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, Tennessee06-179(E)/013007 iii 

## CONTENTS

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

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

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ...................................................................................................vi i

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 AC TION .............................................................................................................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 SO ILS.........................................................................................................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 ........................................................................................................4-106-179(E)/013007 iv 4.2.2 No Action ..................................................................................................................4-2 4.3 GEOLOGY AND SO ILS.........................................................................................................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 CUMULA TIVE 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 COM PLIANCE .....................................................................................................6-1

7. LIST OF AGENCIES AND PER SONS CONTACTED...................................................................7-1

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

APPENDIX A CORRESP ONDENCE 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-106-179(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/m 2 ), and biomass (g fish/m 2 ) at Scarboro Creek for spring 1999

− 2001 ..........................................................................................................................3 -11 Table 3.2. Animal species of concern reported from the ORR a ...............................................................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 character istics: Anderson and Roane counties.........................3-15 Table 3.5. Race or ethnic distribution for Oak Ridge City popul ation: 2000 .........................................3-15 Table 3.6. City of Oak Ridge revenues and e xpenditures, FY 2005 and b udgeted FY 2007 ($).............3-1606-179(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 Organi zation 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 Departme nt of Transportation TN-SHPO Tennessee State Historic Preservation Officer06-179(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 Complex06-179(E)/013007 1-1 

## 1. INTRODUCTION

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

The proposed action evaluated in this environmen tal 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 al so intended to help offset the long-term cost of operating the museum. The purpose of the proposed action is also to conve y 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 eliminati on 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 economi c 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 re ducing 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 AM SE’s operation through the Oak Ridge Landlord account. The decision to eliminate AMSE’s federal funding st emmed from concerns raised by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) about whether the ope ration 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 Sc ience, testified on March 1, 2000, before the House Subcommittee on Energy and Environm ent that “alternative funding mech anisms 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 c ontractor, UT-Battelle, prov ide, by October 31, 2000, a plan for AMSE’s financia l 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 provi ded 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 cont ractors, DOE-ORO has provided oversight of the museum’s contracts and management policies. In Octo ber 1998, DOE transferred management responsibility for the museum, including supervision of AMSE’s opera ting 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 AM SE. 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 roughly06-179(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 Pa rcel 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 Pl ace. 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 im pacts 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 Envir onmental Quality (CEQ) regulations [40 Code of Federal Regulations ( CFR ) Parts 1500

− 1508] 1 implementing National Environm ental 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 poten tial 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 u se in prescribing restrictions to protect, preserve, and enhance the human environment and natural ecosystems.

Certain aspects of the proposed action have a gr eater 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 unconta minated 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 determin ation. 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 e ndowment, the AMSE would be able to fund its $1.8 million annual budget without the need for furthe r allowable cost revenues from DOE contractors. This funding would come from increased AMSE reve nues, 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, “Transfe r 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 fe deral funding for the museum’s operation has been eliminated due to OMB concerns (see Sect. 1.2). Pa rcel 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 de veloped 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 Pa rcel 279.01 (0.662 acres), it could be suitable for a small office or retail business. The open property lo cated 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 environmen tal 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, BW XT 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 con tinued 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 determin ed 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 requi rements of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 and the Federal Pr operty Management Regulations (41 CFR Parts 101-47 and 109) govern this process. The GSA screens other federal agen cies 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 histori cal 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 ft 2 , two-story building that includes 8 exhibit halls, 2 lecture/demonstration rooms, a 300-seat audito rium, 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 stor age trailer and warehouse located behind the main facility provide an additional 2300 ft 2 . 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 be hind 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 Par cel 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 wast e 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 dr ainage also cross the site. A narrow riparian zone and some wetlands also occur along the creek. Near by 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 in cludes a soccer field and an office supply business. A vacant parcel and the Laboratory Road entrance to the Roane Stat e 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 Am bient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) set by EPA for six principal pollutants considered harmfu l to public health and the environment. These pollutants include particulate matter with an aerodyn amic diameter less than or equal to 10 microns (PM 10 ) and 2.5 microns (PM 2.5 ) in diameter, sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ), lead (Pb), and ozone (O 3 ). 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 relativ ely good. However, Anderson County has been designated as a non-attainment area for the 8-hr ground level O 3 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 (PM 2.5 ) 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-s ignificant-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 so utheast of Oak Ridge. PSD standards exist for SO 2 , NO 2 , 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 Tenn essee consists of Cambrian- to Ordovician-age sedimentary rocks that occur as northeast-southwest-tr ending 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 inte rnal 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 pa rallel valleys and ridges characteristic of the region. Erosion-resistant sandstones, siltstones, dolomites, a nd 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 ne tworks 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 unde rlie the AMSE (Hatcher et al. 1992). This unit consists mostly of the Chickamauga Limestone w ith minor components of siltstones and shales.

There are no detailed geologic inve stigations of the Parcel 279.01 site . Regional geologic maps indicate that the undivided members of the Chickamauga Gro up 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, shal e-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 fo rmed 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 textur es 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 disturban ce 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 brie f duration (<2 consecutive days) from early winter to early spring (December to March).

