UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
^ REGION III
$ 1650 Arch Street
r^ Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029
•^'- XN
January 24, 2005
Pamela J. Chandler, Chief
Site Section & Environmental Review Branch
Federal Bureau of Prisons
320 First Street, NW
Washington, DC 20534
RE: Proposed Federal Correctional Institution, Southern West Virginia, Draft Environmental
Impact Statement, December 2003 CEQ#040562
Dear Ms. Chandler:
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508), Section 309 of the Clean Air
Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the above referenced proposal.
Based on our review of the DEIS, EPA has rated the preferred alternative as "EC"
(Environmental Concerns) and the adequacy of the impact statement as "2" (Insufficient
information). A copy of EPA's ranking system is enclosed for your reference. The basis for
these ratings are contained in the remainder of this letter and in the attached detailed comments.
The purpose of this DEIS, as stated in the Introduction , is to provide an analysis of a proposal by
the U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to develop a new federal
correction facility in Southern West Virginia. Due to a significant influx of inmates, BOP has
committed resources to identifying, evaluating, and developing sites for new correctional
facilities, including construction in KY, VA, NC, and WV. The proposed action under
consideration consists of development of a medium-security Federal Correctional Institution
(FCI) to house approximately 1,152 adult inmates with a minimum-security satellite prison camp
to house approximately 128 adult inmates along with ancillary facilities including administrative
structures, a prison industry, a central utility plant, staff training facilities, a firing range,
warehouses, a water storage tank, among others. The mission of the proposed facility will be to
provide a safe, secure, and humane environment for the care and custody of federal inmates.
The alternatives considered in the DEIS were the no action alternative, alternative locations-
Nationwide, alternative locations warranting consideration, and the preferred alternative. BOP
determined that the "no action" alternative does not meet the purpose and need for the project.
BOP also determined that other projects, Nationwide, are needed in addition to a FCI in southern
WV. BOP looked at four counties in southern WV: Boone, Mingo, McDowell, and Nicholas
Counties, WV.
0
fainted on 100% recycled/recyclable paper with 100% post-consumer fiber and process chlorine free.
Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474
-------
The Boone county site comprises approximately 1,000 acres. It exists largely as undeveloped
woodlands. Portions exhibit evidence of past mining activities and current extraction of natural
gas. There is also a dirt track used to race motorcycles. According to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife's (USFWS), National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps, the site is likely to contain
wetlands
The Mango county site comprises approximately 550 acres of reclaimed surface mine and forest
land. Fifty percent of the site is level from past activities and fifty percent is steeply sloping
terrain. .
The Nicholas County site consists of approximately 800 acres and is largely wooded. Timber
harvesting and agricultural activities have occurred on portions of the site. Wetlands were
identified on NWI maps
The three sites above are all in private ownership.
The McDowell county site is located within the planned Indian Ridge Industrial Park.
Approximately 400 acres have been offered to BOP for consideration. The proposed site is
adjacent to the Coalfields Expressway and near the King Coal Highway. The devolvement of the
Indian Ridge Industrial Park caused extensive environmental impact. This location is in public
ownership
General Comments
In general, this DEIS does not provide enough information on any alternative other than the
preferred alternative to make an informed decision under NEPA. It doesn't appear that any of
the alternatives could be fairly compared to the preferred alternative, and that the preferred
alternative is the only viable alternative. BOP could have looked at other disturbed lands in
public ownership. In addition, it doesn't appear that the other WV sites were visited to assess the
impacts that would be associated with the project. BOP should also clearly explain why an FCI
needs to be located in Southern, WV.
Page 3 of the abstract states that implementation of the proposed action at the preferred site
should not result in significant adverse impacts as defined by NEPA. It is unclear why an EIS
would be conducted if this is the case.
While it appears that the preferred alternative will not have any further adverse environmental
impacts, it should be noted that the EPA objected to the impacts associated with the Indian Ridge
Industrial Park. Page 111-29 of the DEIS states that under a November 2000, U.S. Department of
Army Permit, 1.2 miles of headwater streams were filled and under a WV Division of
Environmental Protection 401 certification 0 .60 acres were filled. BOP should provide
documentation to show that the mitigation specified in the 404 permit for the project was
completed and should also include monitoring reports.
-------
The secondary and cumulative impacts assessment should look at past, present, and reasonable
foreseeable activities and impacts associated with all alternatives. Direct, secondary and
cumulative impacts from the prison industry and the central utility plant mentioned on page 1-8
should be discussed and evaluated. The secondary and cumulative impact section should
address impacts to environmental resources from any project. This would include habitat,
lighting impacts, noise, fragmentation, increased impervious surface, storm water and potential
for other services such as hotels for inmates visitors. Even though the exact details aren't
known, there is probably a good idea as to what those would entail. More details on mitigation
for any impacts should also be provided.
BOP should implement Low Impact Development technologies where feasible, to reduce the
impacts associated with the FCI.
Thank you for the opportunity to offer these comments. I f you have any questions, please
contact Barbara Okorn at (215) 814-3330.
Sincerely,
/s/
William Arguto,
------- |