTHOUSE, ANNISTON, AL│ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

5 REFERENCES

Publications Alabama Department of Environmental Management Environmental Services Branch, 2009. Site Reassessment, L&N Railroad Depot Site. Alabama Department of Environmental Management Environmental Services Branch, 2010. Site Reassessment, Anniston Scrap Company Site. Alabama Department of Environmental Management, 2010. Conditional Letter of Concurrence. Letter to the City of Anniston. Alabama Department of Environmental Management, 2013. Proposed Anniston Justice Center Site. Letter to Anniston Public Building Authority. March 26, 2013. Anniston-Calhoun County Public Library. http://www.anniston.lib.al.us. Anniston Star, June 20, 2014. Downtown Anniston has wealth of unused parking spots Anniston Water Works and Sewer Board, 2015 http://www.awwsb.org/Default.asp?ID=167 BAT Associates Inc., 2009. Environmental Assessment, Proposed Federal Courthouse, Anniston, Alabama. Report prepared for the General Services Administration, Public Buildings Service, Southeast Sunbelt Region, Atlanta, Georgia. Report prepared by BAT Associates, Inc., Norcross, Georgia. Bullock Environmental, 2012. Revised Voluntary Cleanup Plan, Proposed Anniston Justice Center, West 12th & 13th Streets and Walnut & Gurnee Avenues, Anniston, Calhoun County, Alabama. November 26, 2012 City of Anniston, 1999. Zoning Ordinance, approved July 2016. City of Anniston, 2014. Strategic Plan, One-City One-Vision City of Anniston, 2016. Downtown Multimodal Plan EPA NEPA Assist, https://www.epa.gov/nepa/nepassist Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2016. Flood Insurance Study; Calhoun County, Alabama and Incorporated Areas. March 16, 2016. Government Technology, May 25, 2017. Technology Will Soon Accurately Measure Use of Alabama's Chief Ladiga Trail. KPS Group, Inc., April 16, 2014. The West Anniston Master Plan. Prepared for the City of Anniston, Anniston Housing Authority, and Anniston City Schools. National Park Service Freedom Riders National Monument Alabama Planning. https://www.nps.gov/frri/getinvolved/planning.htm U.S. Census Bureau. American FactFinder. Census Data. http://factfinder.census.gov. U.S. General Services Administration, 1999. GSA NEPA Desk Guide. December 1999. U.S. General Services Administration, 2005. Memorandum of Understanding Between GSA, City of Anniston, Calhoun County, and Anniston Water Works Board Regarding the Development of a new Federal Courthouse. December 1999.

OBG, SEPTEMBER 12 , 201 7 | PRE-FINAL| 31

PROPOSED FEDERAL COURTHOUSE, ANNISTON, AL│ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Personal Communications Armbrester, 2016 and 2017. Meeting on December 6, 2016, and subsequent email correspondence, with Lance Armbrester, City Engineer for the City of Anniston. [email protected], (256) 231-7750 Arnold, 2016. Meeting on December 6, 2016 with Frank Arnold, a Block 151/159 property owner. (256) 310-3368 Baggett, 2017. Telephone conversation with Mike Baggett, GISP of the Ecological Planning Group LLC and subsequent email correspondence. [email protected], (912) 596-7879 Bennington, 2016 and 207. Meeting on December 6, 2016, and subsequent email correspondence, with Toby Bennington, City Planner for the City of Anniston. [email protected],(256) 231-7720 Cheaha Brewing Company, 2017. Telephone conversation with an employee of the Cheecha Brewing Company. (256) 770-7300 Davis, 2016. Meeting on December 6, 2016 with Kent Davis, City Manager of the City of Anniston. [email protected], (256) 241-7162 Gwin, 2016. Meeting on December 6, 2016 with Marty Gwin of the Opportunity Foundation Center, which is located on Block 151/159. Tyson, 2016. Meeting on December 5, 2016 with James Tyson, owner of Model City Glass, which is located on Block 149. [email protected] (256) 237-4444 Turner, 2016. Meeting on December 6, 2016 with Ed Turner, General Manager of the Anniston Water Works and Sewer Board, which is located on Block 151/159. [email protected], (256) 241-5005

OBG, SEPTEMBER 12 , 201 7 | PRE-FINAL| 32

PROPOSED FEDERAL COURTHOUSE, ANNISTON, AL│ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