Prime farmland is land that has the best combina tion 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 seek s “... to minimize the extent to wh ich federal programs contribute to the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland s 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 incl ude 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 as sociated with the remaining geologic units in the area, including the Chickamauga Group that underlies Pa rcel G. Hydraulic conductivity and potential yield in the ORR Aquitards is generally low and highl y 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, drinki ng, 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 th at 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 th e AMSE or at Parcel 279.01. No groundwater monitoring wells are located within Parcel G. M onitoring wells are located on the adjacent ORISE Scarboro Operations Site. A 1991 site investigation of the Scarboro Operations Site identified a small06-179(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 prope rty. 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 propert y title at the Anderson County Courthouse notifying potential property owners to the contamination. Groundwater samples are analyzed for TCE, associated degradation products, and physical a nd 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 th e museum parking lot and the city of Oak Ridge’s storm sewer system, which both eventually di scharge 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 Scar boro Creek, an intermittent stream, and three old farm ponds. Storm water runoff from Parcel G and porti ons 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 Ri dge, 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 th e creek is about 10 ft wide and 0.5 ft deep. The watershed of Scarboro Creek covers about 640 acres. Estimated mean a nnual discharge in Scarboro Creek is about 13 gal/second/mile 2 . Stream flow is sustained by grou ndwater during the dry periods, making Scarboro Creek a gaining stream in the vicinity of Parcel G.

There is an unnamed, intermittent tributary to Scar boro Creek on Parcel G. This stream drains the south side of Chestnut Ridge, north of Be thel 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 a nd 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; howev er, Pond 3 is rare ly 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 lo cations were within the site, one location was just north of Bethel Valley Road, and three lo cations were upstream within the UT Arboretum.

No volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were de tected, 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 upstrea m 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 sample s 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 wate r samples were also collected from the swine waste ponds. No VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, or polychlorinat ed 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. Al uminum 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 inform ation 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 sm all watersheds (Gamble 1983). Using this technique, the maximum flood depth for the 100-y ear flood was estimated at 5.32 ft above base flow.

3.5.2 Wetlands

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) defi nes wetlands as “those area s 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). Wetla nds usually include swam ps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. In identifying a wetland, three character istics 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 pr operty or with Parcel 279.01. Parcel G and the adjacent DOE property to the south support a palu strine emergent/scrub-shrub wetland system along Scarboro Creek totaling approximately 3.4 acres. All we tlands 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 floodplai n 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 be ing considered for conveyance are located along Scarboro Creek and total about 1 acre. These wetlands ra nge in width from 5 to 30 ft and flank the creek as it crosses the parcel. Wetland vegetation consists of persistent and nonper sistent, herbaceous, and wetland shrubs. Periodic flooding of Scarboro Creek a nd numerous groundwater se eps 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 stat e. Although they were originally created to treat swine waste, that function ceased decades ago when an imal research operations ended at Parcel G. Since that time, the ponds have maintained their hydrol ogic status and now suppor t wetland vegetation. Both ponds now function as isolated wetlands. This is esp ecially true of Pond 3, which has developed as a periodically inundated wetland dominated by persis tent and nonpersistent em ergent wetland plants. Additional information about the we tlands 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 27 9.01 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 mo wed lawns with scattered trees in a park-like setting that surrounds the museum building and parking lot. Te rrestrial habitat at Parcel 279.01 consists of a mixture of grasses and common lawn weeds that are pe riodically 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-redced ar 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 ol d 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 availa ble, wildlife species that would be expected to occur at AMSE are those species ty pically 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 in clude 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 ( Sigmodo n hispidus ), eastern harvest mouse ( Reithrodontomys humulis ), and beaver ( Castro canadensis ).

Parcel G also provides habitat that can support a va riety of bird species including most of the species listed above for the AMSE and Parcel 279.01. Other speci es 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 (A ccipiter 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 sam pling that has been conducted by ORNL during spring 1999

− 2001.

Table 3.1. Fish species, density (individuals/m 2 ), and biomass (g fish/m 2 ) 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, E nvironmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, to Jimmy Groton, Science Applica tions 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 a quatic beetles. Due to temperature extremes, high biological oxygen demand, and the isol ated nature of the ponds it is unlik ely that the ponds contain any fish.

3.6.4 Threatened and Endangered Species

Table 3.2 lists animal species know n to be present on the ORR (exc luding 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 mo llusks, 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 uncomm on 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 harri er, 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 manage ment, 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 ORR a

Legal status b 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 peregrinus c Peregrine falcon E Haliaeetus leucocephalus d 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 st ate 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 Servi ce (FWS) to inform them about the proposed action and to obtain the latest information on federally lis ted 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 conduct ed 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 code a Aureolaria patula Spreading false-foxglove River bluff T Carex gravida Heavy sedge Varied S Carex oxylepis var. pubescens b 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 michiganense c 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 grandidentata d 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-tre sses 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 fro m the ORR by the impoundm ent at Melton Hill.
d Populus grandidentata was reported in two ORR locations. One of the repor ts was confirmed, but the tree died during the
year.

3.7 CULTURAL RESOURCES

Cultural resources are defined as any prehistoric or hist oric district, site, building, structure, or object considered important to a culture, subculture, or co mmunity 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 prope rties and, thereby, are potentially eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).

No intact cultural resources are known to be pr esent or thought to exist on the AMSE property and Parcel 279.01. This is based on the highly disturbed na ture 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 rema in 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 site06-179(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 offe red 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 condu cting these interviews and may serve as the potential repository for tapes and transcripts of ORR oral histories.

