marion correctional center

Marion Correctional Center Smyth County, Virginia WSSI #31712.01 Environmental Impact Report

September 2021

Prepared for: Virginia Department of Corrections 6900 Atmore Drive Richmond, VA 23225

Prepared by:

8424 Bell Creek Road Mechanicsville, Virginia 23116

Tel: 804-442-3330 Email: [email protected] www.wetlands.com

mailto:[email protected]

Environmental Impact Report Construction of Maintenance Building at MCTC i September 2021

This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Impact Report Construction of Maintenance Building at MCTC ii September 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................................ii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................ v

1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 6

1.1 Purpose of the Environmental Impact Review .............................................................. 6

1.2 State Environmental Review Requirement .................................................................. 11

1.3 Need for the Proposed Action ..................................................................................... 11

1.4 Site Location and Description ...................................................................................... 11

1.5 Description of the Proposed Action ............................................................................. 11

2.0 DEVELOPMENT OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ................................................. 13

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................... 13

3.1 Topography .................................................................................................................. 14

3.2 Geology ........................................................................................................................ 14

3.3 Soils .............................................................................................................................. 14

3.4 Water Resources .......................................................................................................... 14

3.4.1 Groundwater ............................................................................................................. 14

3.4.2 Waters of the United States and Water Quality ....................................................... 15

3.4.1 Floodplains ................................................................................................................ 15

3.4.2 Wild and Scenic Rivers .............................................................................................. 15

3.4.3 Chesapeake Bay Preservation ................................................................................... 15

3.4.4 Coastal Zone Management Program ........................................................................ 15

3.5 Biological Resources ..................................................................................................... 17

3.6 Cultural Resources........................................................................................................ 18

3.7 Hazardous Substances and Solid Wastes ..................................................................... 19

3.8 Land Use and Zoning .................................................................................................... 19

3.9 Aesthetic Considerations ............................................................................................. 19

3.10 Environmental Justice, Relocation Considerations, and Property Acquisition ............ 19

3.11 Community Facilities .................................................................................................... 19

Environmental Impact Report Construction of Maintenance Building at MCTC iii September 2021

3.12 Transportation and Access ........................................................................................... 20

3.13 Air Quality ..................................................................................................................... 20

3.14 Climate Change ............................................................................................................ 20

3.15 Noise ............................................................................................................................. 20

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES: IMPACTS & MITIGATION ................. 20

4.1 Topography .................................................................................................................. 20

4.2 Geology ........................................................................................................................ 20

4.3 Soils .............................................................................................................................. 21

4.4 Water Resources .......................................................................................................... 21

4.5 Biological Resources ..................................................................................................... 22

4.6 Cultural Resources........................................................................................................ 22

4.7 Hazardous Substances and Solid Waste ...................................................................... 22

4.8 Land Use and Zoning .................................................................................................... 23

4.9 Aesthetic Considerations ............................................................................................. 23

4.10 Environmental Justice, Relocation Considerations, and Property Acquisition ............ 23

4.11 Community Facilities .................................................................................................... 23

4.12 Transportation and Access ........................................................................................... 23

4.13 Air Quality ..................................................................................................................... 23

4.14 Climate Change ............................................................................................................ 23

4.15 Noise ............................................................................................................................. 24

4.16 Irreversible Environmental Changes ............................................................................ 24

4.17 Summary of Unavoidable Impacts and Mitigation ...................................................... 24

4.18 Secondary and Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................. 25

4.19 Relationship between Short-Term Use of the Environment and Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity .................................................................... 25

5.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 26

Appendix A – Threatened and Endangered Species ..................................................................... 28

Appendix B – Cultural Resources .................................................................................................. 29

Environmental Impact Report Construction of Maintenance Building at MCTC iv September 2021

Tables Page Table 1: Protected Species with Potential to Occur near the Project Site .................................... 17 Table 2: Summary of Potential Effects of Proposed Action ......................................................... 24 Figures ................................................................................................................................. Page Figure 1: Project Vicinity................................................................................................................ 7 Figure 2: Parcel Boundary .............................................................................................................. 8 Figure 3: Project Site ...................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 4: USGS Topography ........................................................................................................ 10 Figure 5: Exterior Elevations ........................................................................................................ 12 Figure 6: Town of Marion Zoning ................................................................................................ 13 Figure 7: Surface Waters .............................................................................................................. 16 Figure 8: V-CRIS search results within 0.25 miles of the project site. ........................................ 18

Environmental Impact Report Construction of Maintenance Building at MCTC v September 2021

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS APE Area of Potential Effect BMP Best management practice DCR Department of Conservation and Recreation DEQ Department of Environmental Quality DHR Department of Historic Resources DNH Division of Natural Heritage DOC Department of Corrections DWR Department of Wildlife Resources E&SC Erosion and Sediment Control EIR Environmental Impact Report EJ Environmental Justice EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency MCTC Marion Correctional Treatment Center NHDE Natural Heritage Data Explorer NWI National Wetland Inventory USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service VaFWIS Virginia Fish and Wildlife Information System V-CRIS Virginia Cultural Resource Information System Virginia Commonwealth of Virginia

Environmental Impact Report Construction of Maintenance Building at MCTC 6 September 2021

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Review Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (State Agency Code 440) Agency

Project Construction of a New Maintenance Building at Marion Correctional Treatment Center, Marion, VA

Proponent Virginia Department of Corrections Agency

Agency April Helbert Contact Virginia Department of Corrections

6900 Atmore Drive Richmond, VA 23225 (540) 266-2849 [email protected]

1.1 Purpose of the Environmental Impact Review

This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared to assess the environmental consequences associated with construction of a new maintenance building at the Marion Correctional Treatment Center (MCTC) in Marion, Virginia. This EIR was prepared because the Proposed Action is classified as a “major State project” pursuant to Virginia Code §10.1-1188 since its cost will exceed $500,000.

The project location is shown on Figure 1, the parcel boundary for MCTC is shown on Figure 2, an aerial photograph showing the project site is provided as Figure 3, and Figure 4 shows the project area topography.

Section 1.0 of the EIR provides background information and context for the Proposed Action. Alternatives to the Proposed Action are described in Section 2.0. The existing resource conditions in the project area (affected environment) and potential impacts of the Proposed Action are described in Sections 3.0 and 4.0, respectively. Additional supporting information is presented in the appendices. This document was prepared in accordance with the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality’s (DEQ) Procedure Manual - Environmental Impact Review of Major State Facilities (DEQ 2021a).

mailto:[email protected]

ProposedMaintenance Building

Project VicinityMarion Correctional Treatment Center

WSSI #31712.01

L:\31000s\31700\31712.01\GIS\EIR\31712.01_01_ProjectVicinity.mxd

Source: World Street Map - ESRI

0 2,000

FeetOriginal Scale:

1 " = 2,000 '

Property Boundary

Proposed Maintenance Building N

Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc. Figure 1

Virginia


Co

Rd

6 69

Indu

s tria

l Rd

SCom

merce

S t

State Rte 16

Matson D

r

Wright St

Bagle

yC

i r

State

St

B runswick Ln

I- 81

L:\31000s\31700\31712.01\GIS\EIR\31712.01_02_2019_VBMP_Parcel.mxd

Parcel BoundaryMarion Correctional Treatment Center

WSSI #31712.01 0 500

FeetOriginal Scale:

1 " = 500 '

N


Source: Virginia Base Mapping Program (VBMP) -Spring 2019 Natural Color Imagery

Property Boundary

Proposed Maintenance Building


State St

Wright St

L:\31000s\31700\31712.01\GIS\EIR\31712.01_03_2019_VBMP_Site.mxd

Source: Virginia Base Mapping Program (VBMP) -Spring 2019 Natural Color Imagery

Project SiteMarion Correctional Treatment Center

WSSI #31712.01 0 100

FeetOriginal Scale:

1 " = 100 '

N


Property Boundary



L:\31000s\31700\31712.01\GIS\EIR\31712.01_04_USGS.mxd

Marion, VA 1989Latitude: 36°49'53"NLongitude: 81°30'19"WHydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 060101020303HUC12 Name: Staley Creek-Middle Fork Holston RiverCOE Region: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont

USGS TopographyMarion Correctional Treatment Center

WSSI #31712.01 0 2,000

FeetOriginal Scale:

1 " = 2,000 '

N


Property Boundary



1.2 State Environmental Review Requirement

The Commonwealth of Virginia (Virginia) requires an EIR for major State projects. Virginia Code §10.1-1188 defines major projects as “the acquisition of an interest in land for any state facility construction, or the construction of any facility or expansion of an existing facility which is hereafter undertaken by any state agency, board, commission, authority or any branch of state government, including state-supported institutions of higher learning, which costs $500,000 or more.”