6 LIST OF PREPARERS

U. S. General Services Administration Southeast Sunbelt Region 77 Forsyth Street Atlanta, GA 30303 Ashish Desai, P.E. - Environmental Manager [email protected] M.S., Civil Engineering, Rutgers University, 1984 B.S., Civil Engineering, Rutgers University, 1981 Years of Experience: 30 O’Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. 300 Drayton Street Savannah, GA 31401 Maureen T. Hoke, P.E. – Vice President B.S., Civil Engineering, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, 1992 Years of Experience: 25 Denise McCoy, P.G. – Project Manager B.S., Geology, University of Wisconsin, 1997 Years of Experience: 20 V. Lyle Trumbull, Ph.D. – Senior Technical Director Ph.D., Biology, University of Illinois, 1996 M.S., Biology, Clarion University of Pennsylvania, 1988 B.S., Biology, Lebanon Valley College, 1984 Years of Experience: 20 Meghan Thiemann, E.I.T. – Staff Engineer M.E., Environmental Engineering, University of Florida, 2015 B.S., Environmental Engineering, University of Florida, 2014 Years of Experience: 2 S&ME Heather L. Carpini – Senior Architectural Historian / Historian M.A., Public History/Historic Preservation, University of South Carolina, 2005 B.A., History, University of South Carolina, Columbia, 2002 Ms. Carpini’s qualifications meet the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards (defined in 36 CFR 61) for both an Architectural Historian and a Historian Aaron Brummitt, R.P.A. – Senior Archaeologist M.A., Anthropology, University of South Carolina, 2007 B.A., Anthropology, University of Tennessee, 2002 Mr. Brummitt’s qualifications meet the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards (defined in 36 CFR 61) for an Archaeologist. Synergy Solutions Inc. Daryl Johnson – Security Assessor M.A., Public Administration, Jacksonville State University B.A., Political Sciences, University of Tennessee Command and General Staff College

OBG, SEPTEMBER 12 , 201 7 | PRE-FINAL| 33

PROPOSED FEDERAL COURTHOUSE, ANNISTON, AL│ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

7 AGENCIES, OFFICIALS, AND OTHERS THAT RECEIVED THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OR ANNOUNCEMENT

7.1 U.S. CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION 7.1.1 U.S. Senators The Honorable Richard Shelby, 304 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington DC, 20510 The Honorable Luther Strange, 326 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington DC, 20510 U.S. House of Representatives, The Honorable Mike Rogers, 1129 Noble Street #104, Anniston, AL 36201 7.2 STATE OF ALABAMA ELECTED OFFICIALS 7.2.1 Governor’s Office Kay Ivey, State Capitol, 600 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, AL 36130 7.3 STATE SENATOR AND REPRESENTATIVE Senator Del Marsh, 11 South Union Street, Suite 722, Montgomery, AL 36130 Representative Marcel Black, 11 South Union Street, Suite 435, Montgomery, AL 36130 7.4 FEDERAL AGENCIES Tom McCullock, Ph.D., RPA, Assistant Director, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, [email protected] Ms. Kirsten Kulis, GSA Liaison, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, [email protected] Mr. Jim Bates, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 52560, Fort Benning, GA 31995, [email protected] Karen J. Baker, Chief of the Environmental Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, [email protected] Mr. Christopher Militscher, Office of Policy and Management, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, 61 Forsyth Street, Atlanta, GA 30303‐8960, [email protected] Mr. Adrian Sevier, Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW, Washington, DC 20472 Kelly Knight, Office of Federal Activities, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2201A, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington DC 20044, [email protected] Ben West, Chief, Planning and Compliance Division, Southeast Regional Office, National Park Service, 100 Alabama St, 1924 Bldg., Atlanta, GA 30303, [email protected] Stan Austin, Regional Director, Southeast Regional Office, National Park Service, 100 Alabama St, 1924 Bldg., Atlanta, GA 30303, [email protected] Cynthia Walton, National Historic Landmarks Program Manager, Southeast Regional Office, National Park Service, 100 Alabama St, 1924 Bldg., Atlanta, GA 30303, [email protected] 7.5 STATE OF ALABAMA AGENCIES AND PRESERVATION GROUPS Ms. Lee Anne Wofford, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, Alabama Historical Commission, 468 South Perry Street, Montgomery, AL 36130‐0900, [email protected] National Trust for Historic Preservation, The Watergate Office Building, 2600 Virginia Avenue, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20037