Based on previous disturbances from activities associ ated 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 conduct ed an archaeological survey of th e area. Based on the survey findings and research at the Tennessee Division of Archaeolo gy and the Tennessee Histor ical Commission, DOE has determined that no historic properties would be affected by the propos ed action. It was also determined that the proposed action would have no impact on any s ite or property included in the NRHP pursuant to 36 CFR 60.4 and no further archaeological investig ations 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 prim ary impacts will affect the city and nearby populations. To generate the most conservative estimates of potential impact, the ROI includes only these tw o counties. Actual impacts may be di stributed over a wider area, because Anderson County is also part of the Metropolitan St atistical 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 inco me, 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 sa me period (Bureau of Economic Analysis 2006).06-179(E)/013007 3-15 Table 3.4. Demographic and eco nomic characteristics: A nderson 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 di sadvantaged 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 popula tion 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 distributio n for Oak Ridge City population: 2000

Race or ethnic group Number Percent Not Hispanic or Latino

White 23,517 85.9 Black or African Amer ican 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 Latino a 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-American s comprised 29.6% of the population in tract 201, and other minorities (including two or more races) co mprised 10.5%. For all other tracts in the area, minorities comprised 20% or less of the population. Fo r comparison, minorities represented 21.0% of the06-179(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 A nderson 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 tract s 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 Oa k 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 presen ted 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 reve nue 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 ba sed 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 uses a (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 f und, solid waste fund, economic diversification fund, de bt 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 Tu lane Avenue, but it can also be accessed from Badger Avenue. Parcel 279.01 is located on the corn er of Laboratory Road and Administration Road.

Road access to Parcel G is more limited. Th e 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 c onnects with the ORISE Scarboro Operations Site gravel service road. Additional limited access is located off of Pumphou se 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, ventila ting, 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 e ach parcel would change over time as development occurs. Buildings and other structures would be co nstructed to support vari ous 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 th e large, open area between Tulane Place and South Illinois Avenue on the AMSE property would be deve loped 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 offi ces. 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 o ffice building. This parcel c ould 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-ft 2 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, an d 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 carb on monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, PM 10 (inhalable particulate matter with pa rticles less than 10 μm in diamet er), and hydrocarbons. Emissions of particulate matter would c onsist primarily of airborne soil. Emissi ons 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 would06-179(E)/013007 4-2 decrease concentrations of pollutants in the ambient ai r as distance from the construction site increased. Increments of pollutants due to workers’ vehicles and construction vehicles a nd equipment would not be expected to cause any exceedance of primary or secondary NAAQS.

Not all of the area available for construction w ould 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 constructi on and upgrading, a nd grading/contouring. Increases in PM 10 concentrations due to fugitive dust from excavation and earthwork would probably be noticeable at each site and in the immediate vicinity, and ambient c oncentrations of particulate matte r 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 natura l gas and diesel fuel. However, the types of commercial/industrial uses likely to be developed woul d 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 e xpected 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 woul d 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 alte r 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 build ings 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 id entifies 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 woul d 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 qua lity 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 committe d to urban development. All three parcels under consideration lie within the city of Oak Ridge an d have been zoned to include nonagricultural uses06-179(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 th e 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 fo r other environmental restoration actions to occur at other areas in the Scarboro Creek watershed. Howe ver, 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 ma terial, or waste spill; or a sewer line leak (during construction and operation of faciliti es). 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 cons truction 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. Imp acts would primarily be a change to the water quality (pH, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, etc.) that coul d affect vegetation and a quatic biota. Soil erosion impacts would be mitigated through the use of best management practices (BMP s) (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. Constructi on of new facilities could require state storm water runoff permits. Wastewater from industrial and commerc ial operations would be pretreated (if required) and discharged to the city of Oak Ridge sewage treat ment 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 a nd 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 thr ough 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 the06-179(E)/013007 4-4 quantities of materials with the potential to affect su rface or groundwater (e.g., fuel) would be transported or stored at the construction sites in the proper contai ners 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 gr oundwater monitoring and appropriate environmental restoration measures would be continued, if needed, in the vicinity of Parcel G. Appropriate mitigation measures are considered and implemented fo r these activities under the CERCLA review and documentation process. Impacts to surface water or groundw ater 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 assessm ent 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 i nherently 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. A dverse 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 adver se 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 conve yance 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 av oided and mitigation measures are implemented. Conveyance of the AMSE and Parcel 279.01 would have negligible adve rse impacts because these s ites are in intensively developed portions of Oak Ridge with marginal availa ble 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 developmen t of Parcel G would have an im pact on terrestrial habitats at Parcel G. Habitat loss would include areas of mana ged 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 likel y impact would be the elimination of one or more fragmented terrestrial areas or narrowing of areas alr eady 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 thr ee 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 eff ects on plants and terrestri al habitats. Blending construction with the natural setting of the area woul d result in fewer impacts and mitigation measures.

If construction activities could not avoid direct impacts to aquatic re sources, appropri ate permits would be obtained prior to any disturbance. These unavoi dable direct impacts woul d be minor and temporary because the resources that would be impacted are li mited, 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 fl ow could affect the plant sp ecies, riparian habitat, and the fish and macroinvertebrate species found in the impacted creeks and draina ge ditches. Larger flow volumes could scour banks and substrat es 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, mi nimizing the impact, or miti gating the impact if avoidance or minimization is not possible would address impacts to ecological resources. Impacts fro m construction woul d be considered short-term and minimal, and would be mitigated th rough the establishment of stream buffer areas and the use of BMPs (e.g., erosion controls). Natural habita t around the areas of proposed development would be left as a buffer zone between the developed areas and other undeveloped porti ons of the site. Areas disturbed during construction, but not needed for f acilities, would be revegetated after construction is completed. The use of native species for revegeta tion 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 associ ated with any new developments. An increase in the capacity of existing storm water re tention ponds and outfall structur es (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 othe r 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 cons istently met, degradation of aquatic habitat would not be expected.

