06-179(E)/013007 

DOE/EA-1415 

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

PROPOSED CONVEYANCE 

OF THE 

AMERICAN MUSEUM OF SCIENCE AND ENERGY 

AND ASSOCIATED PROPERTY, 

PARCEL G, AND PARCEL 279.01 

March 2007 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Oak Ridge Office 

Oak Ridge, Tennessee 
06-179(E)/013007 iii

CONTENTS 

FIGURES...................................................................................................................................................... v

TABLES ....................................................................................................................................................... v

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ...................................................................................................vii

1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................1-1

1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ACTION.......................1-1

1.2 BACKGROUND .....................................................................................................................1-1

1.3 SCOPE OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT .......................................................1-2

2. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................2-1

2.1 PROPOSED ACTION .............................................................................................................2-1

2.2 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ...............................................................................................2-1

2.3 ALTERNATIVES DISMISSED FROM CONSIDERATION................................................2-2

2.3.1 Conveyance to the GSA ............................................................................................2-2

3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT.........................................................................................................3-1

3.1 LAND AND FACILITY USE .................................................................................................3-1

3.2 AIR QUALITY........................................................................................................................3-1

3.3 GEOLOGY AND SOILS.........................................................................................................3-5

3.3.1 Site Geology..............................................................................................................3-5

3.3.2 Soils...........................................................................................................................3-6

3.4 WATER RESOURCES ...........................................................................................................3-6

3.4.1 Groundwater..............................................................................................................3-6

3.4.2 Surface Water............................................................................................................3-7

3.5 FLOODPLAINS AND WETLANDS......................................................................................3-8

3.5.1 Floodplains................................................................................................................3-8

3.5.2 Wetlands....................................................................................................................3-8

3.6 ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................3-9

3.6.1 Terrestrial Habitat .....................................................................................................3-9

3.6.2 Terrestrial Animals..................................................................................................3-10

3.6.3 Aquatic Resources...................................................................................................3-11

3.6.4 Threatened and Endangered Species.......................................................................3-11

3.7 CULTURAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................................3-13

3.8 SOCIOECONOMICS ............................................................................................................3-14

3.8.1 Demographic and Economic Characteristics...........................................................3-14

3.8.2 Fiscal Characteristics...............................................................................................3-16

3.9 INFRASTRUCTURE AND SUPPORT SERVICES ............................................................3-17

3.9.1 Transportation .........................................................................................................3-17

3.9.2 Utilities....................................................................................................................3-17

4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ........................................................................................4-1

4.1 LAND AND FACILITY USE .................................................................................................4-1

4.1.1 Proposed Action ........................................................................................................4-1

4.1.2 No Action ..................................................................................................................4-1

4.2 AIR QUALITY........................................................................................................................4-1

4.2.1 Proposed Action ........................................................................................................4-1
06-179(E)/013007 iv

4.2.2 No Action ..................................................................................................................4-2

4.3 GEOLOGY AND SOILS.........................................................................................................4-2

4.3.1 Proposed Action ........................................................................................................4-2

4.3.2 No Action ..................................................................................................................4-3

4.4 WATER RESOURCES ...........................................................................................................4-3

4.4.1 Proposed Action ........................................................................................................4-3

4.4.2 No Action ..................................................................................................................4-4

4.5 FLOODPLAINS AND WETLANDS......................................................................................4-4

4.5.1 Proposed Action ........................................................................................................4-4

4.5.2 No Action ..................................................................................................................4-4

4.6 ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................4-5

4.6.1 Proposed Action ........................................................................................................4-5

4.6.2 No Action ..................................................................................................................4-6

4.7 CULTURAL RESOURCES ....................................................................................................4-6

4.7.1 Proposed Action ........................................................................................................4-6

4.7.2 No Action ..................................................................................................................4-7

4.8 SOCIOECONOMICS ..............................................................................................................4-7

4.8.1 Proposed Action ........................................................................................................4-7

4.8.2 No Action ..................................................................................................................4-9

4.9 INFRASTRUCTURE AND SUPPORT SERVICES ..............................................................4-9

4.9.1 Transportation ...........................................................................................................4-9

4.9.2 Utilities......................................................................................................................4-9

4.10 NOISE......................................................................................................................................4-9

4.10.1 Proposed Action ........................................................................................................4-9

4.10.2 No Action ................................................................................................................4-10

4.11 INTENTIONAL DESTRUCTIVE ACTS .............................................................................4-10

5. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS...............................................................................................................5-1

5.1 POTENTIALLY CUMULATIVE ACTIONS.........................................................................5-1

5.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS BY RESOURCE AREA.............................................................5-3

5.2.1 Land Use ...................................................................................................................5-3

5.2.2 Air Quality.................................................................................................................5-3

5.2.3 Socioeconomics.........................................................................................................5-4

5.2.4 Transportation ...........................................................................................................5-4

5.2.5 Biodiversity ...............................................................................................................5-4

6. REGULATORY COMPLIANCE .....................................................................................................6-1

7. LIST OF AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONTACTED...................................................................7-1

8. REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................8-1

APPENDIX A CORRESPONDENCE LETTERS ..................................................................................A-1

APPENDIX B FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE OF RULE .................................................................. B-1

APPENDIX C WETLANDS ASSESSMENT......................................................................................... C-1

APPENDIX D BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT ......................................................................................D-1

APPENDIX E RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ....................................................................................... E-1
06-179(E)/013007 v

FIGURES 

Fig. 1.1. Vicinity map for AMSE, Parcel G, and Parcel 279.01. ...............................................................1-3

Fig. 3.1. American Museum of Science and Energy and associated property...........................................3-2

Fig. 3.2. Parcel G. ......................................................................................................................................3-3

Fig. 3.3. Parcel 279.01. ..............................................................................................................................3-4

TABLES 

Table 3.1. Fish species, density (individuals/m2), and biomass (g fish/m2) at Scarboro Creek for 

spring 1999−2001 ..........................................................................................................................3-11

Table 3.2. Animal species of concern reported from the ORRa...............................................................3-12

Table 3.3. Vascular plant species reported from the ORR listed by state or federal agencies.................3-13

Table 3.4. Demographic and economic characteristics: Anderson and Roane counties.........................3-15

Table 3.5. Race or ethnic distribution for Oak Ridge City population: 2000 .........................................3-15

Table 3.6. City of Oak Ridge revenues and expenditures, FY 2005 and budgeted FY 2007 ($).............3-16
06-179(E)/013007 vi

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. 
06-179(E)/013007 vii

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 

AMSE American Museum of Science and Energy 

AURP Association of University Research Parks 

BJC Bechtel Jacobs Company LLC 

BMP best management practice 

CAA Clean Air Act of 1970 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CROET Community Reuse Organization of East Tennessee 

dBA A-weighted decibels 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

EA environmental assessment 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ETTP East Tennessee Technology Park 

FIR Federal Industry and Research 

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact 

FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 

FRP Facilities Revitalization Project 

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

FY fiscal year 

GSA General Services Administration 

IVSTP Innovation Valley Science and Technology Park 

LESA Land Evaluation and Site Assessment 

MOA Memorandum of Agreement 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 

NRCE National Register Criteria for Evaluation 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

ORISE Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education 

ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory 

ORO Oak Ridge Office 

ORR Oak Ridge Reservation 

PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon 

PILT payment-in-lieu-of-tax 

PSD prevention of significant deterioration 

RI/FS remedial investigation/feasibility study 

ROI region of influence 

ROW right-of-way 

SNS Spallation Neutron Source 

SR state route 

SVOC semivolatile organic compound 

TCE trichloroethene 

TDEC Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation 

TDOT Tennessee Department of Transportation 

TN-SHPO Tennessee State Historic Preservation Officer 
06-179(E)/013007 viii

TRU transuranic 

TVA Tennessee Valley Authority 

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S.C. United States Code 

VOC volatile organic compound 

Y-12 Y-12 National Security Complex 
06-179(E)/013007 1-1

1. INTRODUCTION 

1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ACTION 

 The proposed action evaluated in this environmental assessment (EA) is the U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) conveyance of the American Museum of Science and Energy (AMSE) and associated 

property, Parcel G, and Parcel 279.01. The purpose of the proposed DOE action is to provide for the 

long-term financial stability of the AMSE to preserve the museum as an asset to the city of Oak Ridge 

and the surrounding region. The proposed conveyance is also intended to help offset the long-term cost of 

operating the museum. The purpose of the proposed action is also to convey excess (i.e., property not 

needed to fulfill DOE current or foreseeable future missions) DOE-Oak Ridge Office (ORO) real property 

(i.e., buildings and land) for economic development to help offset potential economic losses resulting 

from DOE downsizing, facility closeouts, and work force restructuring. 

 The need for DOE action arose from the elimination on October 1, 2000, of approximately $1.2 million 

in federal funds that, in the past, have been available to operate the museum. Funding alternatives must be 

pursued that are consistent with both DOE’s intentions and the economic development priorities of the 

region. DOE also recognizes that transferring excess land and facilities for local economic development 

purposes can benefit the federal government by reducing or eliminating DOE’s landlord costs. 

1.2 BACKGROUND 

 From 1949 until October 2000, DOE and its predecessors have provided funding and oversight of the 

museum’s management. The Administration’s fiscal year (FY) 1998 budget initiated a phasing out, over a 

2-year period, of federal direct funding for AMSE’s operation through the Oak Ridge Landlord account. 

The decision to eliminate AMSE’s federal funding stemmed from concerns raised by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) about whether the operation of a museum is an appropriate mission for 

DOE. Federal funds to AMSE in FY 2000 totaled $1.2 million, down from $1.5 million in FY 1998. 

 Dr. James Decker, Acting Director of the Office of Science, testified on March 1, 2000, before the House 

Subcommittee on Energy and Environment that “alternative funding mechanisms are being developed” to 

cover the continued operating costs of the museum. Dr. Decker’s testimony referred to DOE’s requirement 

that Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s (ORNL’s) new contractor, UT-Battelle, provide, by October 31, 2000, 

a plan for AMSE’s financial stability. In October 2000, UT-Battelle submitted a report to DOE entitled “A 

Plan for the Museum’s Long-term Financial Stability” (UT-Battelle 2000). DOE used the report to help 

develop the proposed action being evaluated, and it provided much of the information contained in this EA. 

 AMSE, formerly the American Museum of Atomic Energy, opened in March 1949. During its first 

29 years, the museum’s exhibits emphasized atomic energy. The energy theme was broadened in 1978, 

when the museum was renamed with its present title to reflect more clearly the mission of the newly 

created DOE. Working with a number of operating contractors, DOE-ORO has provided oversight of the 

museum’s contracts and management policies. In October 1998, DOE transferred management responsibility 

for the museum, including supervision of AMSE’s operating contractor, to UT-Battelle. DOE has retained 

oversight of AMSE’s personnel and operating policies. In FY 2001, UT-Battelle provided approximately 

$1.2 million from their overhead account to operate AMSE. Since then, about $1.5 million in funding has 

been shared among DOE’s three major contractors [UT-Battelle, BWXT Y-12 National Security 

Complex (Y-12), and the Bechtel Jacobs Company LLC (BJC)]. The AMSE currently generates roughly 
06-179(E)/013007 1-2

$350,000 in annual revenues based on admissions, memberships, rental, and retail sales. Grants and 

exhibit sponsorships generate additional revenue (Stow 2006). 

 The AMSE and associated property, Parcel G, and Parcel 279.01 are all located within the city limits 

of Oak Ridge (Fig. 1.1). The AMSE property (Parcel 482) is located between South Tulane Avenue and 

Badger Avenue on 15.43 acres. The associated property (Parcel 483) is located adjacent to the AMSE on 

1.79 acres between South Illinois Avenue and Tulane Place. Parcel G contains about 20.0 acres and is 

located southeast of the intersection of Bethel Valley and Scarboro roads. A portion of Parcel G is within 

the area of the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) Scarboro Operations Site. Parcel 

279.01 is a small piece of undeveloped property (0.662 acre) located on the corner of Laboratory Road 

and Administration Road. 

1.3 SCOPE OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

This EA presents information on the potential impacts associated with the proposed conveyance. 

DOE has prepared this EA to assess the potential consequences of its activities on the human environment 

in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations [40 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) Parts 1500−1508]1

 implementing National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) 

and DOE NEPA Implementing Procedures (10 CFR 1021). If the impacts associated with the proposed 

action are not identified as significant as a result of this EA, DOE shall issue a Finding of No Significant 

Impact (FONSI) and will proceed with the action. If impacts are identified as potentially significant, an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be prepared. 

 This EA (1) describes the existing environment for each parcel relevant to potential impacts of the 

proposed action and alternatives; (2) analyzes potential environmental impacts, including those from 

development of a range of uses; (3) identifies and characterizes cumulative impacts that could result from 

the proposed action in relation to other ongoing or proposed activities within the surrounding area; and 

(4) provides DOE with environmental information for use in prescribing restrictions to protect, preserve, 

and enhance the human environment and natural ecosystems. 

 Certain aspects of the proposed action have a greater potential for creating adverse environmental 

impacts than others. For this reason, CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1502.1 and 1502.2) recommend a 

“sliding-scale” approach so that those actions with greater potential effect can be discussed in greater 

detail in NEPA documents than those that have little potential for impact. 

Implementation of the proposed action also requires compliance with Sect. 120 of the 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). 

Section 120(h) requires the identification of uncontaminated property transferred by federal agencies. 

This identification is based on an investigation of the property to determine the presence or likely 

presence of a release or threatened release of any hazardous substance or any petroleum product or its 

derivatives on the property. 

DOE prepared CERCLA Sect. 120(h) reports (DOE 2002a and 2002b) to satisfy this requirement. 

The reports document the review of the properties and pertinent records to identify any areas where 

hazardous substances or petroleum products were known to have been released or disposed of. Based on 

its investigation and the information set forth in the documents, DOE has identified the AMSE, Parcel G, 

 1

Code of Federal Regulations. 
06-179(E)/013007 1-4

and Parcel 279.01 as “uncontaminated property” in accordance with CERCLA Sect. 120(h)(4)(A). The 

results of the investigation were provided to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Tennessee 

Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), and city of Oak Ridge officials. The state of 

Tennessee and EPA concurred with DOE’s determination. Copies of the correspondence from these 

agencies are included in Appendix A. 
06-179(E)/013007 2-1

2. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 

2.1 PROPOSED ACTION 

 DOE proposes to convey the AMSE and associated property, Parcel G, and Parcel 279.01 to the 

American Museum of Science and Energy Foundation, city of Oak Ridge, or other managing entity. The 

managing entity would oversee the operation of the AMSE and would develop Parcel G, Parcel 279.01, 

and the property associated with the AMSE for a variety of uses. Upon completion of the conveyance, the 

managing entity would also take a leadership role in a development campaign designed to establish an 

endowment for the museum.

After having established the $10 to $15 million endowment, the AMSE would be able to fund its 

$1.8 million annual budget without the need for further allowable cost revenues from DOE contractors. 

This funding would come from increased AMSE revenues, AMSE endowment revenues, grants, and other 

private and corporate gifts (AMSEF 2006). 

 The process for transferring real property at defense nuclear facilities for economic development is 

described in a DOE-issued interim final rule, “Transfer of Real Property at Defense Nuclear Facilities for 

Economic Development” (10 CFR Part 770). The rule became effective on February 29, 2000 (65 Federal 

Register 10685). The Federal Register notice of the rule is provided in Appendix B. The AMSE facility 

and property are proposed for conveyance because federal funding for the museum’s operation has been 

eliminated due to OMB concerns (see Sect. 1.2). Parcel G and Parcel 279.01 are being conveyed because 

DOE has determined that they are excess. 

 Because specific uses of Parcel G, Parcel 279.01, and the property associated with the AMSE would 

not be known prior to the conveyance, DOE has developed reasonably foreseeable scenarios and uses to 

bound the impacts analysis. Scenarios identify potential tenants, utilities and infrastructure, areas to be 

excluded from development, and a range of emissions, effluents, and wastes that could result from 

commercial and industrial activities. Parcel G may be developed for small-scale offices, light industrial 

use, or retail businesses. Because of the small size of Parcel 279.01 (0.662 acres), it could be suitable for a 

small office or retail business. The open property located in front of the AMSE, along South Illinois 

Avenue, may be suitable for retail businesses or offices. 

2.2 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

 The no action alternative provides an environmental baseline with which impacts of the proposed 

action and alternatives can be compared. The no action alternative must be considered even if DOE is 

under a court order or legislative command to act. See 10 CFR 1021.321(c). 

 Under the no action alternative, UT-Battelle, BWXT Y-12, and BJC would continue to fund the 

operation of the museum. It is anticipated that these contractors would not be able to continue this type of 

funding on a long-term basis, and, at some time in the future, the museum could be forced to close or 

limit hours of operation because of the lack of continued funding. Parcel G and Parcel 279.01 would 

remain DOE property. However, because these two parcels have been determined by DOE to be excess, at 

some time in the future DOE could choose to dispose of them through the appropriate regulatory 

processes. 
06-179(E)/013007 2-2

2.3 ALTERNATIVES DISMISSED FROM CONSIDERATION 

2.3.1 Conveyance to the GSA 

 If at sometime in the future AMSE was determined to be excess property, DOE could report the 

museum along with Parcel G and Parcel 279.01 to the General Services Administration (GSA) for disposition 

as an alternative to the proposed action. The requirements of the Federal Property and Administrative 

Services Act of 1949 and the Federal Property Management Regulations (41 CFR Parts 101-47 and 109) 

govern this process. The GSA screens other federal agencies to determine their interest in the property. If 

no federal agencies indicate any interest, the property is declared surplus to the Federal Government and 

made available to the non-federal public sector. If no public entities express interest, the property can be 

sold to the private sector. Because GSA takes on much of the responsibility with these types of 

conveyances, DOE has less control over the ultimate use of the property. 

 Because the AMSE is considered to be such a valuable asset to the city of Oak Ridge and the 

surrounding region, and because AMSE’s future is a fundamental component of the city’s desire to 

expand tourism and protect the community’s historical legacy, this alternative was dismissed from 

detailed consideration. 
06-179(E)/013007 3-1

3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

3.1 LAND AND FACILITY USE 

 The AMSE is located on 15.43 acres of government-owned land (Fig. 3.1) and has operated in its 

present facility since 1975. The museum occupies a 53,000 ft2

, two-story building that includes 8 exhibit 

halls, 2 lecture/demonstration rooms, a 300-seat auditorium, a classroom laboratory, a large lobby with 

recessed display areas, a retail gift shop, and offices. An adjacent building leased by the city houses the 

Oak Ridge Convention and Visitors Bureau. A storage trailer and warehouse located behind the main 

facility provide an additional 2300 ft2

. The property also includes a picnic area; a parking area to 

accommodate 272 automobiles, 12 buses, or 12 cars with trailers; and 4 parking spaces for the 

handicapped. A large, 1.79-acre open area (Parcel 483) is located between Tulane Place and South Illinois 

Avenue, and a smaller, open area is located behind the museum. Adjacent land use to AMSE is 

predominantly commercial, and the city’s municipal complex is located adjacent to the rear of the 

museum property. The portion of the property located between Tulane Place and South Illinois Avenue is 

currently zoned by the city of Oak Ridge as RG-1 (Residential, Open Space, and Reserved Districts). The 

main portion of the property is zoned as O-2 (Office Districts). 

 Parcel G contains about 20.0 acres and is located southeast of the intersection of Bethel Valley and 

Scarboro roads (Fig. 3.2). A portion of Parcel G is within the area of the ORISE Scarboro Operations Site 

(formerly the South Campus Facility). The Scarboro Operations Site supported research on the biological 

effects of radionuclides on animals. The portion of Parcel G that is within the boundary of the Scarboro 

Operations Site was an area where only unexposed animals were housed or grazed. In addition to pasture, 

the area contained various barns and a three-tiered swine waste treatment pond system. Hay is 

periodically cut off of the remaining pasture area. A small area in the eastern portion of the property is 

currently wooded. Scarboro Creek and an associated drainage also cross the site. A narrow riparian zone 

and some wetlands also occur along the creek. Nearby land uses include the Y-12 Complex buffer area, 

Bethel Valley Industrial Park, Commerce Park, and the University of Tennessee Forestry Station and 

Arboretum. Parcel G is currently zoned by the city of Oak Ridge as FIR (Federal Industry and Research). 

 Parcel 279.01 is a small piece of undeveloped property (0.662 acre) located on the corner of 

Laboratory Road and Administration Road (Fig. 3.3). This parcel is open with mowed lawn and a few 

scattered trees. Adjacent land use includes a soccer field and an office supply business. A vacant parcel 

and the Laboratory Road entrance to the Roane State Community College, Oak Ridge Branch, are located 

directly across from Parcel 279.01. The current city of Oak Ridge zoning for Parcel 279.01 is O-2 

(Office Districts). 

3.2 AIR QUALITY 

The state of Tennessee has adopted the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) set by 

EPA for six principal pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment. These 

pollutants include particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 microns 

(PM10) and 2.5 microns (PM2.5) in diameter, sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen 

dioxide (NO2), lead (Pb), and ozone (O3). Based on the ambient (outdoor) levels of the criteria pollutants, 

EPA evaluates individual Air Quality Control Regions to establish whether or not they meet NAAQS. 

