ML23047A427

Comment (12) E-mail Regarding TRISO-X EIS Scoping

ML23047A427
Person / Time
Site:	Triso-X
Issue date:	02/02/2023
From:	Public Commenter Public Commenter
To:	NRC/NMSS/DREFS
NRC/NMSS/DREFS
References
87FR77146
Download: ML23047A427 (65)

Text

From:

dougcolcl@aol.com Sent:

Thursday, February 2, 2023 1:34 PM To:

TRISOX-EIS Resource; Matthew Barrett; Jill Caverly

Subject:

[External_Sender] Docket ID NRC-2022-0201D-TRISO-X NRC -EIS Review-NRC Permit Issunce -- ED-1 -- North Boundary--- Horizon Center -- Public Input Attachments:

Cold_War_End_Y_12_Last_Weapon_Made_1993.JPG; ORR_Land_Use_Study_Group_2002_Part_One.pdf; ORR_Land_Use_Study_Group_2002_Part_Two.pdf; BORCE_Management_Plan_Final_12_2005.pdf; Map_North_Boundary_Greenways_BORCE_1_Horizon_Center_Area_4_2 6_2021.jpg TRISOX-EIS@nrc.gov Docket ID NRC-2022-0201 in subject line CC: Matthew Barrett & Jill Caverly-Matthew.Barrett@nrc.gov,

Jill.Caverly@nrc.gov

Dear Jill & Mat:

What follows is an accounting of the quest to development Horizon Center.

This information offers awareness as you prepare NRC response to the TRISO-X permit request. It is gathered from IDB meeting minutes going back 15 years, news reports going back even longer, and attending IDB meetings, CROET meetings,O. R. city council meetings, and other meetings. The point of this documentation is to help assure protection &

safety of environmental and low impact recreational values of the natural and cultural landscapes surrounding/within the Horizon Center site of the TRISO-X fuel fabrication facility.

While the TRISO-X mfg facility and purpose has great local economic value and national importance in addressing the priority of climate change mitigation, it is important to not lose track of the fact that the proposed site and surrounding lands are of great value to our community and our environment. And protecting them needs to receive equal focus in EIS steps to issuing a nuclear materials manufacturing permit. Hopefully the following offers valuable content in helping achieve a balanced & timely NRC permit decision.

Please feel free to forward to your colleagues and piers as you judge.

---Thanks, Doug Summary:

Over the last 30 + years the number of Incremental land use decisions regarding the west end Oak Ridge Reservation landscape have been

considerable. Each succeeding designation has had some bearing on the whole but each has taken place with sometimes limited consideration on the whole. Documented assurances of environmental protection have at times played out differently with reality. For example preserving the forested canopy greenway & sensitive natural areas on the north border of Horizon Center from a power line clear cut (that would have compromised the number one environmental tenet - Exclusion Area protection ) has taken 11 years and hundreds of public appeals. This is an example of a document that DOE issued being inconsistent with the the Exclusion Area restrictions spelled out in the original FONSI, see "link" below.

BJC/OR-3567 -- Environmental Study Report Proposed 69-kV Delivery Point Horizon Center, RoW Adjacent to BORCE, April, 2011 https://doeic.science.energy.gov/uploads/E.0505.076.1312.pdf And here is just one example of dozens of public challenges to the Power Line RoW determination, referenced above.

https://aforr.info/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/AFORR-letter-to-DOE-Kelly-regarding-Powerline-2012-2.pdf It was in late 2022 that it was determined there was a power line RoW option that avoided serious environmental damage while providing electric service to H. C. Area 6 and other undeveloped Areas at the front of H. C.

Construction of this RoW option is underway and should meet the TRISO-X schedule.

The following is an itemized listing of the lengthy history of Economic Development Area 1 ( ED-1 ). I appreciate that you were clear in your hosting the TRISO-X permitting public briefing and hearing in O. R. in mid January, that your decisions and guidance for a nuclear facility on H. C.

Area 6 will take into account not only safety but compatibility with and environmental protection of the surrounding landscape. As you saw on your site tour this greenfield is unique. It is surrounded by and segregated within by 2300 acres of conservation lands and 18 miles of greenway trails.

Approximately 8 miles of these trails are single track professionally built woodland trails. If you have reason to return to O. R. at some point I invite you to join me on a visit to one of these single track dirt tread greenways.

