The U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons proposes to lift a Stop-Work Order of a contract award to Cornell Corrections, Inc. (CCI) to house approximately 1,000 inmates in a contractor-owned/operated facility to be located near Philipsburg in Clearfield County, Pennsylvania. CCI will be responsible for housing approximately 1,000 inmates, consisting of sentenced felons, previously within the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections (DCDC) including 350 minimum-security males, 350 male offenders incarcerated under the D.C. Youth Rehabilitation Amendment Act of 1985 (YRA), and 300 females of various security levels. The private contractor-owned/operated facility would include support and auxiliary facilities, administrative spaces, recreational facilities, and an inmate industrial program. A staff of approximately 350 employees would provide 24-hour supervision. The action is mandated by the National Capital Revitalization and Self Government Improvement Act of 1997 (Revitalization Act), which requires that "The Bureau of Prisons shall house, in private contract facilities, at least 2,000 District of Columbia sentenced felons by December 31, 1999." The proposed action is based on the Congressional mandate.

The Federal Bureau of Prisons has been given the responsibility for accommodating within the federal prison system sentenced felons currently housed by the District of Columbia Department of Corrections. In doing so, the Bureau has been mandated by Congress in the Revitalization Act, to seek contractors to accommodate in private contract facilities at least 2,000 DCDC sentenced felons by December 31, 1999 and at least 50 percent of all DCDC sentenced felons by September 30, 2003. The Bureau is working diligently to comply with this mandate. Lifting the Stop-Work Order of a contract to CCI to house approximately 1,000 inmates in a contractor-owned/operated facility would represent a significant contribution to fulfilling the Bureau's obligation to comply with the Congressional mandate./p>

MITIGATION MEASURES

The following are measures to be implemented to mitigate potential adverse impacts associated with the proposed project:

• Topographic impacts will be mitigated by proper planning and design to establish building footprints, access roadways, utility corridors, and drainage facilities compatible with existing topography and drainage patterns.

• Potential impacts to soils will be minimized or avoided by implementing soil erosion and sediment control measures including use of silt fences, sedimentation basins, and similar measures during and following construction.

• A stormwater management system will be utilized to collect stormwater flows and direct such flows away from buildings, parking areas and other developed areas of the site. The system employs four sedimentation basins to gather and hold stormwater flows and the sediments carried by such flows, thereby minimizing potential direct and indirect impacts to downstream properties.

• Efforts will be made to minimize disturbance to existing vegetation to the extent possible with removal of vegetation restricted largely to areas proposed for development. The establishment of properly designed and maintained sedimentation basins at the onset of construction will also minimize potential adverse (indirect) impacts to wetlands.

• Any wastes found on site will be removed for disposal along with any construction debris prior to completion of construction. Wastes generated during facility operation would be handled, stored and disposed of in accordance with applicable state and federal regulations.

• Measures to mitigate potential visual impacts consist of sensitive architectural design and planning that minimize aesthetic consequences while providing the maximum feasible harmony between the proposed facility and surrounding lands.

• Measures to mitigate potential land use impacts include implementing thoughtful site design to provide the maximum feasible harmony between the proposed facility and surrounding lands and providing open space and a buffer between the facility and neighboring properties.

• Temporary impacts associated with utility extensions and improvements, including construction noise, dust and traffic disruptions will be minimized by ensuring such periods are kept to the shortest duration possible, employing appropriate soil erosion and sediment control measures, and carefully coordinating construction activities with applicable local and county authorities.

• Measures to minimize air emission impacts include employing properly maintained construction equipment, using tarp covers on trucks transporting materials to and from the construction site, wetting unpaved surfaces, and prohibiting open burning of construction wastes. Efforts will be made to employ energy-efficient equipment and materials in the design and construction of the facility, when appropriate while encouraging the use of carpools and vanpools to reduce the reliance on private automobiles, reduce traffic and minimize air emissions.

• Measures to minimize noise impacts include confining construction activities to normal working hours when possible while employing noise-controlled construction equipment.

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended and its implementing regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508), and based upon the Final Environmental Assessment (EA) dated March 2000, I find that lifting of the Stop-Work Order does not significantly affect the quality of the human environment and does not warrant the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement.

The impacts of the proposed action on the environment were considered in a Draft EA and Final EA prepared pursuant to NEPA. Review of the Draft and Final EAs leads to a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) as that phrase is defined pursuant to NEPA. The proposed action will result in negligible impacts to the local community. There will be no significant adverse impacts to surrounding land uses, utility systems, traffic patterns or other community considerations. No significant adverse on-site impacts as defined pursuant to NEPA are anticipated as a result of the proposed action.

The Bureau published a Draft EA in October 1999 and a Final EA in March 2000. After review of the comments received from interested agencies and local citizens, the Bureau today issues this FONSI and EA (attached).

APPROVED:

/s/

Scott P. Stermer

Federal Bureau of Prisons                                            Date