Areas that meet NAAQS are classified as attainment areas; areas that exceed NAAQS for a particular 

pollutant(s) are classified as non-attainment areas for the pollutant(s). 
06-179(E)/013007 3-5

Air quality surrounding the Oak Ridge area is relatively good. However, Anderson County has been 

designated as a non-attainment area for the 8-hr ground level O3 standard, as part of the larger Knoxville 

non-attainment area. Also, Anderson County and a portion of Roane County have been designated as 

non-attainment for the new, stricter federal fine particulate matter (PM2.5) air quality standard. For all 

other criteria pollutants for which EPA has made attainment designations, existing air quality in the 

greater Knoxville and Oak Ridge areas is in attainment with NAAQS. 

 Oak Ridge is located in a Class II prevention-of-significant-deterioration (PSD) area. One set of 

allowable increments exists for Class II PSD areas, and more stringent increments apply to Class I PSD 

areas, which include national parks that exceed 6000 acres and some other national parks, monuments, 

wilderness areas, and other areas specified in 40 CFR 51.166. The nearest such area is the Great Smoky 

Mountains National Park, located about 35 miles southeast of Oak Ridge. PSD standards exist for SO2, 

NO2, and PM-10. 

3.3 GEOLOGY AND SOILS 

3.3.1 Site Geology 

 Oak Ridge lies within the Valley and Ridge Physiographic Province of the Southern Appalachian 

Mountains. The Valley and Ridge Province in Tennessee consists of Cambrian- to Ordovician-age 

sedimentary rocks that occur as northeast-southwest-trending thrust sheets formed during the Late Paleozoic 

Appalachian mountain-building episode. These thrust sheets have brought older rocks overlying younger 

rocks at the base of each thrust sheet. Because the internal layers of each thrust sheet are similar to those on 

either side, the rock outcrop sequence for each sheet is similar. This has produced similar topography on each 

sheet. Ultimately, this has created the pattern of parallel valleys and ridges characteristic of the region. 

Erosion-resistant sandstones, siltstones, dolomites, and cherty formation help form the higher ridges while 

less-resistant limestones and shales underlie the valleys. Karst processes that form sinkholes and cavern 

systems have created extensive underground drainage networks in the more soluble carbonate-rich rocks. 

 The typical sequence of rocks outcropping in the Valley and Ridge Province include, from older to 

younger, Cambrian-age Rome Formation shales, siltstones, and sandstones, Cambrian-age Conasauga 

limestones and shales, Cambrian-Ordovician-age Knox Group cherty dolomites and limestones, 

Ordovician-age Chickamauga Group limestones and shales, and much less extensive outcrops of Silurianthrough Mississippian-age rocks. 

 There are no detailed geologic investigations of the AMSE site. Regional geologic maps indicate that 

the undivided members of the Chickamauga Group underlie the AMSE (Hatcher et al. 1992). This unit 

consists mostly of the Chickamauga Limestone with minor components of siltstones and shales. 

 There are no detailed geologic investigations of the Parcel 279.01 site. Regional geologic maps indicate 

that the undivided members of the Chickamauga Group underlie Parcel 279.01 (Hatcher et al. 1992). This 

unit consists mostly of the Chickamauga Limestone with minor components of siltstones and shales. 

 The 1700-ft-thick Chickamauga Group underlies Parcel G (DOE 1995). This group is a sequence of 

gray limestone with interbedded maroon, shale-dominated units. Three formations of the 

Chickamauga Group underlie Parcel G: the Witten, Bowen, and Benholt Formations. These formations 

are oriented in a northeasterly-southwesterly direction and dip 35° to the southeast. 
06-179(E)/013007 3-6

3.3.2 Soils 

 The Anderson County Soil Survey (Moneymaker 1981) identifies 11 soil types at the three properties 

(AMSE, Parcel 279.01, and Parcel G). There are two soil types at AMSE, one soil type at Parcel 279.01, 

and 10 soil types at Parcel G. Soils at these sites formed from a variety of parent materials, including 

weathered limestone and shale residuum, or from local alluvial deposits. Soils in the area are composed 

mostly of silty and clayey materials. Surface textures are usually loamy with increasing concentrations of 

silts and clays in deeper soil horizons. Most soils are moderately well-drained to well-drained, and soil 

depths range from 4 to 21 ft below ground surface (DOE 1995). Soil reaction ranges from very strongly 

acid (pH 4.5 to 5.5) to mildly alkaline (pH 7.4 to 7.8). Most of these soils in the project area show 

evidence of moderate to severe erosion or disturbance from past agricultural use, construction, grading, 

and other development. Emory and Hamblen soils mapped at Parcel G experience occasional flooding (p 

= 0.05 to 0.5/year) for very brief duration (<2 consecutive days) from early winter to early spring 

(December to March). 

 Prime farmland is land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for 

producing crops of statewide or local importance. Prime farmland is protected by the Farmland Protection 

Policy Act of 1981 (FPPA), which seeks “... to minimize the extent to which federal programs contribute to 

the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmlands to nonagricultural uses...” [7 U.S.C. 4201(b)]. 

 Four soil types that occur at two of the three DOE properties (one at AMSE and three at Parcel G) 

are considered prime farmland in Anderson County, Tennessee. These four soil types are Capshaw silt 

loam (2 to 5% slopes) at the AMSE, and Emory silt loam (0 to 4% slopes), Hamblen silt loam (0 to 2% 

slopes), and Tasso silt loam (2 to 7% slopes) at Parcel G. 

3.4 WATER RESOURCES 

3.4.1 Groundwater 

 The principal aquifers in the Oak Ridge area include two general hydrologic units, the Knox Aquifer 

and the Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR) Aquitards. The Knox Aquifer includes the Knox Group and 

Maynardville Limestone of the Conasauga Group. Flow in the Knox Aquifer is primarily through solution 

cavities and enlarged fractures. The ORR Aquitards are associated with the remaining geologic units in the 

area, including the Chickamauga Group that underlies Parcel G. Hydraulic conductivity and potential yield 

in the ORR Aquitards is generally low and highly variable, depending on the density, width, and 

interconnectedness of local bedrock fractures and solution cavities. 

3.4.1.1 Groundwater use 

 Groundwater is not used for agricultural, drinking, or industrial purposes in Oak Ridge. All water 

users in the area obtain water directly from the Oak Ridge municipal water system. A well survey 

conducted for the South Campus Facility remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS; DOE 1995) 

indicated that there were no groundwater wells that extracted water from the Chickamauga Group within 

a 3-mile radius of Parcel G. 

3.4.1.2 Groundwater monitoring 

 There are no groundwater monitoring wells at the AMSE or at Parcel 279.01. No groundwater 

monitoring wells are located within Parcel G. Monitoring wells are located on the adjacent ORISE 

Scarboro Operations Site. A 1991 site investigation of the Scarboro Operations Site identified a small 
06-179(E)/013007 3-7

trichloroethene (TCE) plume in the groundwater near a mechanical shop. This plume does not affect 

Parcel G because it is located on the adjacent property. The South Campus Facility RI/FS (DOE 1995) 

concluded that the site posed no unacceptable risk to humans or the environment, provided that 

groundwater is not used for human consumption. It was anticipated that the TCE in groundwater would 

naturally attenuate and, therefore, no remedial action was considered necessary. Groundwater samples are 

collected biannually from five locations specified in the record of decision for the South Campus Facility. 

In addition, a statement was added to the property title at the Anderson County Courthouse notifying 

potential property owners to the contamination. Groundwater samples are analyzed for TCE, associated 

degradation products, and physical and chemical biodegradation indicators. Preliminary interpretations of 

the existing data indicate a strong likelihood that TCE is degrading in the subsurface (DOE 2001a). 

3.4.2 Surface Water 

 There are no surface water features at the AMSE. Storm water runoff from the AMSE drains to the 

southwest into a wet-weather conveyance south of the museum parking lot and the city of Oak Ridge’s 

storm sewer system, which both eventually discharge into East Fork Poplar Creek. 

 There are no surface water features at Parcel 279.01. Storm water runoff from Laboratory Road 

drains to the north into a wet-weather conveyance that eventually discharges into Ernie’s Creek, which in 

turn discharges into the Clinch River. 

 Surface water resources at Parcel G include Scarboro Creek, an intermittent stream, and three old 

farm ponds. Storm water runoff from Parcel G and portions of Bethel Valley Road, South Illinois Avenue 

[state route (SR) 62], drains into Scarboro Creek, which discharges into the Scarboro Creek embayment, a 

20-acre arm of Melton Hill Lake (Clinch River). 

 Scarboro Creek is a perennial stream that rises in Union Valley, about 1.5 miles north of the site. The 

stream develops on the south slopes of Pine Ridge, flows through the water gap along South Illinois 

Avenue (SR 62), and then opens into the Scarboro Creek embayment. Scarboro Creek flows for about 

768 ft across Parcel G. During base flow conditions the creek is about 10 ft wide and 0.5 ft deep. The 

watershed of Scarboro Creek covers about 640 acres. Estimated mean annual discharge in Scarboro Creek 

is about 13 gal/second/mile2

. Stream flow is sustained by groundwater during the dry periods, making 

Scarboro Creek a gaining stream in the vicinity of Parcel G. 

 There is an unnamed, intermittent tributary to Scarboro Creek on Parcel G. This stream drains the south 

side of Chestnut Ridge, north of Bethel Valley Road and South Illinois Avenue, and enters Parcel G on the 

eastern edge of the site. The stream then flows about 576 ft before it discharges into Scarboro Creek. 

 The three old farm ponds were originally built to treat waste from swine housed at Parcel G. These 

ponds were designated as Swine Waste Ponds 1, 2, and 3. Numerical designations represent the sequence in 

which the ponds received waste from the swine barns. Waste first entered Pond 1, which was connected 

by underground drain line to Pond 2, which was connected to Pond 3. These ponds have not been used to 

treat swine waste since 1965. Pond 1 has a surface area of about 0.47 acre and a maximum depth of about 

20 ft. Pond 2 has a surface area of about 0.38 acre and a range in depth of 5 to 10 ft. Pond 3 is about 

0.56 acre and close to the same depth as Pond 2; however, Pond 3 is rarely inundated and has developed as a 

small wetland. 
06-179(E)/013007 3-8

3.4.2.1 Surface water monitoring and quality 

 As part of the South Campus Facility RI/FS (DOE 1995), 18 surface water samples were collected 

from 10 locations along Scarboro Creek. Six sampling locations were within the site, one location was 

just north of Bethel Valley Road, and three locations were upstream within the UT Arboretum. 

 No volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were detected, but one location (SCF1-24) was found to 

contain polychlorinated pentaphenyl compounds using immunoassay field screening. Semivolatile 

organic compounds (SVOCs) [primarily polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)] were detected at 

equivalent levels within the site and in the upstream samples. The levels of PAH compounds detected are 

probably the result of automobile exhaust and road run-off that has petroleum products from the asphalt 

and engine leakage. Nine samples from within the site and four upstream samples were submitted for 

Neutron Activation Analysis metals screening. None of the metals detected was at an elevated level 

indicating any potential contamination concerns. 

 As part of the RI/FS investigation, surface water samples were also collected from the swine waste 

ponds. No VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, or polychlorinated biphenyls were detected. Methoxychlor was 

detected in one surface water sample from Swine Waste Pond 1 at a concentration of 0.014 μg/L. Barium, 

calcium, iron, magnesium, manganese, potassium, silver, and sodium were detected in the water from all 

three ponds. All of the concentrations were within the range of background surface water samples 

collected from Scarboro Creek, upstream of the site. Aluminum and arsenic were detected in one surface 

water sample from Swine Waste Pond 1 at 708 μg/L and 35 μg/L, respectively. 

3.5 FLOODPLAINS AND WETLANDS 

3.5.1 Floodplains 

 Floodplains consist of mostly level land along rivers and streams that may occasionally be submerged by 

floodwaters. 

 Both the AMSE and Parcel 279.01 lie outside the published Oak Ridge flood hazard zone boundaries. 

The Flood Insurance Rate Maps prepared for Oak Ridge specifically exclude the ORR from evaluation, 

and there are no published sources of floodplain information for the portion of Scarboro Creek that flows 

across Parcel G. Therefore, flood stage elevations for Scarboro Creek and Parcel G were estimated using 

regression equations developed by the U.S. Geological Survey for small watersheds (Gamble 1983). Using 

this technique, the maximum flood depth for the 100-year flood was estimated at 5.32 ft above base flow. 

3.5.2 Wetlands 

 The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) defines wetlands as “those areas that are inundated or 

saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that 

under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated 

soil conditions” (Environmental Laboratory 1987). Wetlands usually include swamps, marshes, bogs, and 

similar areas. In identifying a wetland, three characteristics must be present. First is the dominance of 

hydrophytic vegetation (plants that have morphological or physiological adaptations to grow, compete, or 

persist in anaerobic soil conditions). Second, hydric soils are present and possess characteristics that are 

associated with reducing (anaerobic or low oxygen) soil conditions. Third, wetland hydrology must be 

present [i.e., the site must be flooded at depths 6.6 ft or saturated for sufficient duration during the 

growing season to create anaerobic conditions at the site] (Environmental Laboratory 1987). 
06-179(E)/013007 3-9

 There are no wetlands associated with the AMSE property or with Parcel 279.01. Parcel G and the 

adjacent DOE property to the south support a palustrine emergent/scrub-shrub wetland system along 

Scarboro Creek totaling approximately 3.4 acres. All wetlands identified at Parcel G exhibited positive field 

indicators of the wetland criteria: hydrophytic plants, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. The majority 

of these wetlands are associated with the floodplain of Scarboro Creek, the Scarboro Creek embayment 

(part of Melton Hill Reservoir), and two beaver ponds in Scarboro Creek immediately south of Parcel G. 

The wetlands within the portion of Parcel G being considered for conveyance are located along 

Scarboro Creek and total about 1 acre. These wetlands range in width from 5 to 30 ft and flank the creek 

as it crosses the parcel. Wetland vegetation consists of persistent and nonpersistent, herbaceous, and 

wetland shrubs. Periodic flooding of Scarboro Creek and numerous groundwater seeps controls wetland 

hydrology. 

 Parts of Swine Waste Pond 2 and all of Swine Waste Pond 3 have developed characteristics of 

wetlands and could be regulated as waters of the state. Although they were originally created to treat 

swine waste, that function ceased decades ago when animal research operations ended at Parcel G. Since 

that time, the ponds have maintained their hydrologic status and now support wetland vegetation. Both 

ponds now function as isolated wetlands. This is especially true of Pond 3, which has developed as a 

periodically inundated wetland dominated by persistent and nonpersistent emergent wetland plants. 

Additional information about the wetlands on Parcel G and the adjacent DOE property is contained in a 

Wetlands Assessment prepared for the proposed action (Appendix C). 

3.6 ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

3.6.1 Terrestrial Habitat 

 The Oak Ridge area provides a variety of habitat types that support a large number of animals and 

plant species. Habitat types at the AMSE and Parcel 279.01 are somewhat limited due to their small size and 

location in developed parts of Oak Ridge. Parcel G is larger and has a much richer assemblage of habitats. 

 Terrestrial habitat at the AMSE consists of mowed lawns with scattered trees in a park-like setting 

that surrounds the museum building and parking lot. Terrestrial habitat at Parcel 279.01 consists of a 

mixture of grasses and common lawn weeds that are periodically mowed. A small grove of trees occupies 

the northern corner of the site. Terrestrial habitat types at Parcel G consist primarily of fields and 

pastures, scrub thickets, and mixed hardwood-redcedar woodlands. Fields and pastures are open areas 

dominated by grasses such as broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus), fescue (Festuca spp.), blue grass 

(Poa spp.), and orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata) and common lawn and field weeds. Fields and 

pastures are actively maintained in their open state by periodic mowing. 

 Scrub thickets occur in old fields and pastures that have not been mowed for a decade or more. After 

mowing ceased, these areas were invaded by woody shrubs and small trees, which form dense thickets. 

Dominant shrubby species are autumn-olive (Elaeagnus umbellata), Tatarian bush honeysuckle 

(Lonicera tatarica), and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora). 

 Upland mixed hardwood-redcedar woods occur in old fields and animal enclosures that have been 

abandoned and not mowed for 20 years or more. These forests are found in mesic to dry upland areas 

dominated by black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), sassafras (Sassafras albidum), black cherry 

(Prunus serotina), persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), and eastern redcedar (Juniperus virginiana). 
06-179(E)/013007 3-10

3.6.2 Terrestrial Animals 

 The available habitat at the AMSE, Parcel 279.01, and Parcel G supports a moderately diverse group 

of animals. More data are available for Parcel G because it was part of the South Campus Facility RI/FS 

(DOE 1995). 

 Animal species at AMSE are somewhat limited by the small amount of habitat available at the site. 

Although no specific species lists for AMSE are available, wildlife species that would be expected to 

occur at AMSE are those species typically found in urban settings. This would include mammals such as the 

gray squirrel (Sciurus caroliniensis), chipmunk (Tamias striatus), cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus), 

striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), groundhog (Marmota monax), and gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus). 

Birds commonly found in urban areas of Oak Ridge are the northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), robin 

(Turdus migratorius), eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis), tufted titmouse (Baeolophus bicolor), black-cappedchickadee (Poecile carolinensis), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), northern mockingbird (Mimus 

polyglottos), common grackle (Quiscalus quiscala), starling (Sturnus vulgaris), American crow (Corvus 

brachyrhynchos), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), house sparrow (Passer domesticus), rock dove 

(Columba livia), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), Canada goose (Branta canadensis), northern 

flicker (Colaptes auratus), red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus), downy woodpecker (Picoides 

pubescens), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), and eastern towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus). 

 Habitat at Parcel 279.01 is similar, in many ways, to that found at the AMSE. Therefore, one could 

expect to see the same types of animals at Parcel 279.01 that would be expected to occur at the AMSE. 

 Parcel G covers a much larger area and has more habitat types than are available at the AMSE or at 

Parcel 279.01. Animals that may inhabit Parcel G include small mammals such as the white-footed mouse 

(Peromyscus leucopus), chipmunk, gray squirrel, cottontail rabbit, golden mouse (Ochrotomys nuttalli), 

and short-tail shrew (Blarina brevicauda), as well as the red fox (Vulpes vulpes), gray fox, striped skunk, 

groundhog, coyote (Canis latrans), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), cotton rat (Sigmodon 

hispidus), eastern harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys humulis), and beaver (Castro canadensis). 

 Parcel G also provides habitat that can support a variety of bird species including most of the species 

listed above for the AMSE and Parcel 279.01. Other species that would likely be found at Parcel G are the 

Kentucky warbler (Oporornis formosus), ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapillus), brown thrasher (Toxostoma

rufum), rufous-sided towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus), Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), eastern 

meadowlark (Sturnella magna), belted kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), 

indigo bunting (Passerina cyanea), turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), quail (Colinus virginianus), woodcock 

(Philohela minor), and Canada goose. Birds of prey that may nest or hunt at Parcel G are the red-tailed 

hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), broad-winged hawk (Buteo platypterus), great horned owl (Bubo virginianus), 

screech owl (Otus asio), barred owl (Strix varia), osprey (Pandion haliaetus), and Cooper’s hawk 

(Accipiter cooperii). 

 Reptiles and amphibians that may inhabit Parcel G include the chorus frog (Pseudacris triseriata), 

tree frog (Hyla versicolor), spring peeper (Hyla crucifer), green frog (Rana clamitans), toad (Bufo spp.), 

various salamanders (Eurycea spp. and Desmognathus spp.), eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina), 

northern copperhead (Agkistrodon contortix), black rat snake (Elaphe obsolete), and fence lizard 

(Sceloporus undulates). 
06-179(E)/013007 3-11

3.6.3 Aquatic Resources 

 Information on the aquatic resources in Scarboro Creek, in the vicinity of Parcel G, is limited. 

However, Table 3.1 presents the results of fish sampling that has been conducted by ORNL during spring 

1999−2001. 

Table 3.1. Fish species, density (individuals/m2), and biomass (g fish/m2) 

at Scarboro Creek for spring 1999−2001 

Species 2001 2000 1999 

Largescale stoneroller (Campostoma oligolepis) 0.35 

(3.70) 

 0.16 

(0.92) 

Spotfin shiner (Cyprinella spiloptera) 0.02 

(0.07) 

Blacknose dace (Rhinichthys atratulus) 0.04 

(0.19) 

0.07 

(0.78) 

0.01 

(0.07) 

Yellow bullhead (Ameiurus natalis) 0.03 

(0.74) 

Banded sculpin (Cottus carolinae) 0.28 

(2.01) 

0.74 

(3.58) 

1.01 

(4.74) 

Green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus) 0.01 

(0.16) 

0.09 

(1.25) 

0.05 

(0.74) 

Log perch (Percina caprodes) 0.04 

(0.48) 

Species richness 4 3 7 

Total density 0.68 0.90 1.33 

Total biomass 6.06 5.61 7.91 

Source: Personal communication from Michael Ryan, Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge 

National Laboratory, to Jimmy Groton, Science Applications International Corporation, December 5, 2001. 

 Although two of the former swine waste ponds located on Parcel G contain water throughout most of 

the year, aquatic resources are generally limited. Typical biota is likely to include frogs, turtles, crayfish, and 

aquatic insects such as dragonflies, damselflies, and aquatic beetles. Due to temperature extremes, high 

biological oxygen demand, and the isolated nature of the ponds it is unlikely that the ponds contain any fish. 

3.6.4 Threatened and Endangered Species 

 Table 3.2 lists animal species known to be present on the ORR (excluding the Clinch River bordering 

the reservation) along with their status. Other listed species may be present, although they have not been 

observed recently. These include several species of mollusks, amphibians (such as the hellbender), birds 

(such as Bachman’s sparrow), and mammals (such as the smoky shrew). The federally threatened bald 

eagle is increasingly seen in the winter and may well begin nesting on the ORR within a few years 

(DOE 2006). Bald eagles have not been sighted in the vicinity of the AMSE, Parcel 279.01, or Parcel G. 