The potential for a spill or leak also exists fro m the normal operation of new and existing facilities. Impacts to biota could include direct mortality, inju ry, and degradation of the impacted habitat. Because of the limited habitat and biota at the site, these im pacts would probably be mi nor to moderate, and the affected resources would be expected to recover with in a few months to a year, depending on the severity of the spill or leak.

No federal- or state-listed threatened and endange red plants or animals are known to exist at any of the three parcels under evaluation. However, the FWS i ndicated (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 determin e 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 pr ovide potential roosting habitat for the gray bat are present within 4 miles of Parcel G. Although the ulti mate 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 potentia lly suitable roost trees ava ilable 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, lo cated adjacent to Parcel G, provide additional suitable foraging habitat for both species. The FWS dete rmined that the biological assessment is adequate and concurred with DOE’s conclusion of not lik ely to adversely affect (see Appendix A).

4.6.2 No Action

No additional impacts to terrestri al 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 propo sed 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 ow nership 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 arch aeological 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 property06-179(E)/013007 4-7 included in the NRHP pursuant to 36 CFR 60.4. The TN-SHPO concurred w ith 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, bottle s, weapon projectiles, a nd 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 cont acted, and consultation with the TN-SHPO would be initiated and completed prior to an y further disturbance of the discovery-site area.

4.7.2 No Action

There would be no impacts on cultural resource s under the no action alternative. No cultural resources are believed to be present on the AMSE prope rty 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 im pacts 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 Populati ons, 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 sugg est 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 popul ations. 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 popul ations. Any adverse impacts that affect the low-income tracts are also likely to affect th e 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 de veloping the conveyed land would create less than 80 direct full-time-equivalent jobs. This figure repr esents 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 th e 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 manuf acturing 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 propert y is conveyed to the city of Oak Ridge or to a private entity, the success of fundraising and developm ent efforts, and whether the city chooses to fund any portion of the Museum’s operations. Potentia l positive impacts include additional tax revenue generated by the acquisition, sale, and/or devel opment 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 unsuccessfu l, 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 lo ss 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; commer cial 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 de velopment would further increase the value of the property and associated real estate taxes. In add ition, 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 unsucces sful 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 a bout 5% over the 2007 budge t 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 ar e likely to be smaller because the city w ould 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 disproporti onate effect on minority or low-income populations within the ROI. However, if the DOE contractor s could no longer continue funding for AMSE, the museum could be forced to limit hours of operation or cl ose. 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 subs tantially increase the chance of accidents occurring. However, installing turn lanes, additional traffic sign als, 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 cha nges 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 th e vicinity of any of the parcels. At the baseline level of activity, traffic volume is considered to be with in 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. Constructio n 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 th e 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, a nd 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 noise06-179(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 norma l background. Sound levels would be expected to dissipate to background levels within a relatively short distan ce 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 noi se. 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 th e potential for intentional destructive acts was not performed. After review, it was determined that th e likelihood of such acts for the properties being considered for conveyance is extremely low. It is poss ible 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 agen cy 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 r easonably 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). Ho rizon 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 fo r lease to CROET, who in turn is subleasing these facilities to priv ate sector firms (DOE 1997). With the onset of the accelerated clea nup plan for ETTP, DOE has begun to transfer title to some buildings and land parcels to CROE T. To date, six buildings, totaling over 300,000 ft 2 , have been transferred and work is progre ssing on the transfer of additional facilities (CROET 2006). As cleanup is progres sing, DOE and CROET are transiti oning the former gaseous diffusion plant to a private industrial park know n as the Heritage Center. Commerci al use of these facilities does not constitute a change of the primary use of the propert y, 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 occupy ing 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 cu rrent enriched uranium and other processing operations; and the Beryillium Capability Project, wh ich will upgrade an existing facility. Many existing facilities have been demolished to prepare for the new construction that bega n 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 mode rnize some ORNL facilities, maintain ORNL’s competitive research and development capabilities, e nhance worker health and safety, and reduce operating costs. The FRP includes constructing new facilities on brownfie ld 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 c onstructed in Bethel Valley near the main ORNL entrance, near the West Portal in Bethel Valley, a nd 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 Faciliti es 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 ft 2 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 mil es 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 comp leted in late 2001 and is expected to house industries that will provide about 500 jobs. Industries lo cated 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 Reac tor 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 remaini ng land is rolling to rough terrain, having an 8 to 20% slope (ORCC 1999). The devel opable land contains tracts w ith 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 indus trial development of the property (ORCC 1999).

Pine Ridge Development. In 1969 the city of Oak Ridge acquire d 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 transfe rred 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 th e former Boeing property in western Oak Ridge (Roane County). The developer purchased about 120 0 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 industria l to mixed use. The most recent Rarity Ridge plan06-179(E)/013007 5-3 calls for 3,000 to 4,000 new housing units and 500,000 to 1,250,000 ft 2 of commercial space. More than 100 acres are planned for parks, 17 acres for active recrea tion, and more than 30 acres will be retained as a preserve with limited access. In a ddition, 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, nort h 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 (F ocus 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 coul d potentially remove an additional 1,600 acres of land. However, the majority of the ETTP area bei ng 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 indust rial land use. The conveyance of the AMSE and associated property, Parcel G, and Parcel 279.01 woul d 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 tre nd in the Roane and Anderson counties area does present such a potential. Other types of industrial developm ent, 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 PM 10 , 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 c ould be minimized by application of wetting agents during dry periods.