The EIR must be considered by the Governor prior to the release of funding for construction of the project. DEQ has 60 days to review the EIR and provide comments to the Governor concerning the project. DEQ typically circulates the EIR to interested agencies, local governments, and regional planning authorities to solicit comments.

1.3 Need for the Proposed Action

The purpose of the project is to construct a new maintenance facility to provide a dedicated space for the MCTC maintenance division. A new facility would allow staff to conduct repairs on mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems essential to the upkeep of the MCTC. This facility would also enable maintenance staff to conduct vehicle repairs and welding.

1.4 Site Location and Description

The project site is situated on approximately 0.5 acres of open space on the MCTC campus, which is in the Town of Marion in Smyth County, Virginia. The areas surrounding the project site are either developed or cleared and previously disturbed. The MCTC campus is at the intersection of Interstate 81 and South Commerce Street, which separates MCTC from the Town of Marion to the west (Figure 3). The main portion of the MCTC campus is to the north. Areas farther away in each direction are grassy with scattered rocky outcrops and small sections of scattered trees. There is a densely wooded area approximately 1,100 feet to the northeast of the project site. The Town of Marion lies approximately 800 feet west of the project site. Open space at the MCTC campus, including at the project site, is maintained by mowing. Road access to the project site is via South Commerce Street (VA Rt. 16) to the west, and East Main Street (VA Rt. 11) to the north.

1.5 Description of the Proposed Action

Under the Proposed Action, the Virginia Department of Corrections (DOC) would construct a new building and approximately 150 feet of paved access road to the building; the building would provide a dedicated space for the MCTC maintenance division. The building would be 6,915 square feet inside, with an additional 1,185 square feet of covered canopy for vehicle parking. The main building would be 82 feet long by 84 feet wide, and the covered canopy would measure 53 feet long by 23 feet wide. It would be one story and placed on a thickened concrete slab. The siding would be prefinished metal. Construction is anticipated to begin in


spring 2022 and is expected to take 6 months to complete. Figure 5 shows a rendering of the proposed project.

Figure 5: Rendering of the Proposed Building Exterior

The proposed project site was previously disturbed when fill and grading occurred to construct nearby buildings. Currently, there is grass on the site; there are no trees on the project site. As shown on Figure 6, the Town of Marion has zoned the project site as Medical Arts. The new facility would be in character with the institutional use of the MCTC campus.

Minor grading would occur over the entire project site as needed. All staging of equipment and materials would occur on-site in a previously disturbed open space area near the “Proposed Maintenance Building” shown on Figures 3 and 4. Because the area of disturbance would be less than one acre, the Proposed Action would not require a Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Construction General Permit or a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. However, an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (E&SC), consistent with the Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance of Smyth County, Virginia, would be developed. Runoff would be treated like existing stormwater at MCTC.


Figure 6: Town of Marion Zoning

2.0 DEVELOPMENT OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES The location of the Proposed Action was chosen due to limited space at the MCTC campus, previous construction in the area, and to minimize impacts to natural resources. The maintenance building design is a standard design used at multiple other DOC sites. While DOC considered other locations on the MCTC campus for the proposed facility, there are no other available open space areas of sufficient size to accommodate the maintenance building. There are no other action alternatives assessed in this report.

Under the No-action Alternative, the maintenance building would not be constructed at the project site and this land would remain undeveloped. The No-action Alternative does not meet the purpose of and need for the project; therefore, this alternative was not evaluated further.

Based on the information above, DOC is evaluating only the Proposed Action–construction of a new maintenance building on approximately 0.5 acres at MCTC–in this EIR. No off-site construction or land acquisition would occur.

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Section 3 of the EIR describes existing conditions at the site including: topography, geology, soils, water resources, biological resources, cultural resources, hazardous substances and solid wastes, land use/zoning, aesthetics, environmental justice/relocation considerations/property


acquisition, community facilities, transportation and access, air quality, climate change, and noise. Potential impacts to the affected environment and actions to eliminate, minimize, or mitigate any potential impacts are discussed in Section 4.

3.1 Topography

Surface elevations at the site range from approximately 2,230 to 2,275 feet above mean sea level. The entire project site has been previously graded, and the natural topography has been altered, resulting in relatively flat topography, with slopes less than 5% across the entire site. Refer to Figure 4.

3.2 Geology

The project site is in the Valley and Ridge Physiographic Province (ESRI 2021). This province is characterized by long, broad valleys bordered by sharp ridges. The northwest portion of the county, where the project site is located, is underlain by Silurian Age carbonate rock and the southeast portion is underlain by Cambrian carbonate rock (DMME 2021). Based on the presence of rock outcrops in the vicinity of the project site, depth to bedrock is likely within approximately five feet of the ground surface.

3.3 Soils

According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS 2021), Frederick-Urban land complex (Map Unit 17C) is the only mapped soil at the project site. This soil occurs on slopes ranging from 1-15 percent and consists of well-drained soils typically located on the shoulders and summits of hills. It is not classified as a hydric soil or as a prime farmland. Parent material is primarily residuum weathered from limestone interbedded with shale, siltstone, and sandstone. This is a deep (> 80 inches) soil type with moderately high to high water capacity and no frequency of flooding. According to Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) (2021) encountering karst bedrock is possible in the project area. Previous development of the MCTC has altered or removed naturally occurring soils on the proposed project site.

3.4 Water Resources

According to DCR (2021a), the project site is in the South Fork Holston River Watershed of the Middle Fork Holston River – Staley Creek sub-basin (Hydrologic Unit Code 0601010203). The natural hydrology at the project site has been modified during previous grading and leveling.

3.4.1 Groundwater

The proposed project site is not within a designated Groundwater Management Area, as defined by the Virginia Groundwater Management Act of 1992. The MCTC does not rely on well-water and is supplied by a municipal water authority. According to the U.S. Geological Survey Groundwater Watch website (USGS 2021a), the nearest active groundwater monitoring well is in Pulaski County, Virginia (Station 370516080411501), approximately 45 miles north-east of the project site.

https://groundwaterwatch.usgs.gov/AWLSites.asp?mt=g&S=370516080411501&ncd=awl


3.4.2 Waters of the United States and Water Quality

As shown on Figure 7, there are no mapped surface waters at the project site. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping did not identify any wetlands at the project site. The closest NWI-mapped wetlands are two freshwater ponds, one approximately 0.75 miles south of the project site and the other approximately 0.75 miles north of the project site (USFWS 2021a).

The project site has been previously graded, and the natural topography and hydrology have been altered. There are no streams or surface water features at the project site (USGS 2021b), but Staley Creek is approximately 1,000 feet west of the site, and flows into the Middle Fork Holston River which is approximately 1,000 feet east of the site. Refer to Figure 7.

DEQ released the Final 2020 305(b)/303(d) Water Quality Assessment Integrated Report on December 9, 2020. The 2020 Integrated Report is a summary of the water quality conditions in Virginia from January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2018. DEQ develops and submits this report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to satisfy CWA Sections 305(b) and 303(d). Based on the 2020 Integrated Report, there are no impaired waters within the project site. However, both Staley Creek and the Middle Fork Holston River are considered impaired waterbodies (DEQ 2020).

3.4.1 Floodplains

The project site is shown on the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Flood Insurance Rate Map 51173C0234D (2021), which indicates that the entire project site is in Zone X (unshaded). Zone X designates areas outside of the 100-year and 500-year floodplains (FEMA 2010). Therefore, the project site is not in a floodplain.