Similarly, several state-listed bird species, such as the anhinga, olive-sided flycatcher, double-crested 

cormorant, and little blue heron are currently uncommon migrants or visitors to the ORR; however, the 

double-crested cormorant and little blue heron are increasing or will probably increase in numbers. 

Others, such as the cerulean warbler, northern harrier, great egret, and yellow-bellied sapsucker, are 

migrants or winter residents that do not nest on the reservation. The golden-winged warbler (Vermivora 

chrysoptera), listed by the state as in need of management, has been sighted on the ORR. The spotfin 

chub (Cyprinella monnacha) has been sighted and collected in the city of Oak Ridge and is possibly 

present on the ORR (DOE 2006). None of these species have been reported in the vicinity of the AMSE, 

Parcel 279.01, or Parcel G. 
06-179(E)/013007 3-12

Table 3.2. Animal species of concern reported from the ORRa

 Legal statusb

Species Federal State 

Fish 

Phoxinus tennesseenis Tennessee dace D 

Amphibians and reptiles 

Hemidactylium scutatum Four-toed salamander D 

Birds 

Accipiter striatus Sharp-shinned hawk D 

Anhinga anhinga Anhinga D 

Ardea alba Great egret D 

Circus cyaneus Northern harrier D 

Contopus cooperi Olive-sided flycatcher D 

Dendroica cerula Cerulean warbler D 

Egretta caerulea Little blue heron D 

Egretta thula Snowy egret D 

Falco peregrinusc Peregrine falcon E 

Haliaeetus leucocephalusd Bald eagle T D 

Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead shrike D 

Pooecetes gramineus Vesper sparrow D 

Sphyrapicus varius Yellow-bellied sapsucker D 

Tyto alba Barn owl D 

Vermivora chrysoptera Golden-winged warbler D 

Mammals 

Myotis grisecens Gray bat E E 

Sorex longirostris Southeastern shrew D 

a

Land and surface waters of the ORR exclusive of the Clinch River, which borders the ORR. b

E = endangered, T = threatened, D = deemed in need of management. 

c

The peregrine falcon was federally delisted on August 25, 1999.

d

The bald eagle was proposed for federal delisting on July 6, 1999. 

 There are currently 22 plant species listed by the state of Tennessee as threatened or endangered that 

have been observed in the last 10 years on the ORR; among them are the pink lady’s slipper and Canada 

lily (Table 3.3). Two species occurring on the ORR, Carey’s saxifrage and the purple fringeless orchid, 

have been removed from the state list as of November 1999 (DOE 2006). 

 The AMSE and 279.01 parcels are routinely mowed and maintained and are, thereby, unlikely to 

provide suitable habitat for any rare plants. In June 1993, Energy Systems conducted a rare plant survey 

at the South Campus Facility that includes Parcel G. No federal- or state-listed plant species were 

encountered during that survey. 

 DOE contacted the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to inform them about the proposed action 

and to obtain the latest information on federally listed threatened and endangered species in the area of 

each of the parcels. According to FWS records, the gray bat (Myotis grisescens), and Indiana bat (Myotis 

sodalis), both federally listed endangered species, may occur on or near Parcel G. The FWS also 

recommended that a biological assessment be conducted to assess potential impacts and determine if the 

proposed action may affect the two bat species. They also recommended that permanent protection 

measures (e.g., conservation easements) for Scarboro Creek and associated wetlands on Parcel G be 

incorporated into any legal instrument conveying the property to the city of Oak Ridge. Additional 

information on the gray bat and Indiana bat is presented in the biological assessment prepared for the 

proposed action (Appendix D). 
06-179(E)/013007 3-13

Table 3.3. Vascular plant species reported from the ORR listed by state or federal agencies 

Species Common name Habitat on ORR Status codea

Aureolaria patula Spreading false-foxglove River bluff T 

Carex gravida Heavy sedge Varied S 

Carex oxylepis var. pubescensb Hairy sharp-scaled sedge Shaded wetlands S 

Cimicifuga rubifolia Appalachian bugbane River slope T 

Cypripedium acaule Pink lady’s-slipper Dry to rich woods E-CE 

Delphinium exaltatum Tall larkspur Barrens and woods E 

Diervilla lonicera Northern bush-honeysuckle River bluff T 

Draba ramosissima Branching whitlow-grass Limestone cliff S 

Elodea nuttallii Nuttall’s waterweed Pond, embayment S 

Fothergilla major Mountain witch-alder Woods T 

Hydrastis canadensis Golden seal Rich woods S-CE 

Juglans cinerea Butternut Slope near stream T 

Juncus brachycephalus Small-head rush Open wetland S 

Lilium canadense Canada lily Moist woods T 

Lilium michiganensec Michigan lily Moist woods T 

Liparis loeselii Fen orchid Forested wetland E 

Panax quinquifolius Ginseng Dry, open woods S-CE 

Platanthera flava var. herbiola Tuberculed rein-orchid Wetland T 

Populus grandidentatad Large-tooth aspen Dry, woodlands S 

Ruellia purshiana Push’s wild-petunia Boggy wetland S 

Scirpus fluviatilis River bulrush Rocky river bluffs S 

Spiranthes lucida Shining ladies-tresses Rocky woods T 

Thuja occidentalis Northern white cedar Rocky river bluffs S 

Viola tripartita var. tripartita Three-parted violet Rocky woods S 

a

Status codes: 

 E = Endangered in Tennessee. 

 T = Threatened in Tennessee. 

 S = Special concern in Tennessee. 

 CE = Status due to commercial exploitation. 

b

Carex oxylepis var. pubescens has not been located during recent surveys. c

Lilium michiganense is believed to have been extirpated from the ORR by the impoundment at Melton Hill. d

Populus grandidentata was reported in two ORR locations. One of the reports was confirmed, but the tree died during the 

year. 

3.7 CULTURAL RESOURCES 

 Cultural resources are defined as any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object 

considered important to a culture, subculture, or community for scientific, traditional, religious, or any 

other reason. When these resources meet any one of the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (NRCE) 

(36 CFR Part 60.4), they may be termed historic properties and, thereby, are potentially eligible for 

inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). 

 No intact cultural resources are known to be present or thought to exist on the AMSE property and 

Parcel 279.01. This is based on the highly disturbed nature of the properties and their location within the 

city of Oak Ridge. Also, the AMSE itself does not meet the NRCE and, thus, is not yet considered to be 

an historic property. The original location of the museum was the building at 55 Jefferson Avenue. 

Although the current AMSE facility does not meet the NRCE, historic and scientific artifacts and archives 

of the ORR contained within the museum would remain in the ownership of the Federal Government. 

The DOE-ORO, Tennessee State Historic Preservation Office (TN-SHPO), and the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation ratified a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) in 2003 regarding the site 
06-179(E)/013007 3-14

interpretation of the East Tennessee Technology Park (ETTP). Two parts of the MOA have an impact on 

the AMSE. The first is that although DOE currently owns AMSE, in the event of a transfer of ownership, 

the subsequent owner would be offered the opportunity to become a signatory to the MOA. They would 

also have first right of refusal for the curation of historic artifacts recovered from the ETTP. The second 

item in the MOA that affects AMSE is that the museum has the lead role in overseeing DOE ORR oral 

history interviews, and they will serve as the central point of contact for conducting these interviews and 

may serve as the potential repository for tapes and transcripts of ORR oral histories. 

 Based on previous disturbances from activities associated with the ORISE Scarboro Operations Site 

and past farming activities, it was thought that Parcel G did not contain any intact cultural resources. 

However, because this area had not been previously surveyed and some potential did exist for cultural 

resources to be present, DOE conducted an archaeological survey of the area. Based on the survey findings 

and research at the Tennessee Division of Archaeology and the Tennessee Historical Commission, DOE 

has determined that no historic properties would be affected by the proposed action. It was also determined 

that the proposed action would have no impact on any site or property included in the NRHP pursuant to 

36 CFR 60.4 and no further archaeological investigations were recommended. DOE notified the 

TN-SHPO of the proposed undertaking and its determination of effect to comply with Sect. 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA). 

3.8 SOCIOECONOMICS 

 The region of influence (ROI) for this analysis includes Anderson and Roane counties. The region 

includes the cities of Clinton, Oak Ridge, Harriman, and Kingston. Because the parcels of land involved are 

small and are located within the city of Oak Ridge, it is assumed that the primary impacts will affect 

the city and nearby populations. To generate the most conservative estimates of potential impact, the 

ROI includes only these two counties. Actual impacts may be distributed over a wider area, because 

Anderson County is also part of the Metropolitan Statistical Area for the much larger city of Knoxville 

and draws commuters from at least 12 counties in eastern Tennessee (Juan 2000). 

3.8.1 Demographic and Economic Characteristics 

 Table 3.4 summarizes population, per capita income, and wage and salary employment from 1999 to 

2004. Population has increased slightly over the 5-year period, with Roane County accounting for most of 

the growth. Employment for the region declined from 74,997 in 1999 to 72,299 in 2004. Per capita 

income grew from $22,778 to $27,518 over the same period (Bureau of Economic Analysis 2006). 
06-179(E)/013007 3-15

Table 3.4. Demographic and economic characteristics: Anderson and Roane counties 

County 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

Annual growth 

1999−2004 (%)

Anderson 

Population 71,454 71,293 71,444 71,664 71,909 72,045 0.16 

Per capita income ($) 24,001 25,035 25,988 26,798 27,664 28,588 3.56 

Total employment 50,387 50,961 50,975 50,601 51,907 51,693 0.51 

Roane 

Population 51,736 51,954 51,976 52,225 52,487 52,781 0.40 

Per capita income ($) 21,091 22,339 22,638 23,936 24,949 26,051 4.31 

Total employment 24,610 23,798 20,953 20,975 20,847 20,606 -3.49 

Region Totals 

Population 123,190 123,247 123,420 123,889 124,396 124,826 0.26 

Per capita income ($) 22,778 23,903 24,583 25,587 26,512 27,518 3.85 

Total employment 74,997 74,759 71,928 71,576 72,754 72,299 -0.73 

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis 2006. 

3.8.1.1 Distribution of minority and economically disadvantaged populations for environmental 

justice concerns 

Table 3.5 shows the distribution of minority populations in the city of Oak Ridge. For the purposes 

of this analysis, a minority population consists of any census tract in which minority representation is 

greater than the national average of 30.7%. Minorities include individuals classified by the U.S. Bureau of 

the Census as Black or African-American, American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian 

and Other Pacific Islander, and Hispanic or Latino, and those classified under “Two or more races.” This 

provides a conservative estimate consistent with recent OMB guidance (OMB 2000). Hispanics may be of 

any race and are excluded from the totals for individual races to avoid double counting. 

Table 3.5. Race or ethnic distribution for Oak Ridge City population: 2000 

Race or ethnic group Number Percent 

Not Hispanic or Latino 

White 23,517 85.9 

Black or African American 2,229 8.1 

American Indian or Alaska Native 81 0.3 

Asian 568 2.1 

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific 

Islander 6 0.0 

Some other race 30 0.1 

Two or more races 427 1.6 

Hispanic or Latinoa

 529 1.9 

Total 27,387 100.0 

a

May be of any race. Those classified as Hispanic or Latino are excluded from other categories to avoid 

double counting. 

Source: Bureau of the Census 2000. 

As of the 2000 Census, minorities represented 14.0% of the total Oak Ridge population, compared to 

the national average of 30.7%. Only the Scarboro Community in tract 201 included a minority population 

greater than the national average. African-Americans comprised 29.6% of the population in tract 201, and 

other minorities (including two or more races) comprised 10.5%. For all other tracts in the area, 

minorities comprised 20% or less of the population. For comparison, minorities represented 21.0% of the 
06-179(E)/013007 3-16

population in Tennessee (Bureau of the Census 2000). No federally recognized Native American groups 

live within 80 km (50 miles) of the proposed site. 

According to the 2000 Census, 12.4% of the U.S. population and 13.5% of the Tennessee population 

had incomes below the poverty level in 1999 (Bureau of the Census 2000). In this analysis, a low-income 

population consists of any census tract in which the proportion of individuals below the poverty level 

exceeds the national average. Within the ROI, 13.1% of the population in Anderson County had incomes 

below the poverty level in 1999. The proportion in Roane County was 13.9%. Within Oak Ridge, 

low-income populations were located in census tracts 201 (15.8% below poverty level) and 205 (27.9%). 

Tract 201 roughly corresponds to the Scarboro community, and tract 205 includes the area between 

Oak Ridge Turnpike and West Outer Drive, bounded on the west by Louisiana Avenue and on the east by 

Highland Avenue and Robertsville Road. In other Oak Ridge census tracts, the percentages ranged from 

12.1% in tract 204 to 1.9% in tract 301 (Bureau of the Census 2000). 

3.8.2 Fiscal Characteristics 

Oak Ridge City general fund revenues and expenditures for FY 2005, projections for 2006, and 

budgeted revenues and expenditures for FY 2007 are presented in Table 3.6. The general fund supports 

the ongoing operations of local governments as well as community services, such as police protection and 

parks and recreation. The largest revenue sources have traditionally been local taxes (which include taxes on 

property, real estate, hotel/motel receipts, and sales) and intergovernmental transfers from the federal or 

state government. Nearly 95% of the 2005 general fund revenue came from these combined sources (City of 

Oak Ridge 2006). For FY 2006, the property tax rate was $2.55 per $100 of assessed value. The 

assessment rate is 40% for industrial and commercial property and 25% for residential property (City of 

Oak Ridge 2006). The city also receives a payment-in-lieu-of-tax (PILT) for ORR acreage that falls within 

the city limits. The payment is based on its value as farmland, and assessed at the farmland rate of 25% 

(City of Oak Ridge 2005). In 2006, the payment was based on a value of $6,450 per acre (Hunter 2006). 

Table 3.6. City of Oak Ridge revenues and expenditures, FY 2005 and budgeted FY 2007 ($) 

 2005 Actual 2006 Projected 2007 Budgeted

Revenues 

Taxes 19,915,688 20,076,565 20,933,810

Licenses and permits 340,802 389,500 220,000

Intergovernmental revenues 10,574,555 11,482,459 11,771,300

Charges for services 388,577 336,500 346,000

Fines and forfeitures 238,503 265,000 289,000

Other revenues 527,689 553,000 558,500

Total revenues 31,985,814 33,103,024 34,118,610

Expenditures and other financing 

Expenditures (14,737,841) (17,690,181) (16,326,766)

Other financing usesa (17,503,411) (17,931,145) (18,997,273)

Total expenditures and other financing (32,241,252) (35,621,326) (35,324,039)

a

Includes items such as capital projects fund, solid waste fund, economic diversification fund, debt service, and schools.

Source: City of Oak Ridge 2006. 

FY = Fiscal year. 
06-179(E)/013007 3-17

3.9 INFRASTRUCTURE AND SUPPORT SERVICES 

3.9.1 Transportation 

 The AMSE and Parcel 279.01 are well serviced by existing roads within the city of Oak Ridge. The 

main entrance to the AMSE is from South Tulane Avenue, but it can also be accessed from 

Badger Avenue. Parcel 279.01 is located on the corner of Laboratory Road and Administration Road. 

 Road access to Parcel G is more limited. The property is currently accessed from Pumphouse Road 

using a gravel service road that is part of the ORISE Scarboro Operations Site. Limited access also exists 

from Bethel Valley Road. This access is through a gate located on Bethel Valley Road just east of the 

intersection of Pumphouse and Scarboro Roads. A gravel DOE access road begins at the gate and runs 

along the northern border of Parcel G parallel with the Bethel Valley Road right-of-way (ROW) and 

fence. This DOE access road also connects with the ORISE Scarboro Operations Site gravel service road. 

Additional limited access is located off of Pumphouse Road along a mowed ROW that follows the fence 

for the Scarboro Cemetery. A cable gate currently controls access to this ROW. 

3.9.2 Utilities 

 The AMSE obtains electricity, water, and sewer from the city of Oak Ridge. AMSE’s main building 

has an all-electric, damper-controlled heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning system that is more than 

25 years old. These same services are also available for Parcel G and Parcel 279.01. 
06-179(E)/013007 3-18

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. 
06-179(E)/013007 4-1

4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

4.1 LAND AND FACILITY USE 

4.1.1 Proposed Action 

 Under the proposed action, the present land use of each parcel would change over time as development 

occurs. Buildings and other structures would be constructed to support various commercial and light 

industrial uses. The visual character of portions of the parcels would change from a more natural to a 

more man-made looking environment as development progressed. Development would still have to be 

compatible with local zoning requirements and would be subject to all local, state, and federal environmental 

laws and regulations. 

 For bounding purposes, it is assumed that the large, open area between Tulane Place and 

South Illinois Avenue on the AMSE property would be developed for a mix of commercial uses. No 

major changes are expected for the AMSE facility and parking area. The open area in back of the museum 

could be developed for various commercial uses such as expansion of the city’s municipal complex, 

additions to the museum facility, or professional offices. The area could also remain as an open space so 

that it could continue to be used for various outdoor events. 

 Because of the small size of Parcel 279.01, it is assumed for purposes of analysis that development 

on this parcel would be for a small retail business or office building. This parcel could also be used by the 

adjoining office supply business for expansion. 

 It is assumed that Parcel G would be developed for light industrial use or a mix of commercial and 

industrial use. Constraints on the property, such as Scarboro Creek and access, may limit the actual uses. 

For bounding purposes it is assumed that an approximately 50,000- to 100,000-ft2

 building would be built 

along with supporting infrastructure and utilities for a small processing or manufacturing business. 

However, potential development on Parcel G could also be a small office park. 

4.1.2 No Action 

 Under the no action alternative, current land use at the AMSE would continue until sometime in the 

future when, due to the lack of continued funding, the museum could be forced to limit hours of operation 

or close. Parcel G and Parcel 279.01 would remain DOE property and their current land use would remain 

unchanged until their future disposition could be decided (see Sect. 2.2). 

4.2 AIR QUALITY 

4.2.1 Proposed Action 

 Emissions from vehicle and equipment exhaust, and fugitive dust from vehicle traffic and disturbance 

of soils resulting from development activities on any of the parcels, are not expected to adversely affect 

local air quality. These emissions would include carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, PM10

(inhalable particulate matter with particles less than 10 μm in diameter), and hydrocarbons. Emissions of 

particulate matter would consist primarily of airborne soil. Emissions from site preparation and construction 

would be short-term, sporadic, and localized (except for emissions associated with the personal vehicles of 

construction workers and vehicles transporting construction materials and equipment). Dispersion would 
06-179(E)/013007 4-2

decrease concentrations of pollutants in the ambient air as distance from the construction site increased. 

Increments of pollutants due to workers’ vehicles and construction vehicles and equipment would not be 

expected to cause any exceedance of primary or secondary NAAQS. 

 Not all of the area available for construction would be under construction at any one time. Rather, 

earthwork would likely be undertaken in increments, with the first phase being excavation for utility 

installation, road construction and upgrading, and grading/contouring. Increases in PM10 concentrations 

due to fugitive dust from excavation and earthwork would probably be noticeable at each site and in the 

immediate vicinity, and ambient concentrations of particulate matter could rise in the short-term. 

However, control measures for lowering fugitive dust emissions (i.e., covers and water or chemical dust 

suppressants) would minimize these emissions. 

 Use of newly developed areas within each parcel could result in minor increases of air pollutant 

emissions primarily from the combustion of natural gas and diesel fuel. However, the types of 

commercial/industrial uses likely to be developed would not result in the kind of major air emissions 

produced by heavy industries. Air emissions that might be generated by a small manufacturing or 

processing facility located on Parcel G would be expected to be like those generated from similar 

operations located in the Bethel Valley Industrial Park located nearby. These emissions would not exceed 

the NAAQS, have an adverse impact on air quality, or be detrimental to human health. If applicable, 

facilities would be required to obtain the appropriate permits, and operating emissions would be limited. 

Sulfur dioxide emissions from sources in and around each parcel are expected to be low, and the types of 

development likely to occur are not expected to cause any exceedance of allowable PSD increments. 

4.2.2 No Action 

 Under the no action alternative, air pollutants would continue to be emitted at current rates in the 

vicinity of each parcel, with the largest source being vehicle traffic. Vehicle emissions at the baseline 

level would continue to be a source of ozone in the surrounding area. 

4.3 GEOLOGY AND SOILS 

4.3.1 Proposed Action 

 Site clearing, grading, and contouring could alter the topography of the land parcels that could be 

developed under the proposed action, but the geologic formations underlying those sites should not be 

affected by proposed development. Construction would disturb soils, and some topsoil might be removed 

in the process. Topsoil would be replaced after buildings and roads were completed, and unpaved areas 

would be landscaped. 

 The FPPA requires federal agencies to consider the effects of any activity that would convert 

farmland. The Natural Resource Conservation Service identifies four soil types that occur at AMSE and 

Parcel G as prime farmland (one at AMSE and three at Parcel G). 

 Normally, a Farmland Conversion Impact Rating would be completed to rate the relative impact of 

the proposed action. The rating form is based on a Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) system, 

which measures the quality of farmland based on soil quality and other factors that would affect a farm’s 

viability. No LESA was completed for the proposed action because the definition of prime farmland 

specifically excludes from consideration lands committed to urban development. All three parcels under 

consideration lie within the city of Oak Ridge and have been zoned to include nonagricultural uses 
06-179(E)/013007 4-3

(i.e., commercial, industrial, or residential use). Therefore, all three parcels are exempt from consideration 

as prime farmland. 