Often not mentioned is that over the 30 years there has been one constant that has incrementally increased in economic value to the community & environment with minimal natural resource impact and that is the recreational and wildlife habitat ecological value of the greenway trails and conservation lands on all 3 sides and within Horizon Center.

For example the total BORCE area has a value of $6.6 million in

compensation mitigation of Manhattan Project/Cold War operations damage to Watts Bar lake. See Oak Ridge Reservation Natural Resource Damage Assessment Evaluation of Contaminant-Related Losses in Watts Bar Reservoir and Gains from the Black Oak Ridge Conservation Easement (BORCE) -- Final Report l 18 September 2008 https://doeic.science.energy.gov/uploads/G.0719.065.0012.pdf https://doeic.science.energy.gov/uploads/G.0719.009.0011.pdf

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

This ORR landscape is bounded by Rt 58 & Blair Rd ( TN State Rt 327

) to the west, Rt.95 to the east, Guard house and fence line boundary to the east & north. I like to think of it in total as the North Boundary (NB ) area. Approximately 2800 acres of which about 480 acres in 6 parcels, is designated for development and identified as Horizon Center ( H. C. ).

The identification/decision of what came to be ED-1 was considered a urgent priority for Oak Ridge self sufficiency beginning about 1993/mid 1990's. The perceived economic future of O. R. was far different at that time. The Cold War had ended, Y-12 had built the last bomb ( see attached

). At the time Pete Domenici was a powerful U. S. Senator representing New Mexico and was advocating that DOE, as part of nuclear weapons downsizing, consolidate all weapons National Defense operations at Los Alamos. This was not long after Gaseous Diffusion production and Gas Centrifuge R & D had been shutdown at K-25 in June 1985. And long before ORNL campus modernization, SNS, HEUMF, ETTP D & D of legacy facilities, UPF, proposed CoquiPharma isotope reactors, Kairos reactor, proposed airport, Oak Ridge Associated Universities modernization,

Techstar, Lithium process modernization at Y-12, Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation, TVA's SMR plans, General Fusion, Carbon Rivers, and obviously TRISO-X had been envisioned/reality. Not to mention the looming demands at that time on the City of Oak Ridge's aging infrastructure. Much of O. R. public facilities modernization has been addressed in the intervening years as well.

Even though scientists of several disciplines stressed there were many site topography, geology, environmental, wetland, & natural resource values/reasons not to designate ED-1 for development the business community prevailed driven by the anxiety over the perceived Oak Ridge

economic future. To meet the NEPA legal regulations, DOE opted for a less time consuming Environmental Assessment (EA ) for ED-1 as compared to a full EIS by stipulating the most sensitive areas as Exclusion Areas (natural areas ) for conservation protection. Thus the mosaic of boundary's between areas ( see attached map). Over the intervening years the Oak Ridge economy today has more high paying federally supported jobs than at any time since the Manhattan Project. And the prospect for even more.

For example on the jobs picture, some estimate O.R. population is 55,000 -

- say at noon on Wed and Saturday night population is 32,000.

Protecting the undisturbed natural resources has value -- the BORCE is valued at $6.6 million, see above "url-link".

As a historic example of natural landscape values -- If you have traveled west on I-40 you are aware the interstate diverts about 5 miles to the north of Memphis. In the mid 1960's when the Federal Highway Administration engineers were planning interstate highway routes the route through Memphis was laid out as a straight east west line, same as Nashville, &

Knoxville. Part of the reason for choosing this direct route through the city was shortest distance but more importantly was that much of the RoW required was public land -- in this instance a city park, and thus no cost, no eminent domain, or condemnation of private property - think considerable cost savings. The people said otherwise, that the city park that encompassed a virgin oak forest was not free, and after lengthy court battles that went all the way to the U. S. Supreme Court the interstate is where it is today. Diverts an extra 5 miles on the north side of Memphis.

This natural landscape has great value. See Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe -- wikepedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_to_Preserve_Overton_Park_v._Volpe

• Circa 1993 - Oak Ridge Business Community appeals for DOE to grant the city ORR greenfield land to support self sufficiency In 1995 Horizon Center was identified despite defensible opposition. 957 acres, of which about 480 acres released for economic development. Remainder protected as Exclusion Area per mitigated FONSI. Beginning in 1995, at the time of pending transfer, and over the following 3 years the DOE invested more than $10 million on grading, streets, and utilities. See attached map.