3.4.2 Wild and Scenic Rivers

According to the National Park Service’s National Wild and Scenic River System (2021), there are no federally designated wild and scenic rivers in Virginia. According to the DCR Scenic Rivers Program (2021b), the Clinch River, which is approximately 20 miles north of the project site, is identified as a Virginia scenic river. The Clinch River cannot be seen from the project site, nor can the site be seen from any point along the river.

3.4.3 Chesapeake Bay Preservation

Smyth County is not in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Therefore, it is not subject to regulation under the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act.

3.4.4 Coastal Zone Management Program

Smyth County is outside of Virginia’s Coastal Zone. Therefore, this project is not subject to regulation under the Virginia Coastal Zone Management Program.


Unnamed Tributary

R2UBHR2UBHx

R5UBH

R5UBH

R5UBHR5UBH

R2UBH

Harwood D r

Finley Gayle Dr

Indu

s tria

l Rd

SCom

merce

S t

State Rte 16

Matson D

r

Wright St

Bagle

yC

i r

State

St

B runswick Ln

I- 81

S t a l ey Creek

MiddleFork

Hols ton R iver

Hook s Branc h

L:\31000s\31700\31712.01\GIS\EIR\31712.01_06_SurfaceWaters.mxd

Surface WatersMarion Correctional Treatment Center

WSSI #31712.01 0 500

FeetOriginal Scale:

1 " = 500 '

N

Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc. Figure 6Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; October 2020Imagery Source: NAIP; Summer 2018

NHD Stream

Property Boundary



3.5 Biological Resources

The entire project site consists of open grassy areas periodically maintained by mowing; there are no trees on the site. Wildlife likely to use the project site include common species adapted to developed areas such as white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), opossum (Didelphis marsupialis), raccoon (Procyon lotor), mice, songbirds, American Crows (Corvus brachyrhynchos), toads, and snakes.

Wildlife species and habitats in Virginia are documented by the USFWS, Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources (DWR), and DCR’s Division of Natural Heritage (DNH). A query of the USFWS website generates an Official Species List of federally protected species within a two-mile buffer of a project site. DWR’s Virginia Fish and Wildlife Information Service (VaFWIS) website maintains an inventory of animals that are protected by the federal or state government. The DCR DNH maintains an inventory of rare and threatened plants, geologic features, and biological communities in Virginia in the Natural Heritage Data Explorer (NHDE). These databases were searched in August 2021.

Table 1 provides the USFWS, DWR, and DCR database results for the project site. According to the USFWS Official Species List (provided in Appendix A), nine federally protected species may occur within two miles of the project area. VaFWIS lists seven federally and/or state-protected species with confirmed observations within a two-mile radius of the project site (DWR 2021a). Results of the VaFWIS database search are provided in Appendix A.

Table 1: Protected Species with Potential to Occur near the Project Site

Source: DWR 2021a, USFWS 2021b, and DCR 2021c

Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status State Status Agency

Mammals Gray bat Myotis grisescens Endangered Endangered USFWS, DWR Indiana Bat Myotis sodalis Endangered Endangered USFWS Northern Long-eared Bat Myotis septentrionalis Threatened Threatened USFWS

Birds Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus N/A Threatened DWR

Fish Spotfin Chub Erimonax monachus Threatened Threatened USFWS Sickle Darter Percina williamsi Protected Threatened DWR Tennessee Dace Chrosomus tennesseensis N/A Endangered

Invertebrates Tennessee Heelsplitter Lasmigona holstonia N/A Endangered DWR Black Sandshell Ligumia recta N/A Threatened DWR Fluted Kidneyshell Ptychobranchus subtentus Endangered Endangered USFWS, DWR, Littlewing Pearlymussel Pegias fabula Endangered Endangered USFWS, DWR Rough Rabbitsfoot Quadrula cylindrica strigillata Endangered Endangered USFWS, DWR Shiny Pigtoe Fusconaia cor Endangered Endangered USFWS, DWR Slabside Pearlymussel Pleuronaia dolabelloides Endangered Endangered USFWS, DWR, Tan Riffleshell Epioblasma florentina walker Endangered Endangered USFWS


As shown in Table 1, the only protected species in the project area that was identified by NHDE was the Tennessee dace (Chrosomus tennesseensis). Appendix A contains the NHDE search results.

3.6 Cultural Resources

A search of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources’ (DHR) Virginia Cultural Resource Information System (V-CRIS) database was conducted on September 13, 2021. Figure 8 shows the V-CRIS results within 0.25 miles of the project site.

Figure 8: V-CRIS search results within 0.25 miles of the project site.

V-CRIS identified three architectural sites within 0.25 miles of the project site; all are within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for architectural resources (the viewshed of the project site, shown on Figure 3). See Appendix B for DHR information about the site.

As shown in the V-CRIS results provided in Appendix B, there are no known archaeological resources within a 0.25-miles radius of the project site.


3.7 Hazardous Substances and Solid Wastes

According to the EPA’s Envirofacts and DEQ’s Environmental Data Mapper online databases, the following hazardous substances facilities/occurrences are within 0.5 miles of the project site (EPA 2021a; DEQ 2021b):

• One petroleum release occurring at MCTC (same general property as the project site). • Thirteen other petroleum releases have occurred offsite within 0.5 miles of the project

area. All pollution complaints have been closed by the DEQ. • No EPA registered generators of hazardous waste were identified.

No contamination of the project site has been reported or recorded.

3.8 Land Use and Zoning

According to the Smyth County Geographic Information System zoning map (2021), the MCTC is zoned for medical use and associated structures.

3.9 Aesthetic Considerations

The project site is in an industrial setting, and views of the project site contain a mix of institutional buildings, roadways, traffic/parked vehicles, utility infrastructure such power lines, and undeveloped open space comprised of maintained grassy areas and shrubs. There are trees in the viewshed of the areas surrounding the project site (but no woods or mature trees at the project site).

3.10 Environmental Justice, Relocation Considerations, and Property Acquisition

According to EPA’s EJScreen, (2021c) approximately 10% of the population in the project area is considered minority and approximately 25% of the population is considered low income. The minority percentage is consistent with the statewide percentage, while the low-income percentage is lower than the statewide number of 38%. Therefore, no Environmental Justice (EJ) communities exist in the project area.

The Proposed Action would be constructed entirely on land owned by DOC. There are no existing residential or commercial properties that would require relocation or property acquisition.

3.11 Community Facilities

The project site is in an area comprised of the hospital campus, industrial buildings, parking lots, roads, and undeveloped space. Besides Southwestern State Hospital to the north, there are no community amenities adjacent to the project site (see Figure 3). While the Town of Marion has various community facilities within two miles of the project site, including schools and churches (Google 2021), none of these facilities are in the immediate vicinity of MCTC.


3.12 Transportation and Access

The project site is accessed by vehicle from South Commerce Street (Virginia Rt. 16) and East Main Street (Virginia Rt. 11). The correctional center is expansive, with many small roads providing direct access to the MCTC main building. A new access road is included as part of the Proposed Action, but no improvements to existing roads are planned.

3.13 Air Quality

Air quality is defined by ambient air concentrations of pollutants determined to be of concern to the health and welfare of the public. Specific geographic areas are classified as either “attainment” or “non-attainment” areas for each criteria pollutant, based on a comparison of measured data with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards and State standards. Smyth County is in attainment for all criteria pollutants (EPA 2021b).

3.14 Climate Change

Climate change considerations focus on 1) the effect of a proposed project on climate change through greenhouse gas emissions, and 2) the effect of climate change on a proposed project. Measurable climate change indicators such as point-source air emissions, flooding, habitat suitability for target species, or sea-level rise are not adversely affecting the MCTC site, and are not expected to be a factor at the site in the foreseeable future.

3.15 Noise

The most commonly occurring noise at the project site is from vehicular traffic on Interstate 81 to the south and the other paved roads near the site. Other common noise sources include heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems, landscape maintenance (such as lawnmowers), and the operation of vehicular and pedestrian gates. None of these sources produces excessive noise levels.

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES: IMPACTS & MITIGATION Virginia Code Section 10.1-1188, et seq. requires agencies to discuss environmental effects that may result from a Proposed Action, and possible measures to mitigate potentially adverse impacts. Potential impacts and mitigation actions related to the Proposed Action are discussed below.