5.2.3 Socioeconomics

Major industrial initiatives include reindustrializa tion 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 includ es plans for commercial development. The cumulative impact of new developm ent is likely to result in increased population, employment, and income. The parcels included in the pr oposed 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 cumu lative development will de pend 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 ta x revenue will depend on the value of the properties, future tax rates, and any tax abatements that may be negotia ted. 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 reside nts’ actual buying patterns.

5.2.4 Transportation

Cumulative transportation impacts in Roane a nd Anderson counties could occur from increased development and growth. These potential impacts could be combined with ongoing environmental restoration and decontamination and decommissi oning activities on the ORR and with the planned expansion of the state highways by TDOT. The main transportation im pact of commercial and industrial development would be an increase in average daily traffic volumes.

Associated with increases in traffic is the poten tial for an increased number of accidents, additional noise and air pollution, and road deterioration and da mage. 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 su ffer temporarily reduced business while customers avoid affected areas because of traffic delays. In creased pavement deterioration and damage could increase costs associated with mainta ining 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 ai r pollution in the local area because emissions from motor vehicles are poorly regulated.

5.2.5 Biodiversity

The greatest threat to reduced bi odiversity 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 subseque nt 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 Ce nter (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 dur ing construction, and cooling wate r 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 clear ing 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 be ing managed by the state as a conservation easement under a license from DOE. Additio nally, 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) (4 2 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.) requires federal agencies to ensure that their actions are consistent with th e 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 viol ations 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 doc ument for federal actions occurring in nonattainment areas or in certain designated mainte nance areas when the total direct and indirect emissions of nonattainment pollutants (or their precursors) exce ed 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 c ould occur in the vicinity of the proposed action. If DOE determines that any threatened and endangere d 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. 15 31, et seq.). The TDEC-Division of Natural Heritage database is also often checked for listings of sensitive sp ecies 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 pr ime 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 sha ll: (1) identify those uses that are restricted under federal, state, or local floodplains or wetlands regu lations; (2) attach other appropriate restrictions to the uses of the propert y; or (3) withhold the property from conveyance.”

CERCLA 120(h) establishes many requirements for tr ansfer 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 respon sible for seeking and obtaining federal, state, and/or local permits and licenses for any proposed pre-constr uction, construction, and operation activities Regulati ons implementing the CAA, Clean Water Act of 1972, Nuclear Regul atory Commission rules, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, Safe Drinking Water Ac t 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 AN D 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 Cook eville, 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 Commer ce 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 Socioeconomics06-179(E)/013007 7-2 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.06-179(E)/013007 8-1 

## 8. REFERENCES

AMSEF (American Museum of Scie nce 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 Genera l Demographic Characteristics 2000: Files for Tennesseeand 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: C onstruction 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 Fi ve-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 Im pact (FONSI) and Environmenta l 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 R esponse, Compensation, and Li ability Act Section 120(h) Report for Parcel G, Oak Ridge, Tennessee , DOE/ORO-2126A, June.

DOE 2002b. Comprehensive Environmental R esponse, Compensation, and Li ability 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 Se curity 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/a rticle/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/2001p ubs/c2kbr01-1.pdf, a ccessed November 8, 2001.

Hatcher, R. D., et al. 1992. Status Report on the Geology of the Oak Ridge Reservation , ORNL/TM12074, Oak Ridge National La boratory, 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/stori es/032206/com_20060322009.shtml , accessed March 22, 2006.

Gamble, C. R. 1983. “Technique for Estimating Dept h of Floods in Tenne ssee,” 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 th e Tennessee Agricultural Experiment Station.

Munger, Frank 2006. “Munger: $1.4B SNS key to ‘ec onomic 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 comm unication 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 Lawr ence Young, Community Reuse Organization of East Tennessee, to Sharon Bell, Science Applica tions International Corporation, November 8.06-179(E)/013007 8-4 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.06-179(E)/013007 

## APPENDIX A

CORRESPONDENCE LETTERS06-179(E)/013007 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANKUNITED 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)

### 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 Ridge06-179(E)/013007 

## APPENDIX B

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE OF RULE06-179(E)/013007 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANKTHIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

B-1006-179(E)/013007 

## APPENDIX C

WETLANDS ASSESSMENT06-179(E)/013007 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK06-179(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, Tennessee06-179(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, Tennessee06-179(E)/01300706-179(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 A LTERNATIVE............................................................................................. 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. .................................................................................................. ...................... 406-179(E)/013007 C-iv06-179(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 Engineers06-179(E)/013007 C-vi06-179(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). Wetla nds usually include swam ps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. In identifying a wetland, three character istics 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 enhan ce the natural and beneficial functions of wetlands. The order also requires federal agencies to take acti on to minimize or mitigate the destruction, loss, and degradation of wetlands. The sequence of mitigation measures should emphasize the following:

• avoiding actions in wetlands, in cluding new construction or work , unless there is no practicable alternative to that action; and

• minimizing harm should the only practicable alterna tive require that any particular action take place in a wetland.

The executive order applies to activities in furt herance 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 pa rties, DOE shall (1) identify those uses that are restricted under federal, state, or lo cal 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 construc tion 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 follow ing 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 bei ng considered for conveyance from DOE to the American Museum of Science and Energy Foundation, city of Oak Ridge, or other managing entity. The other two06-179(E)/013007 C-2 parcels are the American Museum of Science an d Energy (AMSE) and associated property and Parcel 279.01, neither of which contain wetlands. Th e 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 Oa k Ridge and the surroundi ng 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 th e 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 r esult from commercial and industrial activ ities. 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 s outheast 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 Sout h 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 S ite 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 remain s 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 so uth 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 ar e 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, the re are three ponds that were created to treat swine waste when Parcel G was actively associated with ope ration 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 hol ds water for relatively s hort periods and supports a wetland plant community.Fig. 1. Vicinity map for Parcel G.