OBG, SEPTEMBER 12 , 201 7 | PRE-FINAL| 34

PROPOSED FEDERAL COURTHOUSE, ANNISTON, AL│ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Ms. Samantha P. Sims, P.E., Permits and Services Division, Alabama Department of Environmental Management, P.O. Box 301463, Montgomery, AL 36130 Héctor M. Abreu Cintrón, General Services Administration, [email protected] Mr. John Hildreth, Director Southern Regional Office, National Trust for Historic Preservation, 517 Savannah Highway, Charleston, SC 29407 William J. Pearson, Field Supervisor, Alabama Ecological Field Services Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Daphne, Alabama 36526, [email protected] Mr. Antwan Parker, Redevelopment Section, Land Division, Alabama Department of Environmental Management, 1400 Coliseum Boulevard, Montgomery, AL 36110 Lawrence A. Norris, Chief, Redevelopment Section, Land Division, Alabama Department of Environmental Management, 1400 Coliseum Boulevard, Montgomery, AL 36110 Taconya D. Goar, PhD, Environmental Affairs Supervisor, Alabama Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries, [email protected] Ed Hooker, Alabama Preservation Alliance, [email protected] John H. Valieant, Chairman, Anniston Historic Preservation Commission, [email protected] Megan Brightwell, Vice Chair, Anniston Historic Preservation Commission, [email protected] Ms. Gena Robbins, Alabama Trust for Historic Preservation, Station 45, Livingston, AL 35470, [email protected], (205) 652-5545 David B. Schneider, Schneider Historic Preservation, LLC, 411 E. 6th Street, Anniston, Alabama, 36207, [email protected], (256) 310-6320 Ann Welch, Chairman, Spirit of Anniston, (256) 236-0996, [email protected] 7.6 CITY OF ANNISTON AND CALHOUN COUNTY OFFICIALS AND AGENCIES Mayor Jack Draper, City of Anniston, P.O. Box 2168, Anniston, AL 36202 Councilman Jay Jenkins, Anniston City Council, P.O. Box 2168, Anniston, AL 36202 Councilman David Reddick, Anniston City Council, P.O. Box 2168, Anniston, AL 36202 Councilman Ben Little, Anniston City Council, P.O. Box 2168, Anniston, AL 36202 Councilwoman Millie Harris, Anniston City Council, P.O. Box 2168, Anniston, AL 36202 Chief Cris Collins, Anniston Fire Department, 225 East 17th Street, Anniston, AL 36202 Commissioner Fred Wilson, Calhoun County Commission, 1702 Noble Street, Suite 103, Anniston, AL 36201 Commissioner Tim Hodges, Calhoun County Commission, 1702 Noble Street, Suite 103, Anniston, AL 36201 Commissioner John Hess, Calhoun County Commission, 1702 Noble Street, Suite 103, Anniston, AL 36201 Commissioner Don Hudson, Calhoun County Commission, 1702 Noble Street, Suite 103, Anniston, AL 36201 Commissioner Lee Patterson, Calhoun County Commission, 1702 Noble Street, Suite 103, Anniston, AL 36201 Mr. Kent Davis, City Manager, P.O. Box 2168, Anniston, AL 36202, [email protected]

OBG, SEPTEMBER 12 , 201 7 | PRE-FINAL| 35

PROPOSED FEDERAL COURTHOUSE, ANNISTON, AL│ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Mr. Toby Bennington, Anniston City Planner, P.O. Box 2168, Anniston, AL 36202, [email protected] Mr. Lance Armbrester, City Engineer, P.O. Box 2168, Anniston, AL 36202, [email protected] Mr. Ed Turner, General Manager, Anniston Water and Sewer Board, 931 Noble Street, P.O. Box 2268, Anniston, AL 36202 7.7 CLIENT AGENCIES Chief Judge Karon O. Bowdre, Northern District of Alabama, 1729 Fifth Avenue N., Suite 882, Birmingham, AL 35204 District Clerk Sharon Harris, Northern District of Alabama, 1729 Fifth Avenue N., Birmingham, AL 35204 Hugo L. Black U.S. Courthouse, Northern District of Alabama, 1729 Fifth Avenue N., Birmingham, AL 35204 Clerk Joseph Bulgarella, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of Alabama, 1129 Noble Street, Anniston, AL 36201 Judge James Robinson, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of Alabama, 1129 Noble Street, Anniston, AL 36201 Judge Virginia Hopkins, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama, 1729 Fifth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203 U.S. Marshal Chester Martin Keely, U.S. Marshals Service, Northern District of Alabama, 1729 Fifth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203 Deputy Director David L. Harlow, U.S. Marshals Service, Northern District of Alabama, 1729 Fifth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203 Acting U.S. Attorney Robert O. Posey, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Alabama, 1801 Fourth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203 Thomas Corbett, U.S. Bankruptcy Administrator, Northern District of Alabama, 1800 5th Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203 David A. Russell, Chief U.S. Probation Officer, Probation and Pretrial Services Office, Northern District of Alabama1800, 5th Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203 7.8 OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES Ms. Betsy Bean, Spirit of Anniston, 1018 Noble Street, Anniston, AL 36201 Mr. Barry E. Robertson, Calhoun County Chamber of Commerce, 1330 Quintard Avenue, Anniston, AL 3620 Harolyn McClellan & Patsy Gulledge, 21 Circle Drive, Anniston, AL 36207 Ms. Sheatha Gibson, 343 Sleepy Hollow Circle , Oxford, AL 36203 Ms. Linda Baker Miller, W. 16th Street, Anniston, AL 36207 Mavis Watson Bowles Trust, 1401 Cobb Road, Munford, AL 36268 Mr. Terry Ackles, 215 N 21 Street Apt B, Gadsden, AL 35904 Steven D. Miles and Marty Gwin, 6300 McClelan Blvd., Anniston, AL 36206 Jim and Andrew Tyson, 101 W 10th Street, PO Box 1301, Anniston, AL 36207 William P. Nelson, 55 Buckner Circle, Anniston, AL 36205 Fred Lawton III, 20 E. 12th Street, PO Box 2554, Anniston, AL 36202 Acceptance Loan Company, [email protected]