4.1 Topography

Because the site is already relatively flat, minimal grading would be required and thus there would be negligible changes to existing topography.

4.2 Geology

As discussed in Section 3.3, soils at the project site are known to have karst associated with underlying geological formations, which contain soluble bedrock (e.g., limestone). The Proposed Action is unlikely to create hazardous conditions by disturbing and destabilizing buried karst


features (e.g., sinkholes, caves, etc.). Shallow excavation of rock may be required depending on depth to rock at the project site and depth of excavations required for building footers. Excess rock would be disposed of in accordance with State and local regulations.

4.3 Soils

Minor long-term impacts on soils would occur due to removal of topsoil for site leveling and grading. However, fill, not native soils, occurs across the majority of the project site as a result of previous site preparations for development of existing buildings adjacent to the project site. As such, most soils at the project site have been previously disturbed and impacts to native soils would be minimal.

The total area of land-disturbing activity would be less than one acre; therefore, the project would be exempt from Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System construction permitting. To minimize short-term soil impacts, the project would adhere to the E&SC plan that would be prepared in compliance with county requirements. The DOC would implement best management practices (BMPs) for soil stabilization, such as mulching bare soils and temporary seeding, and for preventing sedimentation of stormwater runoff, such as installing and maintaining silt fence and temporary sediment traps.

Excavated soil would be managed in accordance with applicable local, state, and federal regulations. If contaminated soils are discovered during excavation/construction activities, work would cease until the appropriate procedures and permits can be implemented and obtained. Accidental release of contaminants, such as pollutants from vehicles or equipment, could occur. The impacts of an accidental release on soils could be adverse, although the likelihood of an accidental release would be low due to vehicle and equipment maintenance.

4.4 Water Resources

Construction activities would expose soils at the ground surface to erosion from stormwater runoff. Stormwater runoff during construction would be localized and impacts on nearby surface waters (Staley Creek and Middle Fork Holston River) would be negligible considering the distance from construction and the implementation of E&SC BMPs for soil stabilization in accordance with Smyth County regulations. Post-construction, roof runoff would be directed to downspouts and be discharged onto rubber splash blocks. From the splash blocks, stormwater would be discharged into the existing stormwater management facilities at MCTC.

Excavations included as part of the Proposed Action may encounter groundwater; if this occurs, an assessment would be made to determine if dewatering is required. Impacts to groundwater are not anticipated. There would be no impacts to impaired waters, floodplains, wild and scenic rivers, or areas regulated under the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act or Coastal Zone Management Act due to the Proposed Action.


There are no surface waters at the project site. Therefore, there would be no direct impacts on surface waters and a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and/or DEQ under Clean Water Act Sections 404/401 would not be required.

4.5 Biological Resources

The proposed building would not require any tree clearing and there are no known caves in the project area. Therefore, no affects to the northern long-eared bat, Indiana bat, or gray bat are anticipated. The project site is approximately 15 miles from the nearest known bat hibernacula or occupied maternity roost trees according to mapping prepared by DWR on behalf of USFWS (DWR 2021b). Per the VaFWIS and NHDE database results, no bats have been identified near the project site.

All species listed in Table 1, except for the three bats and the loggerhead shrike, are aquatic. Since there are no surface waters at the project site, none of these aquatic species would be affected.

Conversion of the project site from open space (maintained by mowing) to impervious surface would result in habitat loss. Temporary indirect impacts on wildlife would include disturbance from construction noise and increased human presence during construction activities. Long-term indirect adverse impacts on wildlife would occur from additional traffic, noise, lighting, and human presence in the project area as well as loss of habitat to impervious surface; however, these impacts would be minor given the size and previously disturbed nature of the project site, and because there is already a human presence in the area.

4.6 Cultural Resources

The V-CRIS records search did not identify any archaeological resources within the project’s archaeological APE. Three architectural resources have been identified by DHR within the project’s architectural APE. None of these resources have been evaluated by DHR for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. No impacts to archaeological resources are anticipated. While there would be impacts to the viewshed of the three architectural resources in the APE, the new building would be consistent with the character of the existing buildings in the viewshed.

4.7 Hazardous Substances and Solid Waste

Construction activities would result in the use of hazardous materials and/or the generation of hazardous wastes. Quantities of hazardous wastes used and generated would be minor. Hazardous materials used for construction activities would include concrete as well as maintenance fluids for vehicles such as oil, hydraulic fluid, and windshield washer fluids. Quantities of construction-related hazardous materials generated would be small, and these would be disposed of in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations. Solid waste generated by the project would be disposed of in approved landfills, in accordance with local and state regulations. Petroleum products would be used in construction equipment, but these are not considered hazardous materials. Any spills or leaks would be minor and would be


promptly contained with appropriate countermeasures (e.g., spill kits). No regulated hazardous materials sites would be affected by the Proposed Action.

4.8 Land Use and Zoning

Land use on the micro-scale would change from open space to a developed site consisting of a building, parking area, and access road. However, the Proposed Action is consistent with the zoning for this site and the planned land use. Therefore, there would be no adverse impacts on land use at the project site or in the surrounding areas.

4.9 Aesthetic Considerations

Short-term, views of the project site would include construction equipment and activities. Long-term, there would be a new building in the viewshed. The views of the project site from surrounding areas would remain consistent with the existing character of the area as a correctional facility with open space. The Proposed Action would result in negligible impacts to the aesthetics of the site.

4.10 Environmental Justice, Relocation Considerations, and Property Acquisition

There would be no residential or commercial displacements as result of the Proposed Action. Further, no communities would be divided as a result of this project. Since there are no EJ communities in the project area, there would be no adverse and disproportionate EJ impacts.

4.11 Community Facilities

There are no community facilities near the project site, therefore, there would be no impacts to this resource.

4.12 Transportation and Access

During construction, there could be temporary disruptions to local traffic when large vehicles and equipment are brought to/from the project site. However, disruptions would be negligible (on the order of minutes) and only on roads immediately surrounding MCTC. There would be no increases in traffic levels because of the Proposed Action, and there would be no long-term impacts on transportation or access.

4.13 Air Quality

During construction, the use of large vehicles and equipment operated at the project site would temporarily increase emissions of air pollutants; however, impacts would be negligible. The Proposed Action is not expected to result in a substantial increase of new personnel driving to and from MCTC. Therefore, there would be no long-term impacts to air quality.

4.14 Climate Change

The Proposed Action would have no effects on climate change and would not be directly affected by climate change.


4.15 Noise

Short-term minor increases in noise levels would occur during construction from the operation of heavy equipment such as bulldozers and haul/dump trucks. Long-term, the Proposed Action would not result in elevated noise levels compared to existing conditions. To minimize impacts from noise to people at MCTC, construction equipment and machinery would meet all local, state, and federal noise regulations. Construction would occur during daylight hours. Construction personnel exposed to noise levels exceeding Occupational Safety and Health Administration limits from heavy equipment would be required to wear appropriate hearing protection and practice safety BMPs in accordance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations.

4.16 Irreversible Environmental Changes

Construction materials would be irretrievably committed to the Proposed Action. In addition, the proposed work would generate a small quantity of solid waste that would be transported to regional disposal facilities. The disposal capacity required is not significant in terms of regional waste disposal capacity and regional demand for waste disposal.

4.17 Summary of Unavoidable Impacts and Mitigation

Construction of the new building at MCTC (the Proposed Action) would not cause significant impacts to the natural, scenic, or historic resources of Virginia. The Proposed Action would not result in adverse impacts on the human environment. Table 2 provides a summary of potential project impacts.

Table 2: Summary of Potential Effects of Proposed Action

Resource Potential Impact(s) Proposed Mitigation Topography Negligible None Geology None None Soils Minor None Water Resources Negligible None Biological Resources Minor None Cultural Resources Minor None Hazardous Materials and Solid Waste Minor None Land Use and Zoning None None Aesthetic Considerations Negligible None Relocation/Acquisition None None Community Facilities None None Transportation and Access Minor, temporary None Air Quality Negligible, temporary None Climate Change None None Noise Minor, temporary None


4.18 Secondary and Cumulative Impacts

There is no ongoing or planned construction at MCTC. Ongoing maintenance tasks may occur, but the nature of these potential projects at MCTC is such that environmental impacts would be minimal. Secondary and cumulative impacts have been considered in terms of social impacts, traffic generation, and environmental resources. The secondary and cumulative impacts of the Proposed Action, together with those of other projects at MCTC, would not result in significant impacts on any resources evaluated in this EIR.