C- 3Fig. 2. Wetlands at Parcel G.

C-406-179(E)/013007 C-5 2.3.1 Scarboro Creek Wetlands

Wetlands at Parcel G are located in the floodplai n 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 Scarbor o 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 litt le 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 inunda tion 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 mea dow 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. Domi nant plants include softstem bulrush, soft rush, and fowl manna grass. Indicators of wetland hydrology in clude 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 grayis h brown (10 YR 5/2) silt loams and clay loams with reddish mottles, manganese nodules, and oxidized root channels.

Wet meado w wetlands around Scarboro Creek embaym ent are dominated by n onpersistent 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 biologica l, chemical, hydrological, a nd physical functions generally recognized as being valuable to society (Adamus et al. 1991, Brinson 1993). So me commonly recognized wetland functions include groundwater di scharge, floodflow alteration (flood storage), sediment stabilization, sediment/toxicant retention, nutrient removal/transfor mation, 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 func tions depends on the charac teristics of the wetland and the magnitude of the inputs.

The wetlands at Parcel G perform various biological, chemical, hydrol ogical, 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 dist urbance 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 pr oposed 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 we tlands may result from activities occurring directly in wetlands or effects may result indirectly from ac tivities 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 wetlan ds in any way would be subject to regulation by the federal and/or state government. The entity that develops Parcel G woul d be required to comply with applicable federal, state, and local laws, rules, or or dinances 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, includi ng compensatory mitigation. This language w ould 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 include06-179(E)/013007 C-7 restoring or enhancing wetland h ydrology to increase the hydroperi od in wetlands, planting additional species of wetland plants to increase diversity or stru cture, 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 advers ely 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 th at would occur within wetlands and that could cause adverse effects to normal wetland functions would re quire 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 ac tivities or draining wetlands by installing culverts or ditches to remove water. Dir ect 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 pe st species to colonize wetlands, thereby diminishing the diversity and quality of wetland habitat. Examples of indirect positive impacts include contro lling soil erosion, controlling or preventing sp ills or leaks of oil or other chemicals from construction equipment, using pesticides or herbicides safely to prevent contam ination 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 infl uence 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 y ears 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 (rest oration). 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 impact s 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 cause06-179(E)/013007 C-8 permanent impairment of wetland functions and valu es. 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, a nd 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 Cree k 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 Tenn essee Valley Authority (TVA). USACE regulates activities in wetlands and other sp ecial 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 (Tennesse e Administrative Code 69-3-108). TVA regulates all construction, operation, or maintenance of stru ctures 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 Certifica tion 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 fede ral storm water regulations to minimize erosion and sedimentation would also need to be met.

In general, TDEC has lower thres holds for disturbance to wetlands a nd 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 s ituations, TDEC would serve as the lead regulatory agency. The sequencing for regulatory review by US ACE 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 imp act 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 conservatio n easements or other real estate instruments that preclude access to wetlands. This can be accomplishe d 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 contro ls, and protection of ecologically sensitive areas; and (4) other restrictions on future uses of any tran sferred property. For administrative controls to be effective, wetland boundaries should be surveyed and ma rked in the field prior to transfer; appropriate restrictions would be placed in deeds, maps, and pl ats; appropriate buffer zones would be defined and required; and tenants could be prohi bited 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 woul d adversely affect wetlands to the absolute minimum required for the project to continue. Mini mization 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 wh en no practicable alternative exists to avoid or minimize disturbance in wetlands. Compensation ma y require creation of new wetlands, restoration of drained wetlands, preservation of unique wetlands , or enhancement of degraded wetlands. Most regulatory agencies prefer that compensatory mitiga tion 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 restoratio n, 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 compensati on 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 se cure all applicable permits prior to initiating work in any wetlands. Permit conditions would stipulate wh ich activities could occur in or around wetlands on transferred parcels. Regulatory pe rmits 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 de veloped for light industria l 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 Par cel G is about 1.0 acre. DOE would retain control over the remaining 2.4 acres of wetla nds 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 inhe rently cause adverse imp acts 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. A dverse impacts would include any activity that eliminated or reduced the ability of wetlands to pe rform their normal biological, chemical, hydrological, and physical functions. Some or all of the wetland s 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 up land 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 sp ecial aquatic resources would also be subject to regulation by USACE, TDEC, and possibly TVA. Propo sed projects would be required to follow normal sequencing during regulatory review to avoid and mi nimize adverse impacts to wetlands at Parcel G. Compensatory mitigation should be used as a last r esort 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 Inte rnational Corporation, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.06-179(E)/013007 C-11 DOE 2007. Environmental Assessment, Proposed Conveyan ce 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 Internati onal 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-1206-179(E)/013007 

## APPENDIX D

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT06-179(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 2002THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK01-262(doc)/041702 D-5 BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT FOR THE PROPOSED TR ANSFER OF PARCEL G BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY TO THE CITY OF OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE

SUMMARY

This biological assessment (BA) assesses the potentia l 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 c oncludes 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 suitabl e hibernacula or roosting ha bitat for gray bats are present at Parcel G. However, caves that could pr ovide potential roos ting habitat for the gray bat are present within 4 miles of Parcel G. Although the ultimat e use of Parcel G by the city of Oak Ridge may eventually require removal of trees, potential summer roos ting 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 with in Parcel G is not considered to be good foraging habitat for gray or Indiana bats since it is a narrow, sm all stream with limited riparian habitat. In addition, the Clinch River, Melton Hill Lake, and lower Scar boro 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 as sessment is the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) conveyance of the American Museum of Science and En ergy (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 fo r 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 bou nd the impacts analysis. Scenarios identify potential tenants; utilities and infrastructure; areas to be excluded from develo pment; and a range of emissions, effluents, and wastes that could result from commercial and indus trial 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 So uth 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 remain s within Parcel G. Nearby land uses include the Y-12 Plant buffer area, Bethel Valley Industrial Pa rk, 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 a nd has been used in the past for hay production.