4.3.2 No Action 

 No impact to the local geology and soils of the Oak Ridge area is expected to occur under the no 

action alternative. Both the AMSE and Parcel 279.01 property are free from contamination. Remediation 

activities at the ORISE Scarboro Operations Site were completed several years ago, and the area has been 

in post-remediation monitoring since that time. It is unlikely that other environmental restoration actions 

would occur near Parcel G. The possibility exists for other environmental restoration actions to occur at 

other areas in the Scarboro Creek watershed. However, the extent of these activities has not been 

determined. Environmental restoration activities at ORR are evaluated on a case-by-case basis and 

conducted in accordance with the CERCLA review and documentation process (i.e., RI/FS). 

4.4 WATER RESOURCES 

4.4.1 Proposed Action 

 The greatest potential impact to surface waters would originate from soil erosion, runoff, and 

sedimentation (during construction); a fuel, hazardous material, or waste spill; or a sewer line leak (during 

construction and operation of facilities). Although two of the properties (AMSE and Parcel 279.01) do not 

have any surface water features, all are connected to surface water resources by local storm sewers or 

wet-weather conveyances. The AMSE, by storm drains to East Fork Poplar Creek and Parcel 279.01, is 

connected by wet-weather conveyances to Ernie’s Creek. Parcel G has Scarboro Creek, an unnamed 

creek, and three small ponds. Any construction activities that would directly occur in these surface waters 

may require that the appropriate permits be obtained prior to any disturbance. Uncontrolled soil erosion 

would increase sedimentation and turbidity in the receiving surface waters. 

 Spills of fuel, hazardous material, or waste, or a sewer line leak, could have adverse impacts on 

surface waters if not controlled or contained. Impacts would primarily be a change to the water quality 

(pH, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, etc.) that could affect vegetation and aquatic biota. Soil erosion 

impacts would be mitigated through the use of best management practices (BMPs) (i.e., silt fences, 

straw bales, and temporary sediment detention basins). The potential for spills would be mitigated 

through the adherence to proper safety procedures and spill prevention plans. In the event of a spill from 

an accident, spill response measures (e.g., booms, berms, sorbents, neutralizers, secondary containment, and 

mechanical removal equipment) would minimize potential adverse impacts. Changes in surface 

topography during construction could lead to the alteration of local hydrology. 

 Paving large areas for roads and parking lots could substantially reduce water infiltration, potentially 

affecting on-site surface water features. Construction of new facilities could require state storm water 

runoff permits. Wastewater from industrial and commercial operations would be pretreated (if required) 

and discharged to the city of Oak Ridge sewage treatment plant according to discharge permit restrictions. 

Impacts from accidental spills would be addressed by individual operators through the use of safety 

procedures, spill prevention plans, and spill response plans. Surface water protection measures are already 

required by the city of Oak Ridge and TDEC and would be continued for the proposed action. 

 Impacts to groundwater quality could also occur as a result of a fuel or waste spill, or a sewer line 

leak and subsequent migration of contaminants through the soil profile to the groundwater table. A spill 

directly into the surface water bodies in the vicinity also could affect the groundwater quality because of 

the connection between surface water and groundwater resources. However, it is expected that the 
06-179(E)/013007 4-4

quantities of materials with the potential to affect surface or groundwater (e.g., fuel) would be transported 

or stored at the construction sites in the proper containers and according to all applicable regulations. The 

use of local, state, or federal permits, safety procedures, spill prevention plans, and spill response plans in 

accordance with state and federal laws would minimize the severity of potential impacts from accidents. 

Although there are few groundwater users in Oak Ridge, institutional controls (i.e., deed restrictions) 

would be in place to ensure that there would be no use of groundwater resources. Use classifications for 

groundwater are prescribed by the Tennessee Water Control Act, T.C.A. 69-3-105(a)(2). 

4.4.2 No Action 

 Under the no action alternative, surface and groundwater monitoring and appropriate environmental 

restoration measures would be continued, if needed, in the vicinity of Parcel G. Appropriate mitigation 

measures are considered and implemented for these activities under the CERCLA review and 

documentation process. Impacts to surface water or groundwater could also occur as the result of a spill or 

leak from ongoing operations. Surface and groundwater protection measures, such as spill prevention and 

spill response plans, are already in place for ongoing operations. 

4.5 FLOODPLAINS AND WETLANDS 

4.5.1 Proposed Action 

 Neither the AMSE nor Parcel 279.01 lies within floodplains or flood hazard zones; however, 

portions of the Scarboro Creek floodplain are present on Parcel G. For Parcel G to be included in the 

federal Flood Insurance Program, detailed hydrologic studies would need to be conducted to set flood 

hazard zones. 

 DOE prepared a wetlands assessment for Parcel G to meet the “Compliance with Floodplain/ Wetlands 

Environmental Review Requirements” (10 CFR 1022). DOE provided the opportunity for public review 

through publication of a Public Notice in the Federal Register [Federal Register: March 21, 2002 

(Volume 67, Number 55)]. The assessment is also included in Appendix C. 

 The proposed conveyance of Parcel G would not inherently cause adverse impacts that affect the 

survival, quality, and natural and beneficial values of wetlands on the property because the proposed 

conveyance is an administrative action. Rather, the potential for, and degree of, adverse impacts would 

depend upon how the property was developed. Adverse impacts would include any activity that 

eliminates or reduces the ability of wetlands to perform their normal biological, chemical, hydrological, 

and physical functions. Some or all of the wetlands could potentially experience direct impacts by 

development in the wetlands themselves or indirect impacts from other activities associated with activities 

in nearby areas. Wetlands downstream from Parcel G could also be affected by any construction activities 

on the parcel. 

 Proposals for development would be subject to regulation by the USACE, TDEC, and possibly the 

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). Proposed projects would be required to follow normal sequencing 

during regulatory review to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to wetlands at Parcel G. Compensatory 

mitigation should be used as a last resort and would be subject to negotiation between USACE, TDEC, 

and possibly DOE, and TVA. 

4.5.2 No Action 

 No additional impacts to floodplains or wetlands are expected to occur under the no action alternative. 
06-179(E)/013007 4-5

4.6 ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

4.6.1 Proposed Action 

 Development in the land parcels proposed for conveyance would have direct impacts on terrestrial 

and aquatic habitats, plants, and animals present at these sites. Potential adverse impacts to aquatic resources 

could also occur unless they are avoided and mitigation measures are implemented. Conveyance of the 

AMSE and Parcel 279.01 would have negligible adverse impacts because these sites are in intensively 

developed portions of Oak Ridge with marginal available habitat and limited biota located at those sites. 

Adverse impacts would be most pronounced at Parcel G, which has much more natural habitat and more 

diverse biota. 

 Proposed construction and development of Parcel G would have an impact on terrestrial habitats at 

Parcel G. Habitat loss would include areas of managed grassland, mixed hardwood-redcedar riparian 

forest, and scrub thickets. 

 The impact of construction would include direct mortality or injury to some biota and elimination or 

degradation of the impacted habitat. The most likely impact would be the elimination of one or more 

fragmented terrestrial areas or narrowing of areas already squeezed by activities at the site. The elimination 

or narrowing of terrestrial communities would have a minimal impact on existing plant or animal species. 

The animal and plant species that occur on the three parcels are common in the Oak Ridge area and some 

of the larger more mobile animals could relocate to adjacent habitat of the same structure. Minimizing the 

amount of earth-moving activities would reduce the effects on plants and terrestrial habitats. Blending 

construction with the natural setting of the area would result in fewer impacts and mitigation measures. 

 If construction activities could not avoid direct impacts to aquatic resources, appropriate permits would 

be obtained prior to any disturbance. These unavoidable direct impacts would be minor and temporary 

because the resources that would be impacted are limited, not considered unique, and do not contain 

sensitive species. Indirect impacts to aquatic resources could result from an increase in flow caused by an 

increase in the amount of storm water runoff. Increased flow could affect the plant species, riparian habitat, 

and the fish and macroinvertebrate species found in the impacted creeks and drainage ditches. Larger flow 

volumes could scour banks and substrates of the waterways eroding plants, soil, and sediment. A decrease or 

change in stream substrate could lead to a reduction in the number of fish and macroinvertebrate species. 

 Avoiding the resource, minimizing the impact, or mitigating the impact if avoidance or minimization is 

not possible would address impacts to ecological resources. Impacts from construction would be considered 

short-term and minimal, and would be mitigated through the establishment of stream buffer areas and the 

use of BMPs (e.g., erosion controls). Natural habitat around the areas of proposed development would be 

left as a buffer zone between the developed areas and other undeveloped portions of the site. Areas 

disturbed during construction, but not needed for facilities, would be revegetated after construction is 

completed. The use of native species for revegetation would have a positive impact as it could enhance 

biotic and ecosystem diversity in the area. 

 Storm detention basins used to capture and treat storm water runoff would be designed and constructed 

to handle the additional runoff associated with any new developments. An increase in the capacity of 

existing storm water retention ponds and outfall structures (that control release or flow) could also minimize 

impacts to creeks and drainage ditches. Storm water runoff would be discharged to surface water only in 

accordance with limitations established under state or other regulatory permits. It may be possible that the 

former swine waste ponds located on Parcel G (see Sect. 3.4.2) could somehow be incorporated into the 

design of storm detention basins that may be required for development of the property. 
06-179(E)/013007 4-6

 Wastewater discharges would be to the existing sewage treatment plant in Oak Ridge according to 

discharge permit restrictions. If permit limits were consistently met, degradation of aquatic habitat would 

not be expected. 

 The potential for a spill or leak also exists from the normal operation of new and existing facilities. 

Impacts to biota could include direct mortality, injury, and degradation of the impacted habitat. Because 

of the limited habitat and biota at the site, these impacts would probably be minor to moderate, and the 

affected resources would be expected to recover within a few months to a year, depending on the severity 

of the spill or leak. 

 No federal- or state-listed threatened and endangered plants or animals are known to exist at any of 

the three parcels under evaluation. However, the FWS indicated (see Appendix A) that the federally listed 

endangered gray bat and Indiana bat may occur on or near Parcel G. DOE has completed a biological 

assessment to assess potential impacts and to determine if the proposed action may affect these species. 

 Based on the information presented in the biological assessment (see Appendix D), DOE concluded 

that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect either of the listed species. Neither species 

appears likely to be present on Parcel G, and proposed or designated critical habitats for the species are 

not present on or near the parcel. Although no caves or other suitable hibernacula or roosting habitat for 

gray bats are present at Parcel G, caves that could provide potential roosting habitat for the gray bat are 

present within 4 miles of Parcel G. Although the ultimate use of Parcel G may eventually require the 

removal of trees, potential summer roosting habitat at the site is at best marginal for Indiana bats. Also, 

there are adequate numbers of suitable and potentially suitable roost trees available immediately adjacent 

to Parcel G. Scarboro Creek within Parcel G is not considered to be good foraging habitat for gray or 

Indiana bats because it is a narrow, small stream with limited riparian habitat. In addition, the Clinch 

River, Melton Hill Lake, and lower Scarboro Creek, located adjacent to Parcel G, provide additional 

suitable foraging habitat for both species. The FWS determined that the biological assessment is adequate 

and concurred with DOE’s conclusion of not likely to adversely affect (see Appendix A). 

4.6.2 No Action 

 No additional impacts to terrestrial and aquatic habitats, plants, and animals are expected to occur 

under the no action alternative. Parcels G and 279.01 would remain DOE property and their current land 

use would remain unchanged until their future disposition could be decided (see Sect. 2.2). 

4.7 CULTURAL RESOURCES 

4.7.1 Proposed Action 

 For the AMSE property and Parcel 279.01, the proposed action would not have any effect on cultural 

resources because it has been determined that none are likely to be present. Also, the AMSE itself does 

not meet the NRCE and, thus, is not yet considered to be an historic property. DOE, under the NHPA, 

would protect historic and scientific artifacts and archives contained within the AMSE facility. Prior to 

the conveyance of the museum, DOE would conduct an inventory of the items contained within the AMSE 

facility and make a determination on which items have cultural/historical significance and require 

protection. DOE would maintain ownership of those items to ensure their continued protection and 

preservation. DOE would enter into an agreement with the AMSE for the continued curating and display of 

those items. Based on the results of a Phase I archaeological survey performed on Parcel G, DOE has 

determined that no archaeological resources or historic properties would be affected by the proposed 

action. It was also determined that the proposed action would have no impact on any site or property 
06-179(E)/013007 4-7

included in the NRHP pursuant to 36 CFR 60.4. The TN-SHPO concurred with DOE’s determination that 

the project as currently proposed would not adversely affect any property eligible for listing in the NRHP 

(Appendix A). 

 DOE would include a deed restriction requiring that if an unanticipated discovery of cultural materials 

(e.g., human remains, pottery, bottles, weapon projectiles, and tools) or sites was made during development 

activities, all ground-disturbing activities in the vicinity of the discovery would be halted immediately. 

The DOE-ORO Cultural Resources Management Coordinator would be contacted, and consultation with the 

TN-SHPO would be initiated and completed prior to any further disturbance of the discovery-site area. 

4.7.2 No Action 

 There would be no impacts on cultural resources under the no action alternative. No cultural 

resources are believed to be present on the AMSE property or Parcel 279.01. Based on the results of a 

Phase I archaeological survey performed on Parcel G, DOE has determined that no archaeological 

resources or historic properties are present. 

4.8 SOCIOECONOMICS 

4.8.1 Proposed Action 

 This section assesses the potential socioeconomic impacts of the land conveyance and development. 

This analysis assumes that development on Parcel G, Parcel 279.01, and the AMSE property would create 

less than 80 direct jobs. This is consistent with the ratio of estimated jobs per usable acre developed for 

Parcel ED-1 (Young 1999) and represents an upper bound for the purpose of analysis. 

4.8.1.1 Demographics 

Population. Based on the small number of jobs created, no impact on population is anticipated. 

Environmental Justice. Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice 

in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations, requires agencies to identify and address 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects its activities may have on 

minority and low-income populations. Although current assumptions suggest there would be no high and 

adverse human health or environmental impacts, the actual circumstances would depend on specific 

choices made at the time of development. As discussed in Sect. 3.8.1.1 of the census tracts in the city of 

Oak Ridge, only tract 201 includes a higher proportion of minorities in the population than the national 

average. Other tracts in the city, and tracts closer to Parcel G, where industrial development could take 

place, have low proportions of minorities in their populations. In the event that adverse impacts occur, 

they are likely to have at least as much effect on these closer populations as on the residents of tract 201. 

 Similarly, some low-income populations are located within the city and near the ORR. However, 

these populations are scattered among higher income populations. Any adverse impacts that affect the 

low-income tracts are also likely to affect the higher income populations. Therefore, any adverse health and 

environmental impacts that may occur are not expected to have a disproportionate effect on low-income 

and minority populations. 
06-179(E)/013007 4-8

4.8.1.2 Employment and income 

As discussed earlier, this analysis assumes that developing the conveyed land would create less than 

80 direct full-time-equivalent jobs. This figure represents a negligible increase (0.1%) from the 2004 total 

employment shown in Table 3.4. As an upper bound, if it is assumed that each of the newly generated direct 

jobs pays the projected 2006 statewide average annual manufacturing wage of $41,049 (Murray, 

Cunningham, Hill, and Marshall 2005), the direct impact on ROI income would be an increase of 

$3.3 million, or less than 0.1% of the 2004 ROI income. Actual income is likely to be less because final 

development is likely to include both retail and manufacturing industries, and retail jobs typically pay 

much less than manufacturing jobs. 

Potential negative impacts include the loss of 21 jobs and associated income if fundraising efforts are 

unsuccessful and the Museum is forced to close. This is the same as the potential negative impact under 

the no action alternative. 

4.8.1.3 Fiscal impacts 

The main impact of the proposed conveyance is likely to be its effect on city of Oak Ridge finances, 

and the final impacts would depend on whether the property is conveyed to the city of Oak Ridge or to a 

private entity, the success of fundraising and development efforts, and whether the city chooses to fund 

any portion of the Museum’s operations. Potential positive impacts include additional tax revenue 

generated by the acquisition, sale, and/or development of Parcels G and 279.01, and the undeveloped 

portion of the AMSE property. Potential negative impacts include any additional costs required from the 

city to maintain and operate the museum and the loss of the DOE in-lieu-of-tax payments on the property. 

If development or fundraising efforts are unsuccessful, no additional impacts are anticipated on city 

finances unless the city chooses to contribute toward Museum operations or the property is conveyed to 

the city. In either case, budget impacts would depend on whether the city chose to fund any shortfalls in 

operating expenses. 

The exact size of these impacts is not yet known, but given the relatively small amount of land 

involved, the total impact is also likely to be small. Resale of land for development is likely to have a 

small positive impact on city taxes, despite the loss of the DOE PILT, because the current payment is 

based on an estimated value of $6,450/acre, and the 25% assessment rate used for farmland. Undeveloped 

industrial land in Oak Ridge has historically been valued between $17,000 and $65,000/acre, and is 

assessed for tax purposes at 40% of value; commercial land has been valued higher (ORNL 2002). 

Assuming that parcels are sold to tax-paying entities, increased real estate taxes for each parcel are 

expected to outweigh the lost PILT. Successful development would further increase the value of the 

property and associated real estate taxes. In addition, any retail development would increase sales tax 

revenue in proportion to the new sales generated. 

Maximum potential negative impact would only occur if the properties were conveyed to the city of 

Oak Ridge, fundraising for the endowment was unsuccessful and, in some future year, the city was 

required to fund the entire budget of $1.8 million (AMSEF 2006; Fowler 2006). An increase to 

$1.8 million would increase total city outlays by about 5% over the 2007 budget shown in Table 3.4. 

While this could have a noticeable impact on city finances and/or tax rates, it is unlikely to result in any 

changes in population, employment, or income beyond those already discussed in Sects. 4.8.1.1 and 4.8.1.2 

above. Actual impacts are likely to be smaller because the city would probably consider ways to limit costs, 

such as reducing operating hours, or even closing the facility. 
06-179(E)/013007 4-9

4.8.2 No Action 

 Under the no action alternative, there would be no major change in anticipated population, employment, 

income, or fiscal characteristics, and no disproportionate effect on minority or low-income populations 

within the ROI. However, if the DOE contractors could no longer continue funding for AMSE, the 

museum could be forced to limit hours of operation or close. This could result in layoffs or the potential 

loss of about 21 full-time employees. 

4.9 INFRASTRUCTURE AND SUPPORT SERVICES 

4.9.1 Transportation 

4.9.1.1 Proposed action 

 New development at each of the parcels would not be large enough to have more than a minor 

increase in the amount of traffic entering and exiting the existing roads surrounding the parcels. A minor 

increase in the amount of traffic should also not substantially increase the chance of accidents occurring. 

However, installing turn lanes, additional traffic signals, and frontage roads could mitigate these types of 

potential impacts, if necessary. This would especially be true for new development at Parcel G. Access to 

Parcel G from Bethel Valley Road may necessitate changes to the current traffic light settings at the 

intersection of Bethel Valley Road and Scarboro Road. 

4.9.1.2 No action 

 Under the no action alternative, there would be little to no change from the baseline level of vehicle 

trips or the potential for accidents involving vehicles in the vicinity of any of the parcels. At the baseline level 

of activity, traffic volume is considered to be within the existing transportation infrastructure’s capacity. 

4.9.2 Utilities 

4.9.2.1 Proposed action 

 Under the proposed action, utility impacts would be expected to be minimal. New development at 

any of the parcels could connect to the existing city of Oak Ridge utility systems that already exist on 

each parcel or are immediately adjacent. Construction of new utility infrastructure would generally be 

limited. Existing utilities are also sufficient for the continued operation of AMSE. However, the facility 

has a lot of potential for a more energy-efficient technology upgrade and reduced energy consumption. 

4.9.2.2 No action 

 No additional utility impacts would occur under the no action alternative. Existing utilities at AMSE 

are sufficient for continued operation. 

4.10 NOISE 

4.10.1 Proposed Action 

 Site preparation activities, erection of buildings, and the paving of parking lots for new development 

on any of the affected parcels would require the use of heavy equipment for the clearing, leveling, and 

construction of the buildings. Equipment, such as front-end loaders and backhoes, would produce noise 
06-179(E)/013007 4-10

levels around 73 to 94 “A-weighted decibels” (dBA) at 50 ft from the work site under normal working 

conditions (Cantor 1996; Magrab 1975). The finishing work within the building structures would create 

noise levels slightly above normal background. Sound levels would be expected to dissipate to 

background levels within a relatively short distance and would be intermittent and temporary. No 

sensitive noise resources are located in the immediate vicinity of any of the three parcels. 

 Operation of any new developments would likely generate some minor noise. However, the AMSE 

property and Parcel 279.01 already experience some elevated background noise primarily from vehicle 

traffic and their location within the city. Although Parcel G is relatively isolated and not within an area of 

extensive urban development, it is also impacted somewhat by nearby traffic noise generated from 

vehicles traveling on Bethel Valley Road. 

4.10.2 No Action 

 Under the no action alternative, there would be no additional noise impacts above baseline conditions. 

4.11 INTENTIONAL DESTRUCTIVE ACTS 

 DOE is required to consider intentional destructive acts, such as sabotage and terrorism, in each EIS or 

EA that it prepares. A quantitative analysis of the potential for intentional destructive acts was not 

performed. After review, it was determined that the likelihood of such acts for the properties being 

considered for conveyance is extremely low. It is possible that random acts of vandalism could happen at 

the AMSE but would be highly unlikely for Parcel G and Parcel 279.01. 
06-179(E)/013007 5-1

5. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

 Cumulative impacts are those that may result from the incremental impacts of an action considered 

additively with the impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Cumulative 

impacts are considered regardless of the agency or person undertaking the other actions (40 CFR 1508.7, 

CEQ 1997), and can result from the combined or synergistic effects of individually minor actions over a 

period of time. 