4.19 Relationship between Short-Term Use of the Environment and Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity

Short-term uses of the environment include impacts during construction such as vehicle noise, exhaust emission from vehicles and equipment, generation of dust from site preparation activities, and slight increases in traffic due to construction machinery and workers traveling to/from the project site. The benefit of the Proposed Action for use as a maintenance building would outweigh these short-term uses.


5.0 REFERENCES Code of Virginia. 2013. § 10.1-1188. State Agencies to Submit Environmental Impact Reports

on Major Projects. http://leg1.state.va.us/000/cod/10.1-1188.htm

Code of Virginia. 2014. Designated Virginia Groundwater Management Areas. Vol. 30 Iss. 18 (Final Regulation) 9VAC25-600, Designated Groundwater Management Areas May 05, 2014 (virginia.gov)

Department of Conservation and Recreation. 2021a. Virginia Hydrologic Unit Explorer. https://consapps.dcr.virginia.gov/htdocs/maps/HUExplorer.htm. Accessed August 27, 2021.

Department of Conservation and Recreation. 2021b. Virginia’s Scenic Rivers. https://www.dcr.virginia.gov/recreational-planning/srmain. Accessed August 26, 2021.

Department of Conservation and Recreation. 2021c. Natural Heritage Data Explorer. https://vanhde.org/. Accessed August 25, 2021.

Department of Environmental Quality. 2021a. Procedure Manual Environmental Impact Review of Major State Facilities. 637586620558470000 (virginia.gov)

Department of Environmental Quality. 2021b. Environmental Data Mapper. https://apps.deq.virginia.gov/EDM/. Accessed August 26, 2021.

Department of Environmental Quality. 2020. Final 2020 305(b)/303(d) Water Quality Assessment Integrated Report. Released December 9, 2020. Integrated Report | Virginia DEQ. Accessed August 27, 2021

Department of Historic Resources. 2021. Virginia Cultural Resources Information System. V-CRIS - Log in (virginia.gov). Accessed September 13, 2021.

Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy. 2021. Interactive Map of Virginia’s Geology and Natural Resources. DGMR (virginia.gov). Accessed August 25, 2021.

Department of Wildlife Resources. 2021a. Virginia Fish and Wildlife Information Service. 2021. https://vafwis.dgif.virginia.gov/fwis/. Accessed August 25, 2021.

Department of Wildlife Resources. 2021b. NLEB Winter Habitat and Roost Trees. 2021. https://dgif-virginia.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=32ea4ee4935942c092e41ddcd19e5ec5. Accessed August 25, 2021.

Environmental Protection Agency. 2021a. Envirofacts. https://geopub.epa.gov/myem/efmap/https://geopub.epa.gov/myem/efmap/index.html?ve=17,36.830338,-81.508561&pText=Marion%20Correctional%20Treatment%20Center. .html?ve=17,36.830338,-81.508561&pText=Marion%20Correctional%20Treatment%20Center. Accessed August 26, 2021.

http://leg1.state.va.us/000/cod/10.1-1188.htm

http://register.dls.virginia.gov/details.aspx?id=4390



https://consapps.dcr.virginia.gov/htdocs/maps/HUExplorer.htm

https://www.dcr.virginia.gov/recreational-planning/srmain

https://vanhde.org/

https://www.deq.virginia.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/9297/637586620558470000

https://apps.deq.virginia.gov/EDM/

https://www.deq.virginia.gov/water/water-quality/assessments/integrated-report

https://www.deq.virginia.gov/water/water-quality/assessments/integrated-report

https://vcris.dhr.virginia.gov/VCRIS/Account/Login?ReturnUrl=%2fvcris%2f

https://vcris.dhr.virginia.gov/VCRIS/Account/Login?ReturnUrl=%2fvcris%2f

https://www.dmme.virginia.gov/webmaps/DGMR/

https://vafwis.dgif.virginia.gov/fwis/

https://dgif-virginia.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=32ea4ee4935942c092e41ddcd19e5ec5



https://geopub.epa.gov/myem/efmap/index.html?ve=17,36.830338,-81.508561&pText=Marion%20Correctional%20Treatment%20Center.





Environmental Protection Agency. 2021b. The Green Book Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants. https://www.epa.gov/green-book/green-book-national-area-and-county-level-multi-pollutant-information. Accessed August 26, 2021.

Environmental Protection Agency. 2021c. EJScreen. https://ejscreen.epa.gov/mapper/ Assessed September 14, 2021.

ESRI. 2021. Virginia Provinces. Virginia Provinces (arcgis.com). Accessed August 26, 2021.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2021. FEMA Flood Map Service Center. https://msc.fema.gov/. Accessed August 30, 2021.

Google Maps. 2021. https://www.google.com/maps/. Accessed August 24, 2021.

National Park Service. 2021. Wild and Scenic Rivers. https://nps.maps.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=ff42a57d0aae43c49a88daee0e353142. Accessed August 26, 2021.

Natural Resource Conservation Service. 2021. Web Soil Survey. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/. Accessed August 31, 2021.

Smyth County, Virginia. 2021. Smyth County Geographic Information System. https://www.webgis.net/va/Smyth/. Accessed August 27, 2021.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2021a. National Wetland Inventory. https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html. Accessed August 27, 2021.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2021b. Information for Consultation and Planning. https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Accessed August 25, 2021.

US Geological Survey. 2021a. Groundwater Watch Website. https://groundwaterwatch.usgs.gov/StateMap.asp?sa=VA&sc=51. Accessed August 27, 2021.

US Geological Survey. 2021b. National Hydrography Dataset. https://viewer.nationalmap.gov/basic/?basemap=b1&category=nhd&title=NHD%20View#productSearch. Accessed August 27, 2021.

https://www.epa.gov/green-book/green-book-national-area-and-county-level-multi-pollutant-information

https://www.epa.gov/green-book/green-book-national-area-and-county-level-multi-pollutant-information

https://ejscreen.epa.gov/mapper/

https://www.arcgis.com/apps/MapJournal/index.html?appid=57d273243e8642acbeda40028d79c053

https://msc.fema.gov/

https://www.google.com/maps/

https://nps.maps.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=ff42a57d0aae43c49a88daee0e353142

https://nps.maps.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=ff42a57d0aae43c49a88daee0e353142

https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/

https://www.webgis.net/va/Smyth/

https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html

https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/

https://groundwaterwatch.usgs.gov/StateMap.asp?sa=VA&sc=51

https://viewer.nationalmap.gov/basic/?basemap=b1&category=nhd&title=NHD%20View#productSearch

https://viewer.nationalmap.gov/basic/?basemap=b1&category=nhd&title=NHD%20View#productSearch

APPENDIX A – THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

Natural Heritage Resources

Your Criteria

Taxonomic Group: Select All

Global Conservation Status Rank: Select All

State Conservation Status Rank: Select All

Federal Legal Status: Select All

State Legal Status: Select All

County: Smyth

Physiographic Province: Ridge and Valley

Watershed (8 digit HUC): 06010102 - So. Fork Holston River

Subwatershed (12 digit HUC): TH10 - Middle Fork Holston River-Staley Creek

Planning District: Mount Rogers

Virginia Coastal Zone: No

Search Run: 9/14/2021 8:02:07 AMResult Summary

Total Species returned: 2

Total Communities returned: 0

Click scientific names below to go to NatureServe report.

Click column headings for an explanation of species and community ranks.