Large shrubs and scattered tree saplings dominate thr ee smaller parts of the site. These areas include the buffer around and between the three former swine w aste ponds, part of the Scarboro Creek floodplain, and part of the hillside along the south-central pr operty 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 holdi ng 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 minima l 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 fl ows from the east into Scarboro Creek wooded uplands toward the access road. The stream channels of both cr eeks 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 pl ants 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, mottl es with brighter chromas, and manganese concretions.D-801-262(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 a nd any potential adverse effects on the species from the proposed action are summarized below. Unless otherwise noted, general biol ogical information on the species is derived from the published litera ture, 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 Kent ucky Bat Working Group (KBWG) (2000). The core range of the endangered gray bat encompasses th e cave regions of Alabama, northern Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, and Tennessee, but a few occur in northwestern Florida, west ern 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 requi rements. These restrictions result in about 95% of the population’s hibernating in only eight or nine cav es. 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 fa r 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. On e-way migrating di stance between winter and summer caves may vary fro m as little as 16.09 km (10 miles) to well over 321.8 km (200 miles). Mating occurs as bats return to wi nter 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 th e following spring. A few hundred to many thousands of pregnant females congregate to form maternity co lonies. Males and nonreproductive females gather in smaller groups to form what are known as bachelor col onies. A single pup is born in late May or early June. The young begin to fly 20 to 25 days after birth. Gray ba ts primarily feed on flying in sects 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 ca binet in Building 9204-3 at the Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant. The bat was probably an isolated individual juvenile th at 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 lowe r Bear Creek near its confluence with lower EFPC. Th e creeks in this area provided good gray bat foraging habitat at the time of the surveys. No gray bats were recorded among the six sp ecies 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 defini te, 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 [Maj or (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 tw o 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 surveys01-262(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 migra ting gray bats. Suitable foraging habitat for gray bats within the vicinity of the proposed facility includ es the Clinch River and the Scarboro Creek embayment. Scarboro Creek is a narrow, small stream and is consid ered 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 w ould also not directly impact any potential foraging habitat that exists in the vicinity , and all construction activit ies would only occur during the day, so any nearby foraging by gray bats would al so not be disrupted. Activities associated with the operation of any new facilities woul d 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 af fect 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 ge neral biological information on the Indiana bat is derived from FWS (1991, 1999a, 1999b, 2000), Harv ey (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. Fo r 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. Ho wever, 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 m 2 (300 bats per ft 2 ), although as many as 5165 bats per M 2 (480 per ft 2 ) 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 ripari an 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 l oose bark. The suitability of any tree as a roost site is determined by (1) its condition (dead or alive), (2) the qu antity 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 th e 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, esp ecially 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 male s are found in other caves during summer. Researchers have found that primary roosts are generally in openi ngs 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., ol d fields), along the borders of croplands, along wooded fencerows, and over farm ponds in pastures. I ndiana 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 ag ain in May through June 1997 (Harvey 1997). The 1997 survey included portions of lower Bear Cree k near its confluence with lower EFPC. The creeks in this area provided Indiana bat summer roosting and foragi ng 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 ha ve 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 Nationa l Forest in Graham County, North Carolina. This discovery represents the first record of a reproductiv e 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. Th ese reports indicate that summer colonies of the species may be present in east Tennessee. The habita t from which these individuals were collected is similar to suitable habitat found on the ORR.

Although there is no suitable summer roosting habitat fo r the Indiana bat on Parcel G, there is probably suitable habitat along Haw Ridge, which borders Parc el G to the south. Although unlikely, a maternity colony, an adult male colony, or individual Indiana ba ts 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 narro w, small stream and is considered suboptimal for frequent foraging for Indiana bats.

Any construction activities on Parcel G would likely re quire removal of trees at the site. Clearing of the woodland at Parcel G should not adversely affect Indi ana 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 Ma y 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 w ould also primarily occur during the day and would not be expected to disrupt any Indiana bats that might forage near the site. In a ddition, the light industrial or commercial operations that are likely to be de veloped would not produce significant emissions or effluents that could directly impact foraging Indian a bats or indirectly affect aquatic insect fauna on which the Indiana bats would prey. Thus, the proposed tr ansfer 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 Corpora tion, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1991. Endang ered 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 Wester n North Carolina, A Status Summary Update. Asheville Field Office. April.