5.1 POTENTIALLY CUMULATIVE ACTIONS 

 This section describes present actions as well as reasonably foreseeable future actions that are 

considered pertinent to the analysis of cumulative impacts for the conveyance of the AMSE, Parcel G, 

and Parcel 279.01. The actions are as follows. 

 Horizon Center Industrial Park (also referred to as Parcel ED-1). DOE has transferred title to the 

developable portion of Parcel ED-1 (approximately 426 acres) to Horizon Center LLC, a subsidiary of the 

Community Reuse Organization of East Tennessee (CROET), for the continued development as an 

industrial/business park for research and development, medical technology, manufacturing, distribution, and 

corporate headquarters office facilities. DOE maintains ownership of the remainder of the parcel, which 

includes the Natural Area (approximately 491 acres). Horizon Center LLC, under a lease agreement with 

DOE leases the Natural Area. 

 East Tennessee Technology Park (ETTP) (Heritage Center) Reindustrialization. DOE has made 

some of its underutilized facilities at ETTP available for lease to CROET, who in turn is subleasing these 

facilities to private sector firms (DOE 1997). With the onset of the accelerated cleanup plan for ETTP, DOE 

has begun to transfer title to some buildings and land parcels to CROET. To date, six buildings, totaling 

over 300,000 ft2

, have been transferred and work is progressing on the transfer of additional facilities 

(CROET 2006). As cleanup is progressing, DOE and CROET are transitioning the former gaseous diffusion 

plant to a private industrial park known as the Heritage Center. Commercial use of these facilities does not 

constitute a change of the primary use of the property, which has been industrial for about 60 years. 

Spallation Neutron Source Project. The Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) is a state-of-the-art, 

high-flux, short-pulsed neutron source facility occupying about 110 acres near ORNL. The SNS is located 

within the ORR on Chestnut Ridge. About 15 permanent buildings covering about 6 acres have been 

constructed for the project. The SNS facility, which generates subatomic particles called neutrons for 

materials testing and other research, began operation in April 2006. At full operation, the facility is 

expected to employ about 500 people and generate over 2000 user visits per year (Munger 2006). 

 Y-12 Modernization Program. DOE has issued a Final Site-Wide EIS and Record of Decision 

(DOE/EIS-0309) for the operation of the Y-12 and modernization of facilities. Major actions include 

construction of a Highly Enriched Uranium Materials Facility, which will replace multiple aging facilities 

within a single state-of-the-art storage facility; a Purification Facility, which was completed in 2004; a 

Uranium Processing Facility, which will replace current enriched uranium and other processing 

operations; and the Beryillium Capability Project, which will upgrade an existing facility. Many existing 

facilities have been demolished to prepare for the new construction that began in 2003. By 2013, when 

the Uranium Processing Facility becomes operational, Y-12 will have reduced its defense manufacturing 

footprint by almost half. 
06-179(E)/013007 5-2

 Oak Ridge National Laboratory Revitalization Program. DOE is implementing a Facilities 

Revitalization Program (FRP) at ORNL to modernize some ORNL facilities, maintain ORNL’s 

competitive research and development capabilities, enhance worker health and safety, and reduce 

operating costs. The FRP includes constructing new facilities on brownfield land and remodeling 

numerous existing facilities to relocate ORNL staff currently housed at Y-12, other ORR facilities, and in 

commercial office space. New facilities have been constructed in Bethel Valley near the main ORNL 

entrance, near the West Portal in Bethel Valley, and within the footprint for the SNS. Some of the new 

construction is being funded by the state of Tennessee and the private sector. About 20 acres of 

brownfield property in Bethel Valley have been transferred from DOE to the private sector in support of 

this proposed action. The environmental consequences of this project were reviewed in an EA, and a 

FONSI was signed on June 1, 2001 (DOE 2001b). 

Oak Ridge Science and Technology Park. DOE has leased approximately 12 acres of underutilized 

property to Halcyon LLC, a subsidiary of CROET. The leased property is located along Bethel Valley 

Road. The leased property is part of the Facilities Revitalization Project at ORNL for which DOE 

completed an EA (DOE/EA-1362) and issued a FONSI in 2001. It is expected that development of the 

area will include approximately 150,000 ft2

 of new research/office space. 

 Roane Regional Business and Technology Park. This industrial park is located north of 

Interstate 40 in Roane County approximately 3 miles southwest of the western portion of ORNL. The 

655-acre site includes areas for industrial development and greenbelt uses. The park will be developed in 

three phases. Phase I development of 200 acres was completed in late 2001 and is expected to house 

industries that will provide about 500 jobs. Industries located at the site include instrumentation, light 

metalwork, and materials handling. Additional types of industries expected to locate at the park include 

information technology, automotive transportation, and corporate administrative offices (Human 2000, 

TECD 2006). 

 Oak Ridge Industrial Center. The Oak Ridge Industrial Center is located at the site partially 

developed by TVA for the Clinch River Breeder Reactor prior to 1983. The 1245-acre property is for sale 

by TVA and has been considered for development by several manufacturing industries. TVA has graded a 

150-acre tract on the property to <2% slope. The remaining land is rolling to rough terrain, having an 8 to 

20% slope (ORCC 1999). The developable land contains tracts with hardwood forests and pine 

plantations impacted by the Southern pine beetle. The site also contains cultural resources. TVA has also 

designated a 103-acre tract bordering Grassy Creek as the Grassy Creek Habitat Protection Area to be 

reserved for protection of bugbane (Cimicifuga rubifolia) habitat (TVA 1988). A feeder road may be 

constructed by the Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) to improve access from State Route 

(SR) 58, pending the sale and further industrial development of the property (ORCC 1999). 

 Pine Ridge Development. In 1969 the city of Oak Ridge acquired 230 acres of property, identified as 

Site X, from the then Atomic Energy Commission. The property included the current Valley Industrial Park 

and a portion of Pine Ridge. In 1999 the city transferred approximately 71 acres of Pine Ridge between South 

Illinois Avenue, Union Valley Road, and Scarboro Road to the Industrial Development Board, which in turn 

sold the property to a private developer. The area is now being developed for office space, light 

manufacturing, and storage facilities. 

 Rarity Ridge Development. A private development company is constructing a mixed, 

residential/commercial development project for the former Boeing property in western Oak Ridge 

(Roane County). The developer purchased about 1200 acres from the previous property owner and an 

additional 182 acres of adjoining floodplain from DOE. DOE completed an EA for the transfer of the 

floodplain (DOE/EA-1361) and issued a FONSI on January 31, 2001. In February 2000, the Oak Ridge 

City Council voted to rezone the property from industrial to mixed use. The most recent Rarity Ridge plan 
06-179(E)/013007 5-3

calls for 3,000 to 4,000 new housing units and 500,000 to 1,250,000 ft2

 of commercial space. More than 

100 acres are planned for parks, 17 acres for active recreation, and more than 30 acres will be retained as a 

preserve with limited access. In addition, approximately 440 acres will be transferred to a third party for 

open space and recreational purposes. Up to 200 homes may be completed by the end of 2006. 

 Parcel ED-6 Development. DOE has determined that Parcel ED-6 (approximately 336 acres) is 

excess property and is considering conveyance to the city of Oak Ridge for new residential development. 

Under the mixed development alternative, a portion of the land could also be used for commercial 

development (offices and retail establishments). The general location of the property is west of 

Wisconsin Avenue, south of Whippoorwill Drive, north of the Oak Ridge Turnpike (SR 95), and east of 

the Horizon Center Industrial Park. A portion of the North Boundary Greenway is located on the parcel 

and is maintained by the city under a license from DOE. Parcel ED-6 is part of the area included in the 

ORR Land Use Planning Process conducted during 2001 and 2002 (Focus Group 2002).

5.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS BY RESOURCE AREA 

5.2.1 Land Use 

 Of the original 58,582 acres of land purchased in 1942 by the Federal Government, 24,860 acres 

have been conveyed and approximately 34,000 acres remain within the ORR. The purposes that ORR 

land has been conveyed for include: 

• 16,855 acres for residential, commercial, and community development; 

• 1,031 acres to federal agencies and for transportation easements; 

• 3,208 acres for preservation and recreation; 

• 3,755 acres for industrial development; and 

• 11 acres for mission-related purposes. 

 Current land outgrants (lease/license/permit areas) include: 

• 2,966 acres for Black Oak Ridge Conservation Easement; 

• 2,929 acres for the Three Bend Scenic and Wildlife Management Refuge Area; and 

• 491 acres for the Parcel ED-1 Natural Area. 

 Title transfer of land and facilities at ETTP could potentially remove an additional 1,600 acres of 

land. However, the majority of the ETTP area being considered for title transfer has already been 

developed for industrial purposes or been impacted in some other way. Further development would not 

result in a major change from the existing industrial land use. The conveyance of the AMSE and 

associated property, Parcel G, and Parcel 279.01 would add approximately 24 acres of additional land for 

development purposes. Because the area within each of the parcels has been previously disturbed and the 

total area is small compared to the remaining ORR land, the change in land use would result in negligible 

cumulative land use impacts. 

5.2.2 Air Quality 

 Although the proposed action evaluated in this EA does not appear to have the potential to bring 

about major impacts to air quality, the overall trend in the Roane and Anderson counties area does present 

such a potential. Other types of industrial development, increased traffic, and general population growth 

could also impact air quality. 
06-179(E)/013007 5-4

 Construction activities, although exempt from PSD limits in 40 CFR 52.21, can be a major source of 

emissions, particularly PM10, in the form of fugitive dust. Such sources tend to be of short duration 

(during the construction period) and largely result in impacts of a localized nature. For example, 

construction of the Knoxville bypass and widening of SR 58 would produce particulate emissions during 

disturbance of soils, but these temporary emissions could be minimized by application of wetting agents 

during dry periods. 

5.2.3 Socioeconomics 

 Major industrial initiatives include reindustrialization of the ETTP, Horizon Center development, the 

SNS project at ORNL, the Roane Regional Business and Technology Park, and potential development of 

the Oak Ridge Industrial Center. The Rarity Ridge initiative also includes plans for commercial 

development. The cumulative impact of new development is likely to result in increased population, 

employment, and income. The parcels included in the proposed action form a very small part of the total 

acreage proposed for development, and its effect on the cumulative impacts is expected to be 

correspondingly small. 

Actual employment and income impacts from cumulative development will depend on the success of 

each of these developments and the overall rate at which development proceeds, both of which are 

uncertain. Developers have recently scaled back plans for some of these projects based on current market 

conditions (Huotari 2006). Property tax revenue will depend on the value of the properties, future tax 

rates, and any tax abatements that may be negotiated. While additional sales tax revenue from proposed 

commercial development is also likely, the exact amount will depend on the amount and type of new 

commercial development and residents’ actual buying patterns. 

5.2.4 Transportation 

 Cumulative transportation impacts in Roane and Anderson counties could occur from increased 

development and growth. These potential impacts could be combined with ongoing environmental restoration 

and decontamination and decommissioning activities on the ORR and with the planned expansion of the 

state highways by TDOT. The main transportation impact of commercial and industrial development 

would be an increase in average daily traffic volumes. 

 Associated with increases in traffic is the potential for an increased number of accidents, additional 

noise and air pollution, and road deterioration and damage. The increase in average daily traffic volumes 

could result in inconveniences for other vehicles (personal and commercial) on affected routes and 

connecting roads. Commercial operations could suffer temporarily reduced business while customers 

avoid affected areas because of traffic delays. Increased pavement deterioration and damage could 

increase costs associated with maintaining or resurfacing roads and highways. Although noise associated 

with increases in traffic is normally not harmful to hearing, increased traffic noise is considered by the 

public to be a nuisance. Increased accidents put an additional strain on local emergency response 

personnel. Increased vehicular traffic also has the greatest potential to increase air pollution in the local 

area because emissions from motor vehicles are poorly regulated. 

5.2.5 Biodiversity 

 The greatest threat to reduced biodiversity of an area or region is conversion of cover types from natural 

systems to completely different and maintained systems. As an example, the conversion of an upland 

hardwood forest to pasture or hayfield use can result in nearly the same loss of biodiversity as if the 

woodland were converted to industrial use. 
06-179(E)/013007 5-5

 No areas of sensitive or rare habitats or species are located within any of the three parcels considered in 

this EA. Conveyance of the properties and any subsequent development would have a negligible affect on the 

biodiversity of the Oak Ridge area. 

 Some local industrial development projects are mitigating impacts to habitats. Approximately 

491 acres of the Horizon Center is not available for development and contains Natural Area corridors and 

buffers for native vegetation and wildlife species. There are 103 acres along Grassy Creek reserved for 

habitat protection at the Oak Ridge Industrial Center (TVA 1988). About 61 acres of the Roane Regional 

Business and Technology Park are being left as a greenbelt area. The SNS project will create wetland 

habitat to replace habitat lost during construction, and cooling water will be dechlorinated prior to 

discharge to minimize effects on aquatic resources (DOE 1999). In addition, a forested pathway will be 

retained along Chestnut Ridge during vegetation clearing for the SNS project to minimize effects on 

terrestrial wildlife movements (DOE 1999). Efforts to reuse the industrial facilities at ETTP could reduce 

the number of habitat areas that might otherwise be converted to industrial sites. Additionally, 

approximately 3000 acres of Blackoak Ridge and Mckinney Ridge are being managed by the state as a 

conservation easement under a license from DOE. Additionally, portions of Pine Ridge are not suitable 

for development and provide a large area to protect sensitive ecological resources. 
06-179(E)/013007 5-6

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. 
06-179(E)/013007 6-1

6. REGULATORY COMPLIANCE 

 Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act of 1970 (CAA) (42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.) requires federal agencies 

to ensure that their actions are consistent with the CAA and with applicable air quality management plans 

(state implementation plans). Agencies are required to evaluate their proposed actions to make sure they 

will not violate or contribute to new violations of any federal ambient air quality standards; will not 

increase the frequency or severity of any existing violations of federal ambient air quality standards; and 

will not delay the timely attainment of federal ambient air quality standards. 

 The EPA has promulgated separate rules that establish conformity analysis procedures for 

transportation-related action and for other (general) federal agency actions. The EPA general conformity 

rule requires a formal conformity determination document for federal actions occurring in nonattainment 

areas or in certain designated maintenance areas when the total direct and indirect emissions of nonattainment 

pollutants (or their precursors) exceed specified thresholds. The CAA conformity guidelines do not apply 

to the proposed DOE action because the affected parcels are in an attainment area. 

 During the NEPA process, DOE contacts the FWS to obtain the latest information on threatened and 

endangered species or designated critical habitats that could occur in the vicinity of the proposed action. 

If DOE determines that any threatened and endangered species or critical habitat could be adversely 

impacted by the proposed action, informal or formal consultation with the FWS is initiated under Sect. 7 

of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq.). The TDEC-Division of Natural Heritage 

database is also often checked for listings of sensitive species that may occur in or near the affected area. 

Threatened and endangered species are discussed in Sects. 3.6.4 and 4.6.4. Appendix A includes 

correspondence between DOE and the FWS. 

 DOE is also required under Sect. 106 of the NHPA to consult with the TN-SHPO regarding the 

presence of archaeological and historic sites and the potential for adverse impacts at a proposed project 

site. Consultation with the TN-SHPO is discussed in Sect. 4.7.1. 

 Under the FPPA, DOE is sometimes required to consult with the Natural Resource Conservation 

Service regarding the presence and future use of prime farmland soils at a proposed site. The Natural 

Resources Conservation Service has advised DOE that for property that lies wholly within the city of 

Oak Ridge, the prime farmland designation is waived, and other uses of the land, such as industrial 

development, are permitted. 

 The DOE Regulation for Compliance with Floodplain/Wetlands Environmental Review Requirements 

[10 CFR 1022.5(d)] states that “when property in a floodplain or wetlands is proposed for lease, 

easement, ROW, or disposal to non-Federal public or private parties, DOE shall: (1) identify those uses 

that are restricted under federal, state, or local floodplains or wetlands regulations; (2) attach other 

appropriate restrictions to the uses of the property; or (3) withhold the property from conveyance.” 

 CERCLA 120(h) establishes many requirements for transfer of federally owned property, including 

property that has been contaminated or property that can be identified as uncontaminated. 

 Relevant DOE orders that pertain to actions involving property transfer include DOE Order 430.1, 

“Life Cycle Asset Management”; DOE Order 5400.1, “General Environmental Protection Program”; and 

DOE Order 5400.5, “Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment.” 
06-179(E)/013007 6-2

 Private developers would be responsible for seeking and obtaining federal, state, and/or local permits and 

licenses for any proposed pre-construction, construction, and operation activities Regulations implementing 

the CAA, Clean Water Act of 1972, Nuclear Regulatory Commission rules, Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act of 1976, Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, 

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986, and others may apply. 
06-179(E)/013007 7-1

7. LIST OF AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONTACTED 

 The following agencies and persons were contacted for information and data used in the preparation 

of this EA. 

Name Affiliation Location Topic 

Lee Barclay U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Cookeville, TN Endangered Species Act, Sect. 7 – 

Informal Consultation 

Jeff Deardorff Community Reuse Organization of 

East Tennessee 

Oak Ridge, TN Cumulative Impacts 

Kim Denton Oak Ridge Chamber of Commerce Oak Ridge, TN Cumulative Impacts 

Amy Fitzgerald City of Oak Ridge Oak Ridge, TN Socioeconomics 

Joseph Garrison Tennessee Historical Commission Nashville, TN National Historic Preservation Act, 

Sect. 106 – Compliance 

Gary Human Roane County Industrial 

Development Board 

Kingston, TN Cumulative Impacts 

Michael Ryon Oak Ridge National Laboratory Oak Ridge, TN Aquatic Resources 

Billy Stair Oak Ridge National Laboratory Oak Ridge, TN Socioeconomics 

Steve Stow American Museum of Science and 

Energy Foundation 

Oak Ridge, TN Background 

Lawrence Young Community Reuse Organization of 

East Tennessee 

Oak Ridge, TN Socioeconomics 
06-179(E)/013007 7-2

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. 
06-179(E)/013007 8-1

8. REFERENCES 

AMSEF (American Museum of Science and Energy Foundation) 2006. “Proposal: Conveyance of the 

American Museum of Science and Energy and Associated Properties,” July. 

AURP (Association of University Research Parks) 2006. “Executive Summary: 2006 Park Profile 

Survey,” available at http://www.aurp.net/about/statistics.cfm, accessed September 25. 

Census (Bureau of the Census) 2000. American FactFinder. Available at http://factfinder.census.gov/, 

accessed September 5-6, and 25-27, 2006. 

Bureau of the Census 2001a. “Profiles of General Demographic Characteristics 2000: Files for Tennessee 

and United States (May),” U.S. Census Bureau, available at http://www.census.gov/PressRelease/www.2001/demoprofile.html, accessed October 24−25. 

Bureau of the Census 2001b. “State and County QuickFacts,” U.S. Census Bureau, available at 

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/, accessed October 24, 2001, and November 13. 

Bureau of Economic Analysis 2002. Regional Accounts Data, available at 

http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/reis/, accessed June 20. 

Bureau of Economic Analysis 2006. Table CA30 Regional economic profiles, available at 

http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/reis/, accessed September 5-6, and 25. 

Cantor, L. 1996. Environmental Impact Assessment, 2d ed., McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York. 

City of Oak Ridge 2002. “City of Oak Ridge, Tennessee Fiscal Year 2002 Annual Budget.” 

City of Oak Ridge 2005. “City of Oak Ridge, Tennessee, Fiscal Year 2006 Annual Budget.” 

City of Oak Ridge 2006. “City of Oak Ridge Proposed Budget Fiscal 2007.” 

CROET (Community Reuse Organization of East Tennessee) 2006. Personal communication from Jeff 

Deardorff, CROET, to Sharon Bell, SAIC, October 12. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1995. Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, South Campus 

Facility, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, DOE/OR/02-1274/V1&D2, February. 

DOE 1997. Final Environmental Assessment for Lease of Land and Facilities within the East Tennessee 

Technology Park, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, DOE/EA-1175, November. 

DOE 1999. Final Environmental Impact Statement: Construction and Operation of the Spallation 

Neutron Source Facility, DOE/EIS-0247, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, July. 

DOE 2000. Draft Environmental Assessment: Lease of Parcel ED-3 of the Oak Ridge Reservation, 

DOE/EA 1316, September. 

DOE 2001a. 2001 Remediation Effectiveness Report/CERCLA Five-Year Review for the U.S. Department 

of Energy Oak Ridge Reservation, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, DOE/OR/01-1941&D2, August. 
06-179(E)/013007 8-2

DOE 2001b. Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and Environmental Assessment for the Oak Ridge 

National Laboratory Facilities Revitalization Project, DOE/EA-1362, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Oak Ridge Operations Office, Oak Ridge, TN, June. 

DOE 2002a. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act Section 120(h) 

Report for Parcel G, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, DOE/ORO-2126A, June. 

DOE 2002b. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act Section 120(h) 

Report for Parcel 279.01, The American Museum of Science and Energy, and Associated Property in 

Oak Ridge, Tennessee, DOE/ORO-2127R1, October. 