CommonName/NaturalCommunity

Scientific Name Scientific NameLinked

Global ConservationStatus Rank

State ConservationStatus Rank

Federal Legal Status State Legal Status StatewideOccurrences

Virginia CoastalZone

SmythRidge and ValleySouth Fork HolstonMiddle Fork Holston River-Staley Creek

1 / 2

http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural_heritage/help.shtml






CommonName/NaturalCommunity

Scientific Name Scientific NameLinked

Global ConservationStatus Rank

State ConservationStatus Rank

Federal Legal Status State Legal Status StatewideOccurrences

Virginia CoastalZone

Mount RogersDIPLOPODA (MILLIPEDES)Ferguson's cavemillipede

Pseudotremiafergusoni

Pseudotremiafergusoni

G1 S1 SOC None 1 N

FISHTennessee Dace Chrosomus

tennesseensisChrosomustennesseensis

G3 S1 None LE 6 N

Note: On-line queries provide basic information from DCR's databases at the time of the request. They are NOT to be substituted for a project review or for on-site surveys required for environmental assessmentsof specific project areas.

For Additional Information on locations of Natural Heritage Resources please submit an information request.

To Contribute information on locations of natural heritage resources, please fill out and submit a rare species sighting form.

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

2 / 2







http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=PSEUDOTREMIA+FERGUSONI

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=PSEUDOTREMIA+FERGUSONI

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=CHROSOMUS+TENNESSEENSIS

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=CHROSOMUS+TENNESSEENSIS

http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural_heritage/infoservices.shtml

http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural-heritage/rare-species-sighting

http://www.tcpdf.org

APPENDIX B – CULTURAL RESOURCES

Virginia Dept. of Historic Resources

LegendArchitecture ResourcesArchitecture LabelsIndividual Historic District PropertiesArchaeological ResourcesArchaeology LabelsDHR EasementsUSGS GIS Place names

County Boundaries

Title: Marion Correctional Treatment Center (0.25-mile search radius) Date: 9/13/2021 DISCLAIMER:Records of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR) have been gathered over many years from a variety of sources and the representation depicted is a cumulative view of field observations over time and may not reflect current ground conditions.The map is for general information purposes and is not intended for engineering, legal or other site-specific uses. Map may contain errors and is provided "as-is". More information is available in the DHR Archives located at DHR’s Richmond office.

Notice if AE sites:Locations of archaeological sites may be sensitive the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act(ARPA) and Code of Virginia §2.2-3705.7 (10). Release of precise locations may threaten archaeological sites and historic resources.

zk0008

Callout

Project Site

Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 086-5202Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data

September 13, 2021 Page: 1 of 3

Property Information

Property NamesName Explanation NameHistoric Stoneman's RaidHistoric/Current Marion Battlefield

County/Independent City(s): Smyth (County)

Incorporated Town(s): Atkins, Marion

Zip Code(s): 24311, 24354

Magisterial District(s): No Data

Tax Parcel(s): No Data

USGS Quad(s): ATKINS, MARION, NEBO

Property Evaluation Status

Not Evaluated

Additional Property Information

Architecture Setting: Rural

Acreage: 1,969.2

Site Description:

2009: Much of the landscape has been altered and fragmented, leaving some essential features.

Surveyor Assessment:

Start Year: 1864End Year: 1864Date Source: Written Data-----------------------------1993: Marion BattlefieldOther Names: NoneLocation: Smyth CountyCampaign: Stoneman’s Raid into Southwest Virginia (December 1864)Date(s): December 17-18, 1864Principal Commanders: Col. Maj. Gen. George Stoneman [US]; Maj. Gen. John C. Breckinridge [CS] Forces Engaged: DivisionsEstimated Casualties: 274 totalDescription: Riding through the Cumberland Gap, Stoneman’s expedition advanced on the important lead mines and salt ponds aroundMarion and Saltville. On December 17, Stoneman defeated a makeshift force of Confederate defenders. On the 18th, the Federalsdestroyed the leadworks and mines. On the 20th, they captured and destroyed the salt works at Saltville.Result(s): Union victoryCWSAC Reference #: VA081Preservation Priority: IV.1 (Class D)

Surveyor Recommendation: No Data

Ownership

Ownership Category Ownership EntityPrivate No Data

Primary Resource Information

Resource Category: Defense

Resource Type: Battle Site

NR Resource Type: Site

Historic District Status: No Data

Date of Construction: 1864

Date Source: Written Data

Historic Time Period: Civil War (1861 - 1865)

Historic Context(s): Military/Defense

Other ID Number: No Data

Architectural Style: No Discernable Style

Form: No Data



Number of Stories: No Data

Condition: No Data

Threats to Resource: None Known

Architectural Description:

No Data

Secondary Resource Information

Historic District Information

Historic District Name: No Data

Local Historic District Name: No Data

Historic District Significance: No Data

CRM Events

Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance

Project Review File Number: No Data

Investigator: NPS

Organization/Company: National Park Service

Photographic Media: No Data

Survey Date: 1/1/2009

Dhr Library Report Number: VA-093

Project Staff/Notes:

No Data

Project Bibliographic Information:

Name: National Park ServiceDHR CRM Report Number: VA-083Record Type: ReportBibliographic Notes: Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission's Report on the Nation's Civil War Battlefields: Commonwealth ofVirginia. 2009. Joseph Brent, David Lowe, Tanya Gossett, Kathleen Madigan, Lisa Rupple.-----------------------------DHR CRM Report Number: VA-093Record Type: ReportBibliographic Notes: Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation's Civil War Battlefields. 1993. National Park Service,American Battlefield Protection Program.



Investigator: NPS

Organization/Company: Unknown (DSS)





No Data


Name: National Park ServiceDHR CRM Report Number: VA-083Record Type: ReportBibliographic Notes: Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission's Report on the Nation's Civil War Battlefields: Commonwealth ofVirginia. 2009. Joseph Brent, David Lowe, Tanya Gossett, Kathleen Madigan, Lisa Rupple.



-----------------------------DHR CRM Report Number: VA-093Record Type: ReportBibliographic Notes: Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation's Civil War Battlefields. 1993. National Park Service,American Battlefield Protection Program.

Bibliographic Information

Bibliography:

No Data

Property Notes:

No Data


LegendArchitecture ResourcesIndividual Historic District PropertiesArchaeological ResourcesDHR EasementsCounty Boundaries

Title: Architecture Labels Date: 9/13/2021 DISCLAIMER:Records of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR) have been gathered over many years from a variety of sources and the representationdepicted is a cumulative view of field observations over time and may not reflect current ground conditions.The map is for general information purposes and is notintended for engineering, legal or other site-specific uses. Map may contain errors and is provided "as-is". More information is available in the DHR Archives located atDHR’s Richmond office. Notice if AE sites:Locations of archaeological sites may be sensitive the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act(ARPA) and Code of Virginia §2.2-3705.7 (10). Release of precise locations may threaten archaeological sites and historic resources.




Property NamesName Explanation NameCurrent Name Marion Correctional Center

Property Addresses

Current - Finlay Gayle Drive


Incorporated Town(s): Marion

Zip Code(s): 24354



USGS Quad(s): MARION


Not Evaluated


Architecture Setting: Rural

Acreage: 75

Site Description:

1988: This facility is located on the outskirts of the town of Marion, which is located to the northwest. Southwestern State Hospital islocated immediately north of the facility. There are three buildings that are part of the Marion Correctional Center - the main buildingis the Finlay Gayle Building and there are also two secondary buildings that originally served an agricultural function for SouthwesternState.


1988: The Marion Correctional Treatment Center was established in 1980, when the Finlay Gayle Building at Southwestern StateHospital was taken over by the Department of Corrections to become a special facility for the criminally insane. At that time theFinlay Gayle building (which appears to have been built in the 1950s or 1960s) was substantially renovated, including the constructionof a twelve-foot security wall, five 28-foot guard towers, and a gravel road surrounding the building. The prison is located on a 75 acresite immediately southeast of the Hospital, on land that originally served as farmland for the production of food for the hospital.