• 1996, ED-1 was officially identified even though there was wide spread public and scientific appeal to preserve environmental and natural assets that have great value recreationally and ecologically.

• A compromise was established with provisions to protect as Exclusion Areas ( with DOE ownership ) about half of the 957 acres These are the National Environmental Policy Act ( NEPA ) documents (Environmental Assessment ) that established and govern Economic Development area one ( ED-1).

Environmental Assessment Lease of Parcel ED-1 of the Oak Ridge Reservation by the East Tennessee Economic Council [Includes Finding of No Significant Impact]

https://doeic.science.energy.gov/uploads/E.0505.037.0657.pdf Environmental Assessment Addendum for the Proposed Title Transfer of Parcel ED-1 https://doeic.science.energy.gov/uploads/A.0103.037.0003.pdf Review of Parcel ED-1 Under Section 120 (h) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act and Section XLIII of the Federal Facility Agreement, August 11, 1995, Executive Summary https://doeic.science.energy.gov/uploads/E.0505.074.0207.pdf Implementation of Mitigation Action Plan for Parcel ED-1 on the Oak Ridge Reservation Oak Ridge, Tennessee https://doeic.science.energy.gov/uploads/E.0505.072.1340.pdf Mitigation Action Plan for the Protection of the Natural Area on Parcel ED-1 https://doeic.science.energy.gov/uploads/A.0103.072.0004.pdf

• ~1998 -- the established 489 acres of ED-1 for development were leased to East Tennessee Economic Council for low impact industrial development

/ office park.

• October 2000 - Formal ribbon cutting commemorating completion of DOE capital investment of ~ $10 million on Horizon Center infrastructure --

District 3 US Congressman Zach Wamp and other civic and business leaders were in attendance-See their signatures "welded" in a plaque at the Horizon Center dedication memorial - back side of Area 2.

• 2001-2002 west end Land Use focus Group Report compiled-see attached.

• December 2001 - CROET decides to stop "Ecological monitoring of ED-1 Exclusion Areas at the Horizon Center industrial park" DOE concurs.

Note: As part of the legal basis for a finding that the Horizon Center development would have no significant impact on the environment (and thus would not require an environmental impact statement) DOE agreed to monitor the effects of industrial park construction on the sensitive resources in designated Exclusion Areas., both during and after construction. DOE made CROET responsible for this monitoring.

• December 2002 BORCE Agreement between DOE & TDEC, 1500 acres of which adjoins ED-1 on two sides to be managed by TWRA as a State Natural Area.See link above and attached TWRA management Plan.

• Proposed NEPA action 2003 approximately 489 acres of the 957 -acre parcel consists of seven development areas, ranging in size from 11 to 98 acres. DOE will maintain ownership and control over the remainder of ED-1, which is referred to as Exclusion Areas - Natural Areas. Horizon Center LLC will continue the development of Industrial Areas of Parcel ED-I as an industrial/business park for research and development, medical technology, manufacturing, distribution, and corporate/office facilities. The proposed action does not differ substantially from the proposed action described in the EA prepared for leasing Parcel ED-I to CROET (DOE/EA-1113)- 1996, see "url link" above. The primary difference is that ownership of the developable portions of the property would be transferred to Horizon Center LLC. Industrial uses will still be limited to those analyzed in the 1996 EA and will be required to conform to the City of Oak Ridge Zoning Ordinance (Chap. 7, Sect. 6-713 IND-2, Industrial Districts ).

• September 2005, ED-6 ( adjoining ED-1 to the east, see map )

Documentation compiled - - 362 acres -- mostly mature Oak Forest (Joyce Kilmer example) of great ecological, greenway trails & natural resource value. As of 2023 there is strong likelihood ED-6 will never be transferred for development, but rather protected for its recreational ( about 5 miles of multiuse low impact greenway trails ) and ecological values. Perhaps incorporated into BORCE at some point. Trails on ED-6 have also become more & more popular, especially by adjoining Westwood HOA residents.

• 2010 CROET transfers ~ 50 acres (H. C. Area 