DOE 2006. Oak Ridge Reservation Annual Site Environmental Report for 2005, prepared by Oak Ridge 

National Laboratory, Oak Ridge Y-12 National Security Complex, and East Tennessee Technology 

Park for the U.S. Department of Energy, September. 

Environmental Laboratory 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report 

Y-87-1, Department of the Army. 

Fitzgerald, A. 2000. Personal communication from Amy Fitzgerald, City of Oak Ridge, to Sharon Bell, 

SAIC, December 4. 

Focus Group 2002. Final Report of the Oak Ridge Land Use Planning Focus Group, September. 

Fowler, B. 2006. “Museum counting on more funds,” Knoxville News Sentinel, August 9, 2006, available 

at http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/local_news/article/0,1406,KNS_347_4902972,00.html, accessed 

August 9, 2006. 

Grieco, Elizabeth M., and Cassidy, Rachel C. 2001. “Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin” (U.S. Census 

Bureau: March 2001), available at http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-1.pdf, accessed 

November 8, 2001. 

Hatcher, R. D., et al. 1992. Status Report on the Geology of the Oak Ridge Reservation, ORNL/TM12074, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. 

Human, G. 1999. Personal communication from Gary Human, Roane County Industrial Development 

Board (RCIDB), to Sharon Bell, SAIC, September 28. 

Human, G. 2000. Personal communication from Gary Human, Roan County Industrial Development 

Board (RCIDB), to Julia Gartseff, SAIC, July. 

Hunter, C. 2006. Personal communication from Cindy Hunter, DOE Real Estate Office, to Sharon Bell, 

SAIC, September 5. 

Huotari, J. 2006. “Rarity Ridge plans revised, scaled back,” The Oak Ridger, March 22, available at 

http://oakridger.com/stories/032206/com_20060322009.shtml, accessed March 22, 2006. 

Gamble, C. R. 1983. “Technique for Estimating Depth of Floods in Tennessee,” U.S. Geological Survey, 

Water Resources Investigations 83-4050. Tennessee Department of Transportation, Nashville, TN. 

Juan, F. 2000. “DOE Payrolls Over $695 million for 1999,” DOE press release dated April 17, 2000, 

available at http://www.oakridge.doe.gov/media_releases/2000/r-00-011.htm, accessed June 13, 2000. 
06-179(E)/013007 8-3

Magrab, E. B. 1975. Environmental Noise Control, Wiley-Interscience Publication, John Wiley & Sons, 

New York. 

Moneymaker 1981. “Soil Survey of Anderson County, Tennessee,” U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil 

Conservation Service, in cooperation with the Tennessee Agricultural Experiment Station. 

Munger, Frank 2006. “Munger: $1.4B SNS key to ‘economic synergy,” Knoxville News Sentinel, August 21, 

available at http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/business_journal/article/0,2682,KNS_24796_4917064,00.html, 

accessed October 10, 2006. 

Murray, M. N., Vickie C. Cunningham, Brian C. Hill, and Julie Marshall 2005. The State of 

Manufacturing in Tennessee. (Knoxville: Tennessee: University of Tennessee, Center for Business 

and Economic Research), November, available at http://cber.bus.utk.edu/pubs/mnm105.pdf. 

Murray, M. N., and Dowell, P. 1999. The Economic Benefits of the U.S. Department of Energy for the 

State of Tennessee: Fiscal Year 1998 (Knoxville, Tennessee: University of Tennessee, Center for 

Business and Economic Research), April, available at http://www.oakridge.doe.gov/media_releases/ 

1999/DOEstudy99.pdf. 

OMB (Office of Management and Budget) 2000. “Guidance on Aggregation and Allocation of Data on Race 

for Use in Civil Rights Monitoring and Enforcement,” March 9, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/ 

omb/bulletins/b00-02.html, accessed November 8, 2001. 

ORNL (Oak Ridge National Laboratory) 2002. Land Use Technical Report, ORNL/TM-2002/132, 

September. 

ORCC (Oak Ridge Chamber of Commerce) 1999. Personal communication from Kim Denton, ORCC, to 

Julia Gartseff, SAIC, November 4. 

Stow, S. 2006. Personal communication from Steve Stow, former director, American Museum of Science 

and Energy, to Sharon Bell, SAIC, September 14. 

TECD (Tennessee Department of Economic and Community Development) 2006. “Tennessee 

Prospector: Available Buildings and Sites,” available at http://www.tennesseeprospector.com, 

accessed October 10. 

TDOT (Tennessee Department of Transportation) 1999. Personal communication from TDOT Public 

Information Office to Julia Gartseff, SAIC, November 4. 

TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority) 1988. Watts Bar Reservoir Land Management, August (reprinted 

September 1992). 

UT-Battelle 2000. “The American Museum of Science and Energy, A Plan for the Museum’s Long-term 

Financial Stability,” submitted to the U.S. Department of Energy, October. 

Young, L. 1999. Personal communication from Lawrence Young, Community Reuse Organization of 

East Tennessee, to Sharon Bell, Science Applications International Corporation, November 8. 
06-179(E)/013007 8-4

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. 
06-179(E)/013007 

APPENDIX A 

CORRESPONDENCE LETTERS 
06-179(E)/013007 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION 4 

ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER 

61 FORSYTH STREET 

ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960 

November 22,2002 

Certified Mail 

Return Receipt Requested 

4wD-m 

Daniel H. Wilken 

Assistant Manager for Administration 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Oak Ridge Operations Office 

P.O.Box 2001 

Oak Ridge, Tennessee 3783 1 

SUBJECT: Concurrence with Identification of Uncontaminated Property (Parcel G) for 

Transfer Purposes under CERCLA § 120(h)(4)(R) 

Dear Mi. Wilken: 

In response to your letter of October 23,2002, The Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) hereby concurs with the Department of Energy’s (DOE) identification of Parcel G as 

uncontaminated property, in accordance with 5 120(h)(4)(B) of the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). 

Based on DOE’S October 23,2002 supplemental information regarding Merak Spring; 

the newly collected swine waste pond surface water and sediment samples; the Tennessee 

Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) walkover survey; EPA’s site visit; the 

information provided in “Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act Section 120(h) Report for Parcel G, Oak Ridge, Tennessee” (June 2002); and the data 

collected during the Remedial Investigatiofleasibility Study (RWS) and Record of Decision 

(ROD) for the South Campus Facility, EPA believes Parcel G is properly classified as 

“uncontaminated” as that term is used in CERCLA 0 120(h)(4). 

This conclusion is based on the following: Historical records, aerial photographs, and 

former site worker interviews indicated that Parcel G was utilized to hold animals in a clean and 

uncontaminated environment prior to being transported to the experiment station at South 

Campus Facility. The information also indicated that there is no reason to believe that hazardous 

substances were stored, released, or disposed of on any portion of Parcel G. EPA’s site visit 

Internet Address (URL) D http://www.opa.gav 

RecycledlRecyclable *Printed with Vegelable Oil Based Inks on Recyded Paper (Mlnirnum 30% Poslconsumer) 

A-3
verified information submitted by DOE pertaining to the condition of the property to be accurate. 

The RWS and ROD for the South Campus Facility found nothing of concern on Parcel G. 

Groundwater samples around the swine waste ponds revealed contaminants at levels of no 

concern. Groundwater samples in Merak Spring, located outside of the property boundaries of 

Parcel G and south of the swine waste ponds revealed the presence of TCE. As discussed in the 

supplemental information package, the presence of that TCE was attributed to the TCE plume 

under the South Campus facility. The levels of TCE do not pose a significant risk to human 

health or the environment with respect to Parcel G. The flow patterns do not indicate a 

likelihood that the TCE would ever reach Parcel G, but rather would discharge into the surface 

water of Scarboro Creek at points outside of Parcel G. (While there is no concern with respect to 

Parcel G, EPA will, however, be revisiting the Monitoring and Natural Attenuation remedy in 

place at the South Campus facility to determine the effectiveness of the remedy with concerns 

based on the migration of TCE to a distance far removed from the plume and the discharge to 

surface water.) The newly submitted swine waste pond surface water and sediment data from 

TDEC revealed no contaminants at levels of concern. TDEC also reported that the radiological 

walk over survey found nothing. 

EPA understands from earlier discussions with TDEC and DOE, that DOE intends to 

address TDEC’s concern that groundwater restiictions be put in place via a deed restriction on 

the use, including no withdrawal, of groundwater on the property. 

Consistent with the three-party Oak Ridge Reservation Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) 

the transfer documents between DOE and the transferee must contain notice of the existence and 

purpose of the FFA (Section XLm-Property Transfer). Furthermore, the deed of transfer must 

contain certain covenants as specified in CERCLA 5 120(h)(4)(D), one of which grants the 

United States continued access for any future remediation requirements, including those 

necessary to fulfill DOE’S obligations under the FFA. 

If you have an questions regarding this uncontaminated property determination 

concurrence, please call me at 404-562-8288. 

Sincerely, 

Lila Llamas 

Remedial Project Manager 

cc: Doug McCoy, TDEC 

Dave Adler, DOE 

Local Oversight Committee 

Oak Ridge SSAB 

City of Oak Ridge 

A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
A-8
06-179(E)/013007 

APPENDIX B 

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE OF RULE 
06-179(E)/013007 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 







THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

B-10
06-179(E)/013007 

APPENDIX C 

WETLANDS ASSESSMENT 
06-179(E)/013007 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
06-179(E)/013007 

WETLANDS ASSESSMENT 

PROPOSED CONVEYANCE OF PARCEL G 

BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE 

Date Issued⎯February 2007 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Oak Ridge Office 

Oak Ridge, Tennessee
06-179(E)/013007 

SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION 

contributed to the preparation of this document and should not 

be considered an eligible contractor for its review.
06-179(E)/013007 

WETLANDS ASSESSMENT 

PROPOSED CONVEYANCE OF PARCEL G 

BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE 

Date Issued⎯February 2007 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Oak Ridge Office 

Oak Ridge, Tennessee
06-179(E)/013007 
06-179(E)/013007 C-iii

CONTENTS 

FIGURES.....................................................................................................................................................iii

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

1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 1

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................... 1

2.1 PROPOSED ACTION ................................................................................................................... 1

2.2 PROJECT LOCATION.................................................................................................................. 2

2.3 WETLANDS AT PARCEL G ....................................................................................................... 2

2.3.1 Scarboro Creek Wetlands ................................................................................................... 5

2.3.2 Swine Waste Ponds............................................................................................................. 5

2.3.3 Scarboro Creek Embayment Wetlands ............................................................................... 5

2.4 WETLAND FUNCTIONS AND CLASSIFICATION.................................................................. 6

3. WETLANDS EFFECTS ........................................................................................................................ 6

3.1 POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON WETLANDS................................................................................... 6

3.1.1 Positive Effects ................................................................................................................... 6

3.1.2 Negative Effects.................................................................................................................. 7

3.1.3 Direct Effects ...................................................................................................................... 7

3.1.4 Indirect Effects.................................................................................................................... 7

3.1.5 Long-Term Effects.............................................................................................................. 7

3.1.6 Short-Term Effects ............................................................................................................. 7

4. ALTERNATIVES .................................................................................................................................. 8

4.1 THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE............................................................................................. 8

4.2 MITIGATION................................................................................................................................ 8

4.2.1 Avoidance ........................................................................................................................... 9

4.2.2 Minimization....................................................................................................................... 9

4.2.3 Compensation ..................................................................................................................... 9

4.2.4 Regulatory Permits ............................................................................................................. 9

5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................... 10

6. REFERENCES..................................................................................................................................... 10

FIGURES 

Fig. 1. Vicinity map for Parcel G.................................................................................................................. 3

Fig. 2. Wetlands at Parcel G. ........................................................................................................................ 4
06-179(E)/013007 C-iv
06-179(E)/013007 C-v

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 

AMSE American Museum of Science and Energy 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CWA Clean Water Act of 1972 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

ORO Oak Ridge Office 

ORR Oak Ridge Reservation 

TDEC Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation 

TVA Tennessee Valley Authority 

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
06-179(E)/013007 C-vi
06-179(E)/013007 C-1

1. INTRODUCTION 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) defines wetlands as “those areas that are inundated or 

saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that 

under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated 

soil conditions” (Environmental Laboratory 1987). Wetlands usually include swamps, marshes, bogs, and 

similar areas. In identifying a wetland, three characteristics must be present. First is the dominance of 

hydrophytic vegetation (plants that have morphological or physiological adaptations to grow, compete, or 

persist in anaerobic soil conditions). Second, hydric soils are present and possess characteristics that are 

associated with reducing (anaerobic or low oxygen) soil conditions. Third, wetland hydrology must be 

present (i.e., the site must be flooded or saturated for sufficient duration during the growing season to 

create anaerobic conditions at the site (Environmental Laboratory 1987). 

This wetlands assessment has been prepared in accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR) Title 10 Part 1022, for the purpose of fulfilling the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) 

responsibilities under Executive Order 11990, “Wetlands Protection.” The order encourages federal 

agencies to implement measures to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial functions of wetlands. 

The order also requires federal agencies to take action to minimize or mitigate the destruction, loss, and 

degradation of wetlands. The sequence of mitigation measures should emphasize the following: 

• avoiding actions in wetlands, including new construction or work, unless there is no practicable 

alternative to that action; and 

• minimizing harm should the only practicable alternative require that any particular action take place 

in a wetland. 

The executive order applies to activities in furtherance of DOE responsibilities for acquiring, 

managing, and disposing of federal lands and facilities. When property in a wetland is proposed for lease, 

easement, right-of-way, or disposal to non-federal public or private parties, DOE shall (1) identify those 

uses that are restricted under federal, state, or local wetlands regulations; (2) attach other appropriate 

restrictions to uses of the property; or (3) withhold the property from conveyance. 

Finally, the executive order seeks to provide early and adequate opportunities for public review of 

plans and proposals involving new construction or similar projects in wetlands. 

This wetlands assessment serves to inform the public of proposed activities at the Oak Ridge 

Reservation (ORR) that have the potential to affect wetlands on property currently controlled by DOE and 

to present measures or alternatives to the proposed action that will reduce or mitigate adverse effects to 

these wetlands. Information is presented on the following topics: project description, site description, 

effects on wetlands, alternatives, and mitigation. 

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 

2.1 PROPOSED ACTION 

This wetlands assessment evaluates the potential impacts to wetlands from the proposed conveyance 

of Parcel G. Parcel G is one of three parcels being considered for conveyance from DOE to the American 

Museum of Science and Energy Foundation, city of Oak Ridge, or other managing entity. The other two 
06-179(E)/013007 C-2

parcels are the American Museum of Science and Energy (AMSE) and associated property and 

Parcel 279.01, neither of which contain wetlands. The potential environmental impacts of the proposed 

action were considered in an environmental assessment prepared by DOE (DOE 2007). The purpose of 

the proposed DOE action is to provide a plan for the long-term financial stability of the AMSE to 

preserve the museum as an asset to the city of Oak Ridge and the surrounding region. The proposed 

conveyance of the three parcels is also intended to help offset the long-term cost of operating the 

museum. The purpose of the proposed action is also to convey underutilized DOE-Oak Ridge Office 

(ORO) real property for economic development to help offset potential economic losses resulting from 

DOE downsizing, facility closeouts, and work force restructuring.

Because specific uses of Parcel G would not be known prior to the conveyance, DOE has developed 

reasonably foreseeable scenarios and uses to bound the impacts analysis. Scenarios identify potential 

tenants; utilities and infrastructure; areas to be excluded from development; and a range of emissions, 

effluents, and wastes that could result from commercial and industrial activities. It is anticipated that the 

city of Oak Ridge would develop portions of Parcel G for small-scale offices, light industrial use, or retail 

businesses. 

2.2 PROJECT LOCATION 

Parcel G contains about 21 acres and is located southeast of the intersection of Bethel Valley and 

Scarboro roads (Fig. 1). A portion of Parcel G is within the area of the Oak Ridge Institute of Science and 

Energy Scarboro Operations Site (formerly the South Campus Facility). The Scarboro Operations Site 

supported research on the biological effects of radionuclides on animals. The portion of Parcel G that is 

within the boundary of the Scarboro Operations Site was an area where only unexposed animals were 

housed or grazed. In addition to pasture, the area contained various barns and a three-tiered swine waste 

treatment pond system. Only one barn structure remains within Parcel G. Nearby land uses include the 

Y-12 Security Complex buffer area, Bethel Valley Industrial Park, Commerce Park, and the University of 

Tennessee Forest Experiment Station and Arboretum. Parcel G is currently zoned by the city of 

Oak Ridge as FIR (Federal Industry and Research). 

2.3 WETLANDS AT PARCEL G 

Parcel G and the adjacent DOE property to the south support a palustrine emergent/scrub-shrub 

wetland system along Scarboro Creek totaling approximately 3.4 acres (Rosensteel 1993). The portion of 

this wetland system that is located within the boundary of Parcel G is about 1.0 acre. All wetlands identified 

at Parcel G exhibited positive field indicators of the wetland criteria: hydrophytic plants, hydric soils, and 

wetland hydrology. The majority of these wetlands are associated with the floodplain of Scarboro Creek, 

the Scarboro Creek embayment (part of Melton Hill Reservoir), and two beaver ponds in Scarboro Creek 

immediately south of Parcel G (Fig. 2). 

In addition to the Scarboro Creek wetlands, there are three ponds that were created to treat swine 

waste when Parcel G was actively associated with operation of the Scarboro Operations Site. Agricultural 

use of the ponds ceased in the mid-1980s and all three ponds have remained at the site. Two of the ponds 

remain permanently inundated. The third pond only holds water for relatively short periods and supports a 

wetland plant community. 
Fig. 1. Vicinity map for Parcel G.

C-3
Fig. 2. Wetlands at Parcel G.

C-4
06-179(E)/013007 C-5

2.3.1 Scarboro Creek Wetlands 

Wetlands at Parcel G are located in the floodplain along Scarboro Creek. These wetlands include a 

mix of persistent and nonpersistent emergent plants and woody plants. Dominant plants include black 

willow (Salix nigra), fowl manna grass (Glyceria striata), cattails (Typha sp.), softstem bulrush 

(Schoenoplectus validus), soft rush (Juncus effusus), curly dock (Rumex crispus), horsetail (Equisetum sp.), 

spotted jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), hog peanut (Amphicarpaea bracteata), Joe-Pye-weed 

(Eupatoriadelphus sp.), and peppermint (Mentha X piperita). 

Indicators of wetland hydrology include saturated soils in the upper 12-in, drift lines, drainage 

patterns in wetlands, and oxidized root channels with live roots in the upper 12 in. The primary source of 

wetland hydrology is overbank flooding from Scarboro Creek and a seasonally high water table. 

Secondary sources of water are abundant groundwater seeps adjacent to the floodplain and seepage from 

the old swine waste ponds. Soils in the riparian wetlands consist of sandy loams, silt loams, and clay 

loams. Indicators of wetland soils included soil matrix colors with low chroma colors (1 or 2), mottles 

with higher chromas, and manganese concretions. 

2.3.2 Swine Waste Ponds 

Two of the swine waste ponds (Ponds 1 and 2, 0.47 acre and 0.38 acre, respectively) are 

permanently inundated and support little if any wetland vegetation. They would possibly be subject to 

regulation as waters of the state but they are not wetlands. Pond 3 (0.56 acre) only holds water seasonally 

and a wetland community consisting of persistent and nonpersistent emergent and woody wetland plants 

has colonized the site. Dominant vegetation includes scattered black willow saplings, some unidentified 

sedges (Carex sp.), woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus), soft rush, and smartweed (Polygonum sp.). Indicators 

of wetland hydrology include periodic prolonged inundation and saturated soils in the upper 12 in. The 

primary source of wetland hydrology is probably direct precipitation and surface runoff. Secondary 

sources of water are probably seepage from the other two swine waste ponds. The ponds have no direct 

connection to Scarboro Creek (DOE 2002).The soils at the Pond 3 wetland were not examined 

intrusively. 

2.3.3 Scarboro Creek Embayment Wetlands 

Wetlands around the Scarboro embayment include emergent and wet meadow wetlands. Dominant 

species include various herbaceous species with a mix of woody plants. Emergent wetlands occur in areas 

that are saturated or inundated most of the year. Dominant plants include softstem bulrush, soft rush, and 

fowl manna grass. Indicators of wetland hydrology include inundation and saturation in the upper 12 in of 

soil. The primary source of wetland hydrology is a high water table resulting from lake levels, Melton 

Hill Reservoir, and recent beaver activity. Hydrology in these wetlands has been altered by beavers. There 

are several beaver dams on Scarboro Creek between Parcel G and the lake. Secondary sources of water 

are occasional overbank flooding of Scarboro Creek and groundwater seeps in the floodplain. Soils in the 

wetlands consist of gray (10 YR 5/1) and light grayish brown (10 YR 5/2) silt loams and clay loams with 

reddish mottles, manganese nodules, and oxidized root channels. 

Wet meadow wetlands around Scarboro Creek embayment are dominated by nonpersistent emergent 

plants and scattered woody plants. Dominant herbaceous plant species are several unidentified grasses 

[most likely fescue (Festuca arundinacea) and redtop (Agrostis alba)] that have invaded from adjacent 

fields, hog peanut, Joe-Pye-weed, soft rush, peppermint, monkeyflower (Mimulus ringens), bugleweed 

(Lycopus americanus), jewelweed, and several unidentified sedges, including fox sedge (Carex 

vulpinoidea). Woody species include black willow, green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), sweetgum 

(Liquidambar styraciflua), alder (Alnus serrulata), and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica). 
06-179(E)/013007 C-6

Hydrology in the wet meadows is tied closely to water levels in the Scarboro embayment and 

supplemented by occasional inundation from stormwater runoff. Soils in the wetlands consist of gray 

(10 YR 5/1) and light grayish brown (10 YR 5/2) silt loams and clay loams with reddish mottles, manganese 

nodules, and oxidized root channels. 