Surveyor Recommendation: Recommended Not Eligible

Ownership

Ownership Category Ownership EntityState Govt Department of Corrections


Resource Category: Government

Resource Type: Prison

NR Resource Type: Building

Historic District Status: No Data

Date of Construction: Ca 1912

Date Source: Site Visit

Historic Time Period: Reconstruction and Growth (1866 - 1916)

Historic Context(s): Architecture/Community Planning, Government/Law/Political


Architectural Style: No discernible style

Form: No Data

Number of Stories: 3.0

Condition: Good

Threats to Resource: None Known


1988: The prison consists of multiple buildings, many of which were originally part of the Southwestern State Hospital operation. In additionto the Finlay Gayle Building, which serves as the main cell building, there are two small buildings that were originally part of a small complex



of agricultural buildings owned by the hospital, that are now used by the prison for their small farming program. They are located on a hill inthe southern corner of the prison property, at some distance from the central cell building. Until recently, a large dairy barn was located justnorth of the garage; this was demolished in the past two years. According to the director of the buildings and grounds, prison officials areattempting to have the garage demolished as well. 2014: The garage has been demolished.

Exterior Components

Component Component Type Material Material TreatmentStructural System andExterior Treatment

Masonry Brick Not Visible

Roof Flat Unknown No DataWindows Double-hung Unknown No Data



Historic District Name: No Data



CRM Events



Investigator: K. Lacy

Organization/Company: DHR

Photographic Media: Film




This property was surveyed in 1988 as part of the Land and Community Associates Survey of State-owned Resources. V-CRIS record createdby DHR staff in 2014.


Bibliography:

Survey of State Owned Properties: Department of CorrectionsMay, 1989 Prepared For:Department of Conservation and Historic ResourcesDivision of Historic LandmarksRichmond, Virginia Prepared ByLand and Community AssociatesGenevieve P. Keller, Katherine T. Lacy, J. Timothy KellerCharlottesville, Virginia

Property Notes:

No Data



County Boundaries





Property NamesName Explanation NameHistoric/Current Southwestern State Hospital Historic District


Incorporated Town(s): No Data

Zip Code(s): No Data



USGS Quad(s): MARION


Not Evaluated

This Property is associated with the Southwestern State HospitalHistoric District.


Architecture Setting: Town

Acreage: No Data

Site Description:

1991: At first the site of the Southwestern Hospital on a hillside outside the small town of Marion epitomized the tranquil rural settingadvised by proponents of the moral treatment. Mature hardwood trees are still in abundance on the grounds. Fortunately, owing to thevaried topography and the presence of trees, none of the development that has occurred on the south side of the campus has interferedwith the dramatic view of the Henderson Building as once approaches from the south. 2007: The Southwestern State Hospital Historic District is located off of Route 11 (East Main Street), in the town of Marion in SmythCounty.


1991: Soon after the establishment of the Central State Lunatic Asylum, the state system of mental hospitals was further expanded toprovide a local facility for the residents of the southwestern part of the state. On 18 March 1884, the General Assembly approvedlegislation to “provided for the establishment of a Lunatic Asylum in Southwest Virginia.” After considerable deliberation, a site forthe hospital was selected in Marion, and the hospital building was completed in 1887.The hospital was managed by a board of directors composed of Virginia doctors and mental health exports, who were required to visitthe hospital and to meet twice annually. The procedures for running the hospital on a day-to-day basis were based on a set of bylawsand regulations developed by the board. A superintendent was charged with running the hospital, with the assistance of twophysicians. A steward and matron were required to live in the asylum. Patients were bathed once a week and their rooms kept clean. Each staff member at the hospital had a very specific job description, outlining his or her duties as laundress, baker, carpenter,engineer, dairyman, gardener, or farmer.From the time it was constructed, the Southwestern Lunatic Asylum was plagued with problems. In 1901 the hospital was the subjectto an investigation of “reported horrors” including “live patients left to linger in jails and the bodies of the dead gnawed by rats in anabandoned room.” Records for the early years of the hospital included several tragic deaths attributed to neglect and poor treatment. In general, the Southwestern State Hospital appears to have fit well into the model of the inhumane, ineffectual late-nineteenth centuryinsane asylum. On 18 March 1884 the General Assembly approved legislation to “provide for the establishment of a Lunatic Asylum in SouthwestVirginia.” This act appointed a special board of commissioners to choose a site for the asylum and directed the board to meet on 4June 1884 to hear the representatives from the various towns and counties in the area. Based on these presentations, the board was todecide on the most expedient location for the new hospital.In the late nineteenth century Southwest Virginia suffered a severe economic depression, resulting in a lack of employmentopportunities. Consequently, when it became known that a mental hospital was to be built there, local communities competed for newjobs and revenues. In Smyth County, the residents quickly organized to promote their county as the best possible location for theinstitution. On 30 April 1884 a local committee of Smyth County residents was established to, “present that natural and otheradvantages claimed by us for the immediate vicinity of the town of Marion” and “urge said committee to visit our town and examinethe several sites around it suitable for such asylum, believing as we do that by doing so the question of location will be settled.”Competition for the hospital was fierce, particularly from the town of Wytheville. Ultimately, the site selected for the new hospitalwas the Atkins farm near the town of Marion. As the land had been donated to the state by the county, however, it was necessary toobtain sufficient funds to purchase the property. At a local election held in November 1884, the community voted overwhelmingly topay $30,000 in additional tax dollars in order to purchase and donate the land, thus securing the location of the new hospital.In December 1884, the Building Committee for the hospital was established, and began inspecting other mental hospitals t o determinewhat type of building should be constructed. The state legislature passed a bill approving an initial sum of $25,000 for theconstruction of the main building and an additional $2,000 for the expenses of the building committee. The architectural firm ofMcDonald Brothers, of Louisville, Kentucky, was hired to design the hospital. Originally from Winchester, Virginia, the McDonaldBrothers had designed the main building of the Southern Exposition of 1883-1887, and were apparently well known throughout thesouth. Bids for construction were advertised the following May and the contract was awarded to the firm of Lewman and Sweeny, ofColumbus, Indiana. As hoped, the construction of the new hospital facility improved the local economy providing many new jobs. Construction of the main building was completed in 1887. At first the site of the Southwestern Hospital on a hillside outside the small town of Marion epitomized the tranquil rural settingadvised by proponents of the moral treatment. Mature hardwood trees are still in abundance on the grounds. A significant farmingoperation, associated with the hospital until after World War II, supplied the patients with fresh milk, meat, and vegetables. In 1908the grounds were described as follows, “The land is well-kept and cultivated, being so managed as to produce several crops each yearfor the consumption of the institutions. The teams are in fine condition and the herd of Holstein cattle and Berkshire hogs are worthyof special mention. We were also pleased to find a large hennery operated intelligently and profitably. The general appearance ofeverything outside is pleasing and the patients are kept out of doors and given healthful occupations and diversions as much as



possible.As late as 1938, the surrounding farm and countryside is described as creating an overwhelmingly pastoral setting, “This is the newestof the state institutions, but was established as long ago as 1887. It stands in a rural surrounding in the town of Marion. Most of its1156 acres are in the woodland, pasture, and orchard. One hundred thirty-eight acres are under cultivation.” During the 1969s and 1979s several important developments occurred at the hospital. Because of civil rights legislation the hospitalwas integrated, with the first black patients admitted in 1967. During the late 1970s, with the increasing popularity of the concept ofhome healthcare, the number of patients at the Southwest State Hospital dropped considerably. In 1980 the Finlay Gayle building, andinstitutional brick building constructed during the early 1960s, was taken over by the Department of Correction to become a specialfacility for the criminally insane. Also included in the transfer were three utilitarian buildings, a shop, storage barn, and dairy barn (nolonger standing), that were originally part of the small complex of agricultural buildings owned by the hospital.In 1986 the various wings and dependencies around the Henderson building were demolished, and the central clock tower wasremoved. Soon after, construction began on a new complex of associated wings and additions to the central building. Completed in1989, the brick, two-story post-modern additions appear to be generally harmonious in scale and appearance with the original 1887Henderson Building and surrounding grounds. 1991: Southwestern Virginia State Hospital is significant under criterion A for its associations with the treatment of the mentally ill inVirginia. In addition, the Henderson Building is significant under criterion C as an excellent example of a late-nineteenth-centurymental hospital, exhiniting both a fine design and excellent craftsmanship. Despite the demolition of origional wings and theconstruction of a series of new additions to the rear of the building in the late 1980s, the main building still presents a dramatic view asone approaches on the origional entry road from the south. Overall the central portion of the campus, comprised mainly of buildingsfrom the first half of the century appears to have relatively few intrusions other than the new additions to the Hendersonbuilding,which, in both scale and appearance are not incompatible with the origional architecture of the campus. The grounds havebeen continuously well-maintained and are attractive. Based on this evaluation, it appears that the central portion of the SouthwesternState campus would be a good candidate for nomination as a district to both the state and national registers.