OBG, SEPTEMBER 12 , 201 7 | PRE-FINAL| 36

PROPOSED FEDERAL COURTHOUSE, ANNISTON, AL│ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Ms. Mattie Wood, 1506 Circle Drive, Anniston, AL 36201 Wooten 2007 Revocable Family Trust, 820 Old Highway Gadsden Highway, Anniston, AL 36201 Wallace K. Gunnells, P.E., Anniston First Baptist Church, 851 Morton Road, Anniston, AL 36205 Alan McCarty, 708 Fairway Drive, Anniston, AL 36207 Home Realty Co., [email protected] Frank Arnold, 17 West 13th Street, Anniston, AL 3620 Jack Plunk, Principal Planner East Alabama, Regional Planning and Development Commission, 1130 Quintard Avenue Suite 3000, Anniston, AL 36202 James Miller, 304 Raemon Ave, Anniston, AL 36207 Rick Shea, 1219 Christine Ave, Anniston, AL 36207 Brandy Warren, The Anniston Star, [email protected] George Monk, P.O. Box 2168, Anniston, AL 36202 Megan Nichols, The Anniston Star, [email protected] Jennie Preston, Rabbit Hutch on Noble Street, 1026 Noble Street, Anniston, AL 36201 Scott Barksdale, Spirit of Anniston, 1018 Noble Street, Anniston, AL 36201 David C Christian, Christian & Associates, 1302 Noble Street, Suite 3A, Anniston, AL 36201, [email protected] Fred Couch, Jr., Founder and President, Alabama Scenic River Trail, [email protected] Walt Williamson, Property owner, 115 West 10th Street, Anniston, AL 36201, [email protected] David and Lisa Browning, Wildes Air Conditioning Co., [email protected]

OBG, SEPTEMBER 12 , 201 7 | PRE-FINAL| 37

PROPOSED FEDERAL COURTHOUSE, ANNISTON, AL│ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

8 FIGURES

8.1 FIGURE 1 – PROJECT LOCATION

OBG, SEPTEMBER 12 , 201 7 | PRE-FINAL| 38

PROPOSED FEDERAL COURTHOUSE, ANNISTON, AL│ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

8.2 FIGURE 2 – URBAN CORE AND ZONING

OBG, SEPTEMBER 12 , 201 7 | PRE-FINAL| 39

PROPOSED FEDERAL COURTHOUSE, ANNISTON, AL│ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

8.3 FIGURE 3 – HISTORIC RESOURCE MAP

OBG, SEPTEMBER 12 , 201 7 | PRE-FINAL| 40

PROPOSED FEDERAL COURTHOUSE, ANNISTON, AL│ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

8.4 FIGURE 4 – SITE LOCATIONS

OBG, SEPTEMBER 12 , 201 7 | PRE-FINAL| 41

PROPOSED FEDERAL COURTHOUSE, ANNISTON, AL│ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

8.5 FIGURE 5 – FEMA FLOODPLAIN MAP WITH SITE LOCATIONS

OBG, SEPTEMBER 12 , 201 7 | PRE-FINAL| 43

PROPOSED FEDERAL COURTHOUSE, ANNISTON, AL│ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

8.6 FIGURE 6 – TOPOGRAPHIC MAP WITH SITE LOCATIONS

OBG, SEPTEMBER 12 , 201 7 | PRE-FINAL| 44