2.4 WETLAND FUNCTIONS AND CLASSIFICATION 

Wetlands perform many biological, chemical, hydrological, and physical functions generally 

recognized as being valuable to society (Adamus et al. 1991, Brinson 1993). Some commonly recognized 

wetland functions include groundwater discharge, floodflow alteration (flood storage), sediment stabilization, 

sediment/toxicant retention, nutrient removal/transformation, aquatic diversity, and wildlife diversity. Not 

all wetlands perform all functions, and not all wetlands perform the same function equally well. The ability 

of wetlands to perform various functions depends on the characteristics of the wetland and the magnitude of 

the inputs. 

The wetlands at Parcel G perform various biological, chemical, hydrological, and physical functions. In 

the past, these wetlands have been heavily impacted by past disturbance at the site. Most of this 

disturbance occurred 20 or more years ago while the site was associated with the Scarboro Operations 

Site. After much of the early research at the Scarboro Operations Site ceased, the natural functions of the 

wetlands and Scarboro Creek began to recover and to improve. However, some disturbances have been 

more recent. After almost two decades of recovery, the recent realignment of South Illinois Avenue and 

Bethel Valley Road caused a great deal of new disturbance to Scarboro Creek and its wetlands. Following 

completion of the road construction, the creek and wetlands once again have begun to stabilize and a new 

period of recovery from the recent disturbance has started. 

3. WETLANDS EFFECTS 

3.1 POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON WETLANDS 

The proposed conveyance of Parcel G would not inherently cause impacts that affect the survival, 

quality, natural, and beneficial values of wetlands at the site, because the proposed conveyance is an 

administrative action. The potential for, and degree of, adverse impacts would depend upon how Parcel G 

was developed. Activities associated with subsequent development of Parcel G could have beneficial 

effects or adverse effects on wetlands. Effects on wetlands may result from activities occurring directly in 

wetlands or effects may result indirectly from activities that occur in areas adjacent to wetlands. The 

consequences of wetland alteration may last for decades (long-term effects) or they may be minor enough 

that wetlands could recover in a few years (short-term effects). 

Any activity that has the potential to affect wetlands in any way would be subject to regulation by the 

federal and/or state government. The entity that develops Parcel G would be required to comply with 

applicable federal, state, and local laws, rules, or ordinances governing land use in wetlands and streams. It 

would be the responsibility of that entity to secure all necessary permits and to comply with all permit 

requirements, including compensatory mitigation. This language would be incorporated into the DOE real 

estate instrument. 

3.1.1 Positive Effects 

Beneficial impacts include any actions that would improve the quality of wetlands or actions that 

enhanced the ability of wetlands to perform wetland functions. Examples of beneficial actions include 
06-179(E)/013007 C-7

restoring or enhancing wetland hydrology to increase the hydroperiod in wetlands, planting additional 

species of wetland plants to increase diversity or structure, and controlling or eradicating exotic, invasive 

plants in wetlands. These types of activities may or may not occur as a result of implementing either the 

proposed action or the no action alternative. 

3.1.2 Negative Effects 

Negative impacts include any activity that adversely affects the survival, quality, natural, and 

beneficial values of wetlands. Negative effects would result from any action that eliminates or interferes 

with wetlands at Parcel G or reduces their ability to perform their normal biological, chemical, hydrological, 

and physical functions. Some or all of the wetlands could potentially experience negative impacts caused 

by future development of Parcel G. Any activities that would occur within wetlands and that could cause 

adverse effects to normal wetland functions would require prior authorization from regulatory agencies. 

3.1.3 Direct Effects 

Direct effects would result from any activity that occurs directly in a wetland and affects wetland 

characteristics or functions. Direct effects may be negative or adverse if they eliminate, interfere with, or 

reduce normal wetland functions. The most extreme example of direct adverse effects to wetlands would 

involve filling wetlands during site preparation or construction activities or draining wetlands by 

installing culverts or ditches to remove water. Direct effects may be positive if they restore or improve 

existing wetland functions. Examples of positive direct effects on wetlands would include any of the 

restoration activities described in Sect. 3.1.1. 

3.1.4 Indirect Effects 

Indirect impacts could result from tenant activities in areas adjacent to wetlands that interfere with 

wetland functions. Examples of indirect adverse impacts include siltation from soil erosion at nearby 

construction sites, spills or leaks of oil or other chemicals from construction equipment, overuse of pesticides 

or herbicides, and allowing invasive, exotic plant pest species to colonize wetlands, thereby diminishing 

the diversity and quality of wetland habitat. Examples of indirect positive impacts include controlling soil 

erosion, controlling or preventing spills or leaks of oil or other chemicals from construction equipment, 

using pesticides or herbicides safely to prevent contamination and mortality to wetland plants or animals, 

and controlling or eradicating invasive, exotic plant pest species to protect diversity and habitat quality. 

3.1.5 Long-Term Effects 

Long-term effects include any activities that influence wetland functions for several years or 

decades. Adverse long-term effects would include any activities (e.g., draining or filling) that damage 

wetland functions such that it would take several years or decades for wetland functions to recover to 

their pre-disturbance level. Adverse long-term effects are of sufficient magnitude and intensity that site 

resources may not recover without intervention (restoration). Long-term positive effects would include 

activities that provided permanent protection or stewardship of wetland functions or habitat. 

3.1.6 Short-Term Effects 

Short-term effects include any activities that have relatively minor impacts on wetland functions. An 

example of a short-term negative effect would be removal of woody vegetation from a wetland. Cutting 

back woody plants in a wetland would temporarily affect structure, but sprouts from cut stems would 

reestablish structure in a year or two. The recovery period for adverse short-term effects may take several 

weeks or months to a few years. Short-term disturbances are generally not severe enough to cause 
06-179(E)/013007 C-8

permanent impairment of wetland functions and values. Site resources can usually recover in a short 

period of time without assistance. The duration of the recovery period depends on the magnitude of 

disturbance. Positive short-term effects include any activities that may have a temporary influence in 

wetlands. An example of a positive short-term effect could be one-time removal of invasive, exotic 

vegetation from a wetland without considering follow-up treatments to control resprouting or new 

seedlings from seed germination. 

4. ALTERNATIVES 

4.1 THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

Under the no action alternative, Parcel G would not be conveyed and would remain as part of the ORR. 

Ongoing, routine maintenance and mowing activities, and current activities associated with the adjacent 

Scarboro Operations Site would continue. These uses would continue until another proposal for use of 

Parcel G was considered. No additional impacts to the wetlands at Parcel G would occur and it is expected 

that the wetland system associated with Scarboro Creek on Parcel G would continue to exist and function 

as it presently does. 

4.2 MITIGATION 

Any actions that take place in wetlands and other special aquatic sites at Parcel G are subject to 

regulation by USACE, the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), Division of 

Water Pollution Control, and possibly the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). USACE regulates 

activities in wetlands and other special aquatic sites through Sect. 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972 

(CWA). The state of Tennessee also regulates activities in wetlands under Sect. 401 of the CWA and the 

Tennessee Water Quality Control Act of 1977 (Tennessee Administrative Code 69-3-108). TVA regulates 

all construction, operation, or maintenance of structures affecting navigation, flood control, or public 

lands or reservations in the Tennessee River or its tributaries under Sect. 26a of the TVA Act (U.S. 

Congress, 1933, as amended). Anyone who wishes to discharge dredged or fill material into the waters of 

the United States, regardless of whether on private or public property, must obtain a Sect. 404 permit 

from the USACE and a Sect. 401 Water Quality Certification from the state prior to taking the action. In 

cases where TVA lands or waters may be affected, TVA and USACE would determine which agency 

would be the lead regulatory agency. State and federal storm water regulations to minimize erosion and 

sedimentation would also need to be met. 

In general, TDEC has lower thresholds for disturbance to wetlands and other waters of the state than 

USACE. In some cases, USACE may determine that it does not have jurisdiction over activities that 

would affect certain types of wetlands. In these situations, TDEC would serve as the lead regulatory 

agency. The sequencing for regulatory review by USACE and TDEC and/or TVA requires applicants to 

make all efforts to avoid adverse impacts to wetlands if possible, minimize adverse impacts, and 

compensate for adverse impacts after making all practicable effort to avoid and minimize them. 

Compensatory requirements depend on the quality of the affected wetlands, the type and degree of 

impact, and the region of the state where the impact would occur. Compensation mitigation usually 

includes restoring, enhancing, or preserving wetlands. Compensatory requirements generally must be 

negotiated with USACE, TVA, and TDEC on a case-by-case basis. 
06-179(E)/013007 C-9

4.2.1 Avoidance 

Avoidance means that DOE would take steps to prevent new owners from engaging in any activity 

that would have adverse impacts on wetlands at Parcel G. The simplest way to achieve avoidance is 

through administrative controls such as conservation easements or other real estate instruments that 

preclude access to wetlands. This can be accomplished by (1) withholding wetlands from conveyance 

(some or all); (2) prohibiting development in wetlands (some or all); (3) mitigation specifically in the 

form of minimum grading requirements, runoff controls, and protection of ecologically sensitive areas; 

and (4) other restrictions on future uses of any transferred property. For administrative controls to be 

effective, wetland boundaries should be surveyed and marked in the field prior to transfer; appropriate 

restrictions would be placed in deeds, maps, and plats; appropriate buffer zones would be defined and 

required; and tenants could be prohibited from construction activities that have adverse direct or indirect 

effects on wetlands. Periodic inspections or monitoring may be required to ensure that all administrative 

controls are implemented and functioning as intended. 

4.2.2 Minimization 

Minimization means restricting actions that would adversely affect wetlands to the absolute 

minimum required for the project to continue. Minimization could include reducing areas of impact in 

wetlands and implementing best management practices and sediment controls that reduced or prevented 

soil erosion and runoff from construction sites; use of buffer zones around wetlands; and minimum 

grading requirements that reduced land disturbance on steep slopes adjacent to wetlands and streams. 

4.2.3 Compensation 

Compensation may be used as a mitigative measure when no practicable alternative exists to avoid 

or minimize disturbance in wetlands. Compensation may require creation of new wetlands, restoration of 

drained wetlands, preservation of unique wetlands, or enhancement of degraded wetlands. Most 

regulatory agencies prefer that compensatory mitigation occur in the same watershed as the permitted 

action. However, specific requirements for compensatory mitigation are subject to negotiation. 

Current USACE and TDEC policy favors restoration, because restoration projects are generally 

more successful than creation, and enhancement or preservation only affect existing wetlands. In some 

cases, preservation or enhancement may be used with approval of the regulatory agency. Wetland creation 

is usually the least desirable form of compensation because of limited success rates. Wetland mitigation 

banks offer developers another option for wetland mitigation. Developers may purchase credits in 

large-scale restoration projects, thus allowing them the opportunity to accomplish their mitigation goals 

without having to worry about post-mitigation monitoring. 

4.2.4 Regulatory Permits 

All proposed activities on parcels proposed for transfer that would affect wetlands or other waters of 

the United States or state of Tennessee would be subject to compliance with all applicable local, state, and 

federal regulations. It would be the responsibility of the new owner to secure all applicable permits prior 

to initiating work in any wetlands. Permit conditions would stipulate which activities could occur in or 

around wetlands on transferred parcels. Regulatory permits would also specify all required mitigative 

measures, including compensation. 
06-179(E)/013007 C-10

5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 

DOE proposes to convey approximately 21 acres of Parcel G to the American Museum of Science and 

Energy Foundation, city of Oak Ridge, or other managing entity. Following the conveyance, it is 

anticipated that portions of Parcel G would be developed for light industrial and/or other commercial 

purposes. 

There is a 3.4-acre wetland system along Scarboro Creek on Parcel G and adjacent property to be 

retained by DOE. The actual area of wetlands to be conveyed with Parcel G is about 1.0 acre. DOE would 

retain control over the remaining 2.4 acres of wetlands along Scarboro Creek downstream from Parcel G. 

The 1.4 acres of ponds on Parcel G could be subject to federal and/or state jurisdiction. Coordination with 

USACE and TDEC would likely be required to make a final jurisdictional determination. 

The proposed conveyance of Parcel G would not inherently cause adverse impacts that affected the 

survival, quality, natural, and beneficial values of wetlands along Scarboro Creek, because the proposed 

transfer is an administrative action. Rather, the potential for, and degree of, adverse impacts would 

depend upon how the property was developed. Adverse impacts would include any activity that 

eliminated or reduced the ability of wetlands to perform their normal biological, chemical, hydrological, 

and physical functions. Some or all of the wetlands associated with Scarboro Creek could potentially 

experience direct impacts by development in the wetlands themselves or indirect impacts from other 

activities associated with development of adjacent upland areas at Parcel G. Wetlands downstream from 

Parcel G could also be affected by any construction activities on Parcel G. 

A number of administrative controls, including deed restrictions or conservation easements are 

available for DOE to use to prevent adverse impacts to wetlands at Parcel G. Proposals for development 

of Parcel G that would affect wetlands and other special aquatic resources would also be subject to 

regulation by USACE, TDEC, and possibly TVA. Proposed projects would be required to follow normal 

sequencing during regulatory review to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to wetlands at Parcel G. 

Compensatory mitigation should be used as a last resort and would be subject to negotiation between 

USACE, TDEC, and possibly DOE and TVA. 

6. REFERENCES 

Adamus, P. R., L. T. Stockwell, E. J. Clarain, Jr., M. E. Morrow, L. P. Rozas, and R. D. Smith 1991. 

Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET), Volume I: Literature Review and Evaluation Rationale 1991, 

Wetlands Research Program Technical Report WRP-DE-2, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways 

Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 287 pp. plus appendices. 

Brinson, Mark M. 1993. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification of Wetlands, Wetlands Research Program 

Technical Report WRP-DE-4, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, 

Vicksburg, MS. 79 pp. plus appendices. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2002. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act Section 120(h) Report for Parcel G, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, DOE/ORO-2126A, 

Prepared for DOE by Science Applications International Corporation, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. 
06-179(E)/013007 C-11

DOE 2007. Environmental Assessment, Proposed Conveyance of the American Museum of Science and 

Energy and Associated Property, Parcel G, and Parcel 279.01, DOE/EA-1415, Prepared for DOE 

by Science Applications International Corporation, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. 

Environmental Laboratory 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report 

Y-87-1, Department of the Army. 

Rosensteel, Barbara 1994. Wetland Survey of the South Campus Facility, Internal Correspondence to 

Jill Greene, May 12. 4 pp. 

U.S. Congress 1933, as amended. 
06-179(E)/013007 C-12
06-179(E)/013007 

APPENDIX D 

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 
06-179(E)/013007 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Endangered Species Act

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

Proposed Transfer of Parcel G by the

U.S. Department of Energy

to the City of Oak Ridge, Tennessee

Prepared by

Michael D. Deacon

James P. Groton

Science Applications International Corporation

U.S. Department of Energy

Oak Ridge Operations Office

Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831

March 2002
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
01-262(doc)/041702 D-5

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

FOR THE PROPOSED TRANSFER OF PARCEL G

BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

TO THE CITY OF OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE

SUMMARY

This biological assessment (BA) assesses the potential for adverse effects on two federally listed animal

species that could result from the transfer of Parcel G by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to the city

of Oak Ridge in the Scarboro Creek watershed on the Oak Ridge Reservation. The species discussed in

this BA are those mentioned in a letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to DOE, dated

December 19, 2001, regarding the preparation of an environmental assessment for the proposed transfer

of the American Museum of Science and Energy, Parcel 279.01, and Parcel G to the city of Oak Ridge in

Anderson County, Tennessee (FWS 2001). The FWS determined that the gray bat (Myotis grisescens)

and the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) might occur on or near the Parcel G property. Both species are

federally listed as endangered.

Based on the information presented in this BA, DOE concludes that the proposed transfer of Parcel G to

the city of Oak Ridge is not likely to adversely affect either of the listed species. Neither species appears

likely to be present on Parcel G, and proposed or designated critical habitats for the species are not

present on or near the parcel. No caves or other suitable hibernacula or roosting habitat for gray bats are

present at Parcel G. However, caves that could provide potential roosting habitat for the gray bat are

present within 4 miles of Parcel G. Although the ultimate use of Parcel G by the city of Oak Ridge may

eventually require removal of trees, potential summer roosting habitat at the site is at best marginal for

Indiana bats. Also, there are adequate numbers of suitable and potentially suitable roost trees available

immediately adjacent to Parcel G. Scarboro Creek within Parcel G is not considered to be good foraging

habitat for gray or Indiana bats since it is a narrow, small stream with limited riparian habitat. In addition,

the Clinch River, Melton Hill Lake, and lower Scarboro Creek, located adjacent to Parcel G, provide

additional suitable foraging habitat for both species.
01-262(doc)/041702 D-6

INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The proposed action evaluated in the environmental assessment is the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)

conveyance of the American Museum of Science and Energy (AMSE), Parcel G, and Parcel 279.01 to the

city of Oak Ridge, Tennessee (DOE 2002). The purpose of the proposed DOE action is to provide a plan

for the long-term financial stability of the AMSE in order to preserve the museum as an asset to the city

of Oak Ridge and the surrounding region. The purpose of the proposed action is also to transfer excess

DOE-Oak Ridge Operations Office real property for economic development in order to help offset

potential economic losses resulting from DOE downsizing, facility closeouts, and work force restructuring.

Since specific uses of Parcel G would not be known prior to the transfer, DOE has developed reasonably

foreseeable scenarios and uses to bound the impacts analysis. Scenarios identify potential tenants; utilities

and infrastructure; areas to be excluded from development; and a range of emissions, effluents, and

wastes that could result from commercial and industrial activities. Parcel G may be developed for

small-scale offices, light industrial use, or retail businesses.
01-262(doc)/041702 D-7

ECOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

Parcel G contains about 20.0 acres and is located southeast of the intersection of Bethel Valley and

Scarboro roads (Fig. 1). A portion of Parcel G is within the area of the Oak Ridge Institute of Science and

Energy Scarboro Operations Site (formerly the South Campus Facility). The Scarboro Operations Site

supported research on the biological effects of radionuclides on animals. The portion of Parcel G that is

within the boundary of the Scarboro Operations Site was an area where only unexposed animals were

housed or grazed. In addition to pasture, the area contained various barns and a three-tiered swine waste

treatment pond system. Only one barn structure remains within Parcel G. Nearby land uses include the

Y-12 Plant buffer area, Bethel Valley Industrial Park, Commerce Park, and the University of Tennessee

Forest Experiment Station and Arboretum. Parcel G is currently zoned by the city of Oak Ridge as

F.A.I.R. (Forestry, Agriculture, Industry, and Research District).

Vegetation on more than half of the 20-acre site is maintained in a mix of grasses and herbaceous plants.

This part of Parcel G is periodically mowed and has been used in the past for hay production.

Large shrubs and scattered tree saplings dominate three smaller parts of the site. These areas include the

buffer around and between the three former swine waste ponds, part of the Scarboro Creek floodplain,

and part of the hillside along the south-central property line. Dominant shrub species are autumn-olive

(Elaeagnus umbellata), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), and bush honeysuckle (Lonicera tatarica or

L. maackii). Trees include sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and

black willow (Salix nigra) saplings.

Upland woodland habitat is present on the small knoll in the southeastern corner of the site. This part of

the site used to be cleared and had fenced holding pens for animals. The area now supports a young

woodland composed primarily of boxelder (Acer negundo) with scattered black cherry (Prunus serotina)

and sycamore (Platanus occidentalis). Trees in this area are relatively young with a maximum diameter of

5-6 in. at breast height (4.5 ft). There are areas of closed canopy and partially open canopy in the

woodland area. The soil surface is firm, with minimal buildup of organic matter. There are no caves or

large rock outcrops on the site.

Scarboro Creek flows from north to south across the center of the site. Scarboro Creek is a small,

perennial stream. A small, ephemeral stream flows from the east into Scarboro Creek wooded uplands

toward the access road. The stream channels of both creeks are well defined, with sand, silt, gravel, and

cobbles. Scarboro Creek supports fish and other aquatic life. The floodplain of Scarboro Creek has a

small wetland system associated with it, and it is described below.

A palustrine emergent/scrub-shrub wetland (PEM1/PSS1) exists at Parcel G in the floodplain along

Scarboro Creek, which crosses the center of the site. The soil is temporarily flooded and saturated. The

wetland includes a mix of persistent and nonpersistent emergent plants and woody plants. Dominant

plants include black willow, fowl manna grass (Glyceria striata), cattails (Typha sp.), softstem bulrush

(Schoenoplectus validus), soft rush (Juncus effusus), curly dock (Rumex crispus), horsetail (Equisetum sp.),

spotted jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), hog peanut (Amphicarpaea bracteata), Joe-Pye-weed

(Eupatoriadelphus sp.), and peppermint (Mentha X piperita). The soil consists of sandy loams, silt loams,

and clay loams with low chroma matrix color, mottles with brighter chromas, and manganese concretions.
D-8
01-262(doc)/041702 D-9

ECOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT ON LISTED

SPECIES

The general ecology of the gray bat and Indiana bat and any potential adverse effects on the species from the

proposed action are summarized below. Unless otherwise noted, general biological information on the species

is derived from the published literature, reports, and Internet resources listed under each species heading.