Surveyor Recommendation: Legacy

Ownership

Ownership Category Ownership EntityPublic - Local No Data

Associate

Property Associate Name Property Associate RoleMcDonald Brothers ArchitectLewman and Sweeny Builder


Resource Category: Other

Resource Type: Historic District

NR Resource Type: District

Historic District Status: Contributing

Date of Construction: Ca 1887

Date Source: Written Data

Historic Time Period: Reconstruction and Growth (1866 - 1916)

Historic Context(s): Architecture/Landscape, Health Care/Medicine, Social


Architectural Style: No Data

Form: No Data

Number of Stories: No Data

Condition: Good

Threats to Resource: No Data


1991: According to a local newspaper article written soon after its completion, the main building was one of the grandest buildings in Marion, ifnot in the entire region. Passing through a tall brick gate, a long, straight, tree-lined drive led up to the main building, a castle-like structure“four stories tall, with a lofty dome and tower 118 feet high. You enter this building over a beautiful tiled floor in a large vestibule or porch,and at once find yourself in a grand octagonal rotunda, lighted by a heavy plate glass in the dome…The building contained offices, a kitchen,laundry, bakery, two dining rooms, a sexing room, an elevator, and patient and attendants rooms, It was expected that 800 patients could behoused when the wings were extended. Overall, it was considered a wise and judicious expenditure of the state’s money.” Today, the centralblock of the main building is little changed, featuring a two-story Italianate loggia across the front, a slated hipped roof, and an octagonalrotunda. In addition, the approach to the building from the south still provided a dramatic entry sequence along a tree-lined drive towards theornate front façade of the Main Building. However, several significant changes have occurred in the area immediately around the MainBuilding. The original wings were demolished and the original central clock tower has been removed. In addition, the large stone pool to thefront of the building originally featured a metal fountain, now gone. Extensive one-story brick wings and additions were added near the rear(north) side of the building during 1988-1989. In 1927 its name changed to the Henderson Building after hospital superintendent E.H.



Henderson, who serve from 1915 to 1927. Originally it was intended that, following the Kirkbridge model, the main building would house all (or most) of the hospitals functions. Owing to a steadily increasing number of patients, it soon appeared that expansion was inevitable. In general the subsequent development of thecampus has occurred near the rear (north) of the main building in a somewhat random pattern. However, it appears that throughout the historyof the hospital there has been an emphasis on maintaining attractive and well-kept grounds, which have helped the campus maintain a relativelycohesive appearance.Following construction of the main building, two brick Victorian Italianate buildings, a simple carpentry shop (1906), and the large C Building(1910) were built behind the Henderson Building across a circular road from one another. The carpentry shop, now used for storage, is amodest two-story, three-bay, front-gabled building. The C Building (originally built to house the criminally insane and now serving as ageriatric care center) is an imposing three-story building with a rock-faced stone basement and first story, brick second and third stories and tworear wings. It features a central entrance with an arched stone entrance, tow end pavilions, a corbelled brick cornice, and a hipped slate roof.The 1920s were marked by the construction of a small complex of three Italianate-style utilitarian buildings located to the northeast of theHenderson Building. The one-story, side-gabled, brick Power Plant, built in 1923, is T-shaped and feature a central cross-gabled entrance with aparapet, a corbelled brick cornice, and a three-story rear section with a tall brick smokestack. Two similar two-story brick garages, built about1925, are located behind the Power Plant. In 1950 this utilitarian complex was completed with the addition of a bulky brick laundry building tothe east.Along with the institutional and service buildings several staff residences were constructed on the campus of Southwestern State Hospital in thefirst quarter of the twentieth century. Residence I, built in 1906 and located just northeast of the shop and laundry area, is a one and one-halfstory, wood-frame, vernacular cottage with a hipped roof, two projecting front gables, and a side gable. Next door is Residence H, a one andone-half story, wood-framed bungalow on a brick foundation built in 1931. Residences A and B, located a short distance from one another onthe west side of the main driveway leading up to the Henderson Building, are larger and slightly grander in style than the other residences oncampus. Residence A is a two-story modified Queen Ann-style house built in 1915 as the Director’s Residence. Residence B is a one and one-half story, brick, Craftsman-type bungalow built in 1921. All of the staff residences are pleasant and residential in appearance (aside from thechain link fencing surrounding Residences A and B), with porches, broad front lawns, and mature hardwood trees.Several new institutional buildings were added to the grounds of the hospitals in the 1930s. These large, brick, Colonial Revival structures withrock-faced foundations and Italianate detailing were compatible in both scale and appearance with the original Henderson Building. In 1930construction began on the hundred-room Harman Building, a large three and one-half story building with a stone-and-brick, loggia-type porch. The Wright Building, built in 1933 as a chronic treatment facility, is located north of Harman Building and features a two-story nine-bayentrance loggia with an iron railing. The Rehabilitation Building, built in 1939 and located a short distance west of the Henderson Building atthe front of the hospital complex, is an ornate, one-story, brick building with projecting and receding pavilions, parapeted gable ends withlunettes, and a slate roof with exposed rafter tails. With the construction of these buildings the grounds around the Henderson Building began todevelop a campus-like appearance, with individual buildings placed around the well-landscaped grounds.It was not until 1939, with the construction of the Rehabilitation Building, which major construction occurred in front of, or on a parallel planewith, the Henderson Building. In 1941 the Auditorium Building was built on the west side of the Henderson Building. This one-story, front-gabled, brick Classical Revival basilica features a three-bay entrance loggia, brick quoins, round-arched windows, a molded stone cornice, andparpaeted gabled ends. The Morrison Building, built in 1952, is the patient admissions building, located southeast of the Henderson Buildingnear the entrance to the hospital complex. Despite the late date of this brick Colonial Revival building, it is compatible with most of the olderbuildings on the campus owing to its rock-faced foundation and Italianate detailing. Fortunately, owing to the varied topography and thepresence of trees, none of the development that has occurred on the south side of the campus has interfered with the dramatic view of theHenderson Building as once approaches from the south.During the 1969s and 1979s several important developments occurred at the hospital. Because of civil rights legislation the hospital wasintegrated, with the first black patients admitted in 1967. During the late 1970s, with the increasing popularity of the concept of homehealthcare, the number of patients at the Southwest State Hospital dropped considerably. In 1980 the Finlay Gayle building, and institutionalbrick building constructed during the early 1960s, was taken over by the Department of Correction to become a special facility for thecriminally insane. Also included in the transfer were three utilitarian buildings, a shop, storage barn, and dairy barn (no longer standing), thatwere originally part of the small complex of agricultural buildings owned by the hospital.In 1986 the various wings and dependencies around the Henderson building were demolished, and the central clock tower was removed. Soonafter, construction began on a new complex of associated wings and additions to the central building. Completed in 1989, the brick, two-storypost-modern additions appear to be generally harmonious in scale and appearance with the original 1887 Henderson Building and surroundinggrounds.



Historic District Name: Southwestern State Hospital Historic District



CRM Events



Investigator: Land and Community Associates



Organization/Company: Unknown (DSS)



Dhr Library Report Number: No Data


1991: Virginia Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse created a survey of state-owned properties for the DHR. The hospital complex was originally recorded under DHR file number 119-0004, but this number now specifically references the HendersonBuilding complex within the Southwestern State Hospital potential historic district.


Name: Blalock, JosephRecord Type: ReportBibliographic Notes: Hospital Reports, Southwestern. Marion, Va. 1883-1959-----------------------------Name: Armstrong, JoanRecord Type: ArticleBibliographic Notes: A Brief History of Southwestern State Hospital, 1887-1987.

Surveyor's NR CriteriaRecommendations:

A - Associated with Broad Patterns of History, C - Distinctive Characteristics of Architecture/Construction


Bibliography:

No Data

Property Notes:

No Data



County Boundaries


marion correctional center

Documents