Harvey, Michael J. 1992. Bats of the Eastern Un ited 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 He nry, Tennessee Valley Authority, to Mike Deacon, Science Applications Intern ational 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 comm unication 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 Laborat ory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

Webb, Warren. 1996. Personal communication with Deborah Awl, JAYCOR, September 18.06-179(E)/013007 

## APPENDIX E

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS06-179(E)/013007 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANKComment Response TableDraft Environmental Assessment for the Conveyance of the American Museum of Science and Energy,Parcel G, and Parcel 279.01 to the City of Oak Ridge, Tennessee

E-3CommentNo.Page orSheetComment ResponseJohn A. Owsley (TDEC , DOE Oversight Division)1.The statements notifying potential property owners ofacceptable risk in the groundwater should also indicate levelsof potential liabilities and responsibilities. It is suggested thatwhen “use” of groundwater ismentioned, 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 Campus Facility RI/FS in 1995pursuant to the FFA. However, Parcel G was not part of the propertynoted in the RI/FS as being contaminated. As a matter of policy, DOEwill include in the deed for Parcel G appropriate restrictions prohibitinggroundwater use as has been the policy for previous land transfers. Thetext in Sect. 4.4.1 will be clarified to indicate that no “use classification”for groundwater can be made exceptas prescribed by Tennessee WaterControl Act, T.C.A. 69-3-105(a)(2).Paul C. Boyer, Jr. (City of Oak Ridge)2.The EA describes the purposeof the proposed action is topreserve 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 EAin Sect. 1.1 (Purpose & Need)stating that the proposed action is also intended to help offset theCity’s long-term cost of operating the museum.3.I recommend that the Parcel G. boundary be reconfigured toexclude all three Swine WastePonds, as these are liabilitiesand add no value to the development potential of the parcel.Parcel G as currently configuredincludes the three former SwineWaste Ponds. For purposes of analysis, the ponds will remain in theEA. Reconfiguration of the Parcel G boundary to exclude the pondscould be a topic of discussion between the City and DOE duringnegotiations for the actual transfer.4.Because deed restrictions and reversion clauses will have animpact 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 thatis consistent with the modelestablished during the recentwater plant transfer.Land transfers are not accomplished on any “model” basis and aretailored to each specific action. Thesubject of deed restrictions andreversionary rights will be addressed during subsequent negotiations.Comment Response TableDraft Environmental Assessment for the Conveyance of the American Museum of Science and Energy,Parcel G, and Parcel 279.01 to the City of Oak Ridge, Tennessee

E-4CommentNo.Page orSheetComment Response5.I recommend that the boundary of Parcel G be reconfiguredto 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 about access to Parcel G.6.I recommend that ownership of all artifacts be transferred to theCity 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 of historic and scientificartifacts and archives currently on display or stored at the museum.Prior to the transfer, DOE will conduct an inventory of the itemscontained within the museum and make a determination on whichitems have cultural/historical significance and require protection underthe National Historic Preservation Act. It is assumed that those itemsthat do not have a historical significance requiring protection would betransferred to the City.7.Since it does not appear that the TDOT project encompassed theentire 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’s letter dated March 27,2001 to DOE requesting the transfer of Parcel G (18-20 acres). DOE’sresponse to the City’s letter dated October 3, 2001 also stated that the sizeof Parcel G being considered was 18.62 acres.8. Sect. 3.2.2 Finally, several minor corrections and one clarification arerecommended. 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. 5-3Section 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 will be corrected and the newname for the former Boeing property will be added.Comment Response TableDraft Environmental Assessment for the Conveyance of the American Museum of Science and Energy,Parcel G, and Parcel 279.01 to the City of Oak Ridge, Tennessee

E-5CommentNo.Page orSheetComment Response10. Sect. 4.8.1.3 Section 4.8.1.3 describes the possible fiscal impacts of theproposed 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 AMSE budget in the final EAto provide a comparison to the projected $1.7 million budget.11.The sentence in paragraph two of this section beginning “Anincrease of $1.8 million . . .” should read “An increase to $1.8million . . .”The text in the second paragraph will also be revised to read “Anincrease to $1.8 million...”Jo Ann Thompson12.I ask that the 3.36 acres of wetlands including the ScarboroCreek flood plain be protected by D.O.E. by placing permanentrestrictions on Parcel G, prohibiting destruction of the wetlandsand flood plain, prior to transferof Parcel G to the City of OakRidge.The 3.36-acre figure in the Draft EA includes the wetlands withinParcel G and the adjacent DOE property to the south. The wetlandswithin the Parcel G boundary only total about 1 acre. Prior to anydevelopment that might occur having the potential to impact thewetlands and floodplain would be subject to regulation by the Corps ofEngineers and TDEC including obtaining any applicable permits.D.E. White13.I would prefer to see the transfer of AMSE to a privateendowment.Comment noted. The proposed action includes UT-Battelleparticipating in a development campaign designed to establish anendowment 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 on the City regarding themuseum facility and the adjacent property. However, it is DOE’sintention to maintain ownership of historic and scientific artifacts andarchives currently on display or storedat the museum. Prior to the transfer,DOE will conduct an inventory of the items contained within the museumand make a determination on which items have cultural/historicalsignificance and require protection under the NHPA. DOE is currentlyworking with the TN-SHPO to ensure the proper curation andmanagement of these resources. The proposed action includes UTBattelle participating in a development campaign designed to establishan endowment for the museum. The AMSE has not been determined tobe eligible for the NRHP because itdoes not meet the NRCE and, thus,is not yet considered to be an historic property.Comment Response TableDraft Environmental Assessment for the Conveyance of the American Museum of Science and Energy,Parcel G, and Parcel 279.01 to the City of Oak Ridge, Tennessee

E-6CommentNo.Page orSheetComment ResponseEd Westcott15.My choice - Transfer to Private Endowment, UT-Battelle hasresources 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 sellproperty. 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 includes UT-Battelleparticipating in a development campaign designed to establish anendowment for the museum.Fig. 1.1. Vicinity map for AMSE, Parcel G, and Parcel 279.01.

1-3Fig. 3.1. American Museum of Science and Energy and a ssociated p roperty

.

3-2Fig. 3.2. Parcel G.

3-3Fig. 3.3. Parcel 279.01.

3-4