Gray Bat (Myotis grisescens)

Unless otherwise noted or referenced, the following general biological information on the gray bat is

derived from FWS (1991), Harvey (1992), and Kentucky Bat Working Group (KBWG) (2000). The core

range of the endangered gray bat encompasses the cave regions of Alabama, northern Arkansas,

Kentucky, Missouri, and Tennessee, but a few occur in northwestern Florida, western Georgia, southwestern

Kansas, south Indiana, south and southwestern Illinois, northeastern Oklahoma, northeastern Mississippi,

western Virginia, and possibly western North Carolina. Gray bats are restricted to caves or cave-like

habitats, and few caves meet their specific roost requirements. These restrictions result in about 95% of

the population’s hibernating in only eight or nine caves. For hibernation, the roost site must have an

average temperature of 5.6°C to 11.1°C (42°F to 52°F). Most of the caves used by gray bats for

hibernation have deep vertical passages with large rooms that function as cold air traps. Summer caves

must be warm, between 13.9°C to 25.0°C (57°F and 77°F), or have small rooms or domes that can trap

the body heat of roosting bats. Summer caves are normally located close to rivers or lakes where the bats

feed. Gray bats have been known to fly as far as 12 miles or more from their colony to feed.

Gray bats roost, breed, rear young, and hibernate in caves year round. They migrate between summer and

winter caves and will use transient or stopover caves along the way. One-way migrating distance between

winter and summer caves may vary from as little as 16.09 km (10 miles) to well over 321.8 km (200 miles).

Mating occurs as bats return to winter caves in September and October. By November, most gray bats are

hibernating. Adult females begin to emerge in late March, followed by juveniles and adult males. Females

store sperm over the winter and become pregnant the following spring. A few hundred to many thousands of

pregnant females congregate to form maternity colonies. Males and nonreproductive females gather in

smaller groups to form what are known as bachelor colonies. A single pup is born in late May or early June.

The young begin to fly 20 to 25 days after birth. Gray bats primarily feed on flying insects over lakes, rivers,

and streams. Aquatic insects, particularly mayflies, make up most of their diet.

Information about the occurrence of gray bats on the Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR) is limited. In November

1994, a single, dead gray bat was found in a display cabinet in Building 9204-3 at the Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant.

The bat was probably an isolated individual juvenile that became lost, disoriented, and trapped. Mist netting

for bats was conducted on the lower East Fork Poplar Creek (EFPC) and its tributaries in May 1992 and again

in May through June 1997 (Harvey 1997). The 1997 survey included portions of lower Bear Creek near its

confluence with lower EFPC. The creeks in this area provided good gray bat foraging habitat at the time of the

surveys. No gray bats were recorded among the six species captured. More than 20 caves have been identified

on the ORR. Mitchell et al. (1996) surveyed seven of the caves (Copper Ridge, Flashlight Heaven, Walker

Branch, Big Turtle, Little Turtle, Pinnacle, and Bull Bluff), but no gray bats were found. There is an unverified

report of ten gray bats roosting in Little Turtle Cave in September 1996. These bats were observed roosting

and were not further disturbed; therefore, a definite, in-the-hand identification was not made (Webb 1996).

Examination of photographs taken of the roosting bats indicate that they appeared to be Myotis and more than

likely were gray bats, but the species could not be positively determined [Major (2000) and Henry (2000)].

Although no caves are present within the area of the proposed project, several caves are located within

6.4 km (4 miles) of the proposed site location and two of the caves are located within 2.4 km (1.5 miles).

None of the caves has been completely and systematically surveyed for bats, except for the limited surveys
01-262(doc)/041702 D-10

reported in Mitchell et al. (1996) and the 1996 report of Myotis roosting in Little Turtle Cave. The caves

within the vicinity of the project area may not provide adequate hibernacula for gray bats, but they could

provide transient or stopover roosting habitat for migrating gray bats. Suitable foraging habitat for gray bats

within the vicinity of the proposed facility includes the Clinch River and the Scarboro Creek embayment.

Scarboro Creek is a narrow, small stream and is considered suboptimal for frequent foraging for gray bats.

Since no caves are present within Parcel G, none would be disturbed as a result of any construction activities

that might result from the transfer of Parcel G. Construction activities would also not directly impact any

potential foraging habitat that exists in the vicinity, and all construction activities would only occur during

the day, so any nearby foraging by gray bats would also not be disrupted. Activities associated with the

operation of any new facilities would also primarily occur during the day and would not be expected to

disrupt any gray bats that might forage near the site. In addition, the light industrial or commercial

operations that are likely to be developed would not produce significant emissions or effluents that could

directly impact foraging gray bats or indirectly affect aquatic insect fauna on which the gray bats would

prey. Thus, the proposed transfer is unlikely to adversely affect the gray bat or its habitat.

Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis)

Unless otherwise noted or referenced, the following general biological information on the Indiana bat is

derived from FWS (1991, 1999a, 1999b, 2000), Harvey (1992), and KBWG (1997, 2000). The Indiana

bat is a migratory species found throughout much of the eastern half of the United States from Oklahoma,

Iowa, and Wisconsin east to Vermont and south to northwestern Florida. For hibernation, Indiana bats prefer

limestone caves with stable temperatures of 3.3°C to 6.1°C (38°F to 43°F) and high relative humidity. As

with the gray bat, few caves meet the specific roost requirements of the species. Subsequently, more than

85% of the population hibernates in only nine sites. However, Indiana bats have been found hibernating in a

few abandoned mines, a tunnel, and a hydroelectric dam. The bats hibernate from October to April, depending

on climatic conditions. Density in tightly packed clusters is usually estimated at 3228 bats per m2

 (300 bats

per ft2

), although as many as 5165 bats per M2 (480 per ft2) have been reported.

Female Indiana bats depart hibernation caves before males and arrive at summer maternity roosts in mid-May.

A single offspring is born between late June and early July. The young bats can fly within a month of

birth. Early researchers considered floodplain and riparian forest to be the primary roosting and foraging

habitats used during the summer by the Indiana bat, and these forest types unquestionably are important.

More recently, upland forest has been shown to be used by Indiana bats for roosting. Within the range of

the species, the existence of Indiana bats in a particular area may be governed by the availability of natural

roost structures, primarily standing dead trees with loose bark. The suitability of any tree as a roost site is

determined by (1) its condition (dead or alive), (2) the quantity of loose bark, (3) the tree’s solar exposure and

location in relation to other trees, and (4) the tree’s spatial relationship to water sources and foraging areas.

The most important characteristic of roost trees is probably not species but structure (i.e., exfoliating bark

with space for bats to roost between the bark and the bole of the tree). To a limited extent, tree cavities

and crevices are also used for roosting. Maternity colonies use multiple primary roost trees, which are

used by a majority of the bats most of the summer, and a number of “secondary” roosts, which are used

intermittently and by fewer bats, especially during periods of precipitation or extreme temperatures. The

summer roost of adult males is often near maternity roosts, but where most spend the day is unknown.

Others remain near the hibernaculum, and a few males are found in other caves during summer. Researchers

have found that primary roosts are generally in openings or at the edge of forest stands, while alternate

roosts can be either in the open or in the interior of the forest stands. Indiana bats use roosts in the spring

and fall similar to those selected during the summer. During the fall, when Indiana bats swarm and mate

at their hibernacula, male bats roost in trees nearby during the day and fly to the cave during the night.

Indiana bats forage in and around the tree canopy of floodplain, riparian, and upland forest. In riparian

areas, Indiana bats primarily forage around and near riparian and floodplain trees (e.g., sycamore,
01-262(doc)/041702 D-11

cottonwood, black walnut, black willow, and oaks), and solitary trees and forest edge on the floodplain.

Streams, associated floodplain forests, and impounded bodies of water (e.g., ponds, wetlands, and

reservoirs) are preferred foraging habitat for pregnant and lactating Indiana bats, some of which may fly

up to 1.5 miles from upland roosts. Indiana bats also forage within the canopy of upland forests, over

clearings with early successional vegetation (e.g., old fields), along the borders of croplands, along

wooded fencerows, and over farm ponds in pastures. Indiana bats return nightly to their foraging areas.

Indiana bats feed strictly on flying insects, and their selection of prey items reflects the environment in

which they forage. Both aquatic and terrestrial insects are consumed. Moths, caddisflies, flies,

mosquitoes, and midges are major prey items. Other prey includes bees, wasps, flying ants, beetles,

leafhoppers, and treehoppers. During September, the bats depart for hibernation caves.

Information about the occurrence of Indiana bats on the ORR is limited. Mist netting for bats was conducted

on lower EFPC and its tributaries in May 1992 and again in May through June 1997 (Harvey 1997). The

1997 survey included portions of lower Bear Creek near its confluence with lower EFPC. The creeks in

this area provided Indiana bat summer roosting and foraging habitat at the time of the surveys. No Indiana

bats were recorded among the six species captured.

In Tennessee, the nearest hibernating population of Indiana bats exists in White Oak Blowhole Cave,

located in Blount County in the western end of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. This cave has

been designated as critical habitat for this species. A few Indiana bats also hibernate in Bull Cave, also

located in Blount County. No maternity roosts have been located on the ORR, or as yet in Tennessee.

However, in July 1999, a small colony of Indiana bats was discovered roosting in a dead hemlock tree on

the Cheoah Ranger District of the Nantahala National Forest in Graham County, North Carolina. This

discovery represents the first record of a reproductive female Indiana bat being found south of Kentucky.

Recent collections of individual Indiana bats have also been recorded from the Cherokee National Forest

near Tellico Lake in Monroe County, Tennessee. These reports indicate that summer colonies of the

species may be present in east Tennessee. The habitat from which these individuals were collected is

similar to suitable habitat found on the ORR.

Although there is no suitable summer roosting habitat for the Indiana bat on Parcel G, there is probably

suitable habitat along Haw Ridge, which borders Parcel G to the south. Although unlikely, a maternity

colony, an adult male colony, or individual Indiana bats could use roosting habitat located in the vicinity of

the Parcel G. Suitable foraging habitat for Indiana bats within the vicinity of Parcel G includes the Clinch

River and the Scarboro Creek embayment. Upper Scarboro Creek is a narrow, small stream and is

considered suboptimal for frequent foraging for Indiana bats.

Any construction activities on Parcel G would likely require removal of trees at the site. Clearing of the

woodland at Parcel G should not adversely affect Indiana bats since the existing habitat is considered to

be of poor quality. Even with the poor quality of the habitat, it would be recommended that no tree cutting

would occur during the summer roosting season from May through September. This should prevent the

loss of any bats that otherwise might be using the trees for rearing young and should also eliminate the

need for mist netting or detailed surveys. Construction activities would also not directly impact any

potential foraging habitat that exists in the vicinity of Parcel G and all construction activities would only

occur during the day, so any nearby foraging by Indiana bats would also not be disrupted. Activities

associated with the operation of any new facilities would also primarily occur during the day and would

not be expected to disrupt any Indiana bats that might forage near the site. In addition, the light industrial

or commercial operations that are likely to be developed would not produce significant emissions or

effluents that could directly impact foraging Indiana bats or indirectly affect aquatic insect fauna on

which the Indiana bats would prey. Thus, the proposed transfer is unlikely to adversely affect the Indiana

bat or its habitat.
01-262(doc)/041702 D-12

REFERENCES

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2002. Draft Environmental Assessment, Proposed Conveyance of the

American Museum of Science and Energy, Parcel G, and Parcel 279.01 to the City of Oak Ridge,

Tennessee, DOE/EA-1415. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy by Science Applications

International Corporation, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1991. Endangered and Threatened Species of the Southeastern

United States (The Red Book), FWS Region 4. February.

FWS. 2001. Letter from Dr. Lee A. Barclay, FWS, Cookeville, Tennessee, to Dr. James L. Elmore, DOE,

Oak Ridge, Tennessee, December 19.

FWS. 1999a. Indiana Bat. Asheville Field Office. August 1999.

FWS. 1999b. Agency Draft Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Revised Recovery Plan. Fort Snelling, Minnesota.

53 pp.

FWS. 2000. The Indiana Bat in Western North Carolina, A Status Summary Update. Asheville Field Office.

April.

Harvey, Michael J. 1992. Bats of the Eastern United States. Arkansas Game and Fish Commission and

FWS. February. 46 pp.

Harvey, Michael J. 1997. Survey for Endangered and Threatened Bats on Parcel ED-1, Oak Ridge

Reservation. July. 24 pp.

Henry, Hill. 2000. Personal communication from Hill Henry, Tennessee Valley Authority, to Mike Deacon,

Science Applications International Corporation, May 4.

KBWG (Kentucky Bat Working Group). 1997. “Protection and Enhancement Plan for the Indiana Bat.”

Available at <http://www.biology.eku.edu/bats/indbat-recmanageplan.htm>. June.

KBWG. 2000. “The Bats of Kentucky.” Available at <http://www.biology.eku.edu/bats>.

Major, Smoot. 2000. Personal communication from Smoot Major, Tennessee Department of Environment

and Conservation, Division of Natural Heritage, to Mike Deacon, Science Applications International

Corporation, May 4.

Mitchell, J. M., E. R. Vail, J. W. Webb, J. W. Evans, A. L. King, P. A. Hamlett. 1996. Survey of

Protected Terrestrial Vertebrates on the Oak Ridge Reservation, ES/ER/TM-188/R1, Final Report.

Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

Webb, Warren. 1996. Personal communication with Deborah Awl, JAYCOR, September 18.
06-179(E)/013007 

APPENDIX E 

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 
06-179(E)/013007 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Comment Response Table

Draft Environmental Assessment for the Conveyance of the American Museum of Science and En

Parcel G, and Parcel 279.01 to the City of Oak Ridge, Tennessee

E-3

Comment

No.

Page or

Sheet Comment Response

John A. Owsley (TDEC , DOE Oversight Division)

1. The statements notifying potential property owners of

acceptable risk in the groundwater should also indicate levelsof potential liabilities and responsibilities. It is suggested thatwhen “use” of groundwater is mentioned, a clarificationshould be inserted so that no “use classification” can be madeexcept as prescribed by Tennessee Water Control Act, T.C.A.69-3-105(a)(2).

Parcel G was reviewed under the South Campursuant to the FFA. However, Parcel G was noted in the RI/FS as being contaminated. Awill include in the deed for Parcel G approprigroundwater use as has been the policy for ptext in Sect. 4.4.1 will be clarified to indicate for groundwater can be made except as prescControl Act, T.C.A. 69-3-105(a)(2).

Paul C. Boyer, Jr. (City of Oak Ridge)

2. The EA describes the purpose of the proposed action is to

preserve the museum as an asset to the City and to thesurrounding region. The real property transfers are intended tohelp offset economic losses resulting from DOE downsizing,but also to help offset the City's long-term cost of operatingthe museum. My letter to ORO Manager Leah Dever datedMarch 27, 2001, and Ms. Dever’s October 3, 2001 response,acknowledge the importance of AMSE as an attraction to theCity and of Parcel G in meeting DOE's and the City’scommon objectives.

A sentence will be added to the EA in Sect. stating that the proposed action is also intendCity’s long-term cost of operating the museu

3. I recommend that the Parcel G. boundary be reconfigured to

exclude all three Swine Waste Ponds, as these are liabilities

and add no value to the development potential of the parcel.

Parcel G as currently configured includes thWaste Ponds. For purposes of analysis, the pEA. Reconfiguration of the Parcel G boundacould be a topic of discussion between the Cnegotiations for the actual transfer.

4. Because deed restrictions and reversion clauses will have an

impact on the marketability of the property, I recommend thatthese institutional controls be avoided for the subject parcelsunless there is clear evidence of contamination that cannot beremediated. Easement and deeds should contain language that

is consistent with the model established during the recentwater plant transfer.

Land transfers are not accomplished on any tailored to each specific action. The subject oreversionary rights will be addressed during 
Comment Response Table

Draft Environmental Assessment for the Conveyance of the American Museum of Science and En

Parcel G, and Parcel 279.01 to the City of Oak Ridge, Tennessee

E-4

Comment

No.

Page or

Sheet Comment Response

5. I recommend that the boundary of Parcel G be reconfigured

to incorporate the gravel access road, which begins at the gateand runs along the northern border of Parcel G parallel withthe Bethel Valley right-of-way and fence. By doing so,marketability would be enhanced, and the development wouldminimize further disturbance of environmentally sensitiveareas, particularly along Scarboro Creek.

DOE acknowledges the City’s comment abo

6. I recommend that ownership of all artifacts be transferred to the

City as part of the museum conveyance; otherwise, DOE wouldstill be actively engaged in museum operations, significantlyreducing any benefit associated with the proposed action.

It is DOE’s intention to maintain ownership artifacts and archives currently on display or Prior to the transfer, DOE will conduct an incontained within the museum and make a deitems have cultural/historical significance anthe National Historic Preservation Act. It is that do not have a historical significance reqtransferred to the City.

7. Since it does not appear that the TDOT project encompassed the

entire remaining 57 acres, and it is unclear why the parcel wasreduced to such a degree, I respectfully request that DOE reviewthe situation and move to declare more the land surrounding thesubject acreage excess to the agency’s needs. Such an action willsignificantly enhance the marketability and cost-effectiveness ofdeveloping the site, and will provide a greater assurance thatDOE’s and the City’s objectives as stated in the EA are met.

The scope of this EA was defined by the City’2001 to DOE requesting the transfer of Parcel response to the City’s letter dated October 3, 2of Parcel G being considered was 18.62 acres.

8. Sect. 3.2.2 Finally, several minor corrections and one clarification are

recommended. Section 3.2.2 pertaining to air quality states thatAnderson County would not meet the new ozone standard andRoane County would not meet the new standard for very fineparticles if the standards were implemented. Since thesestandards have not been finalized by the EnvironmentalProtection Agency, statements suggesting noncompliance aremisleading and should not be included in the final EA.

The last sentence in Sect. 3.2.2 will be deleted.

9. Sect. 3.9.2;

pg. 5-3

Section 3.9.2 incorrectly states that the AMSE obtains refuseremoval services from the City of Oak Ridge. The City doesnot provide this service. Page 5-3 refers to the Boeing SiteDevelopment. The new name for this development is RarityRidge.

The statement about refuse removal services wname for the former Boeing property will be ad
Comment Response Table

Draft Environmental Assessment for the Conveyance of the American Museum of Science and En

Parcel G, and Parcel 279.01 to the City of Oak Ridge, Tennessee

E-5

Comment

No.

Page or

Sheet Comment Response

10. Sect. 4.8.1.3 Section 4.8.1.3 describes the possible fiscal impacts of the

proposed conveyance on the City. The final EA should includeadditional information regarding the current budget for AMSE ascompared to the projected $1.7 million budget the EA stateswould be required to operate the museum in years 1-5, and $1.8million in years 6 and beyond.

DOE will obtain and present the current AMto provide a comparison to the projected $1.

11. The sentence in paragraph two of this section beginning “An

increase of $1.8 million . . .” should read “An increase to $1.8million . . .”

The text in the second paragraph will also be increase to $1.8 million...”

Jo Ann Thompson

12. I ask that the 3.36 acres of wetlands including the Scarboro

Creek flood plain be protected by D.O.E. by placing permanentrestrictions on Parcel G, prohibiting destruction of the wetlandsand flood plain, prior to transfer of Parcel G to the City of OakRidge.

The 3.36-acre figure in the Draft EA includeParcel G and the adjacent DOE property to twithin the Parcel G boundary only total aboudevelopment that might occur having the powetlands and floodplain would be subject to Engineers and TDEC including obtaining an

D.E. White

13. I would prefer to see the transfer of AMSE to a private

endowment.

Comment noted. The proposed action includparticipating in a development campaign desendowment for the museum.

Lloyd Stokes (ORHPA Rep.)

14. AMSE EA is one the best that I have reviewed in several years.

My only concern is that DOE “put restrictions” on museumbuilding, land adjacent to museum and the cultural resourcesowned by DOE to prevent their disposal/sale to anyone but a“foundation” by the City of Oak Ridge. The nation andcitizens of Oak Ridge need the AMSE to build our greatestindustry—tourism and the Manhattan Project. This should bedone to satisfy the NHPA, Executive Order 11593 and, ofcourse, NEPA requirements. Why has AMSE not beensubmitted for the National Register of Historic Places?

It is not DOE’s intention to place restrictions museum facility and the adjacent property. Hintention to maintain ownership of historic and archives currently on display or stored at the mDOE will conduct an inventory of the items coand make a determination on which items have significance and require protection under the Nworking with the TN-SHPO to ensure the propmanagement of these resources. The proposed Battelle participating in a development campan endowment for the museum. The AMSE be eligible for the NRHP because it does not is not yet considered to be an historic proper
Comment Response Table

Draft Environmental Assessment for the Conveyance of the American Museum of Science and En

Parcel G, and Parcel 279.01 to the City of Oak Ridge, Tennessee

E-6

Comment

No.

Page or

Sheet Comment Response

Ed Westcott

15. My choice - Transfer to Private Endowment, UT-Battelle has

resources to raise funds. Oak Ridge contractors have plenty ofsources to raise money. Let them sell property to raise tax moneyfor City. Keep the City out of this. City has no business trying torun a museum. Museum cannot pay its way now. City is not inreal estate business. Let DOE sell property. City cannot be stuckwith Parcel G—too many restrictions. DOE take bids onParcel G or turn over to City to sell.

Comment noted. The proposed action includparticipating in a development campaign desendowment for the museum.
Fig. 1.1. Vicinity map for AMSE, Parcel G, and Parcel 279.01.

1-3
Fig. 3.1. American Museum of Science and Energy and associated property.

3-2
Fig. 3.2. Parcel G.

3-3
Fig. 3.3. Parcel 279.01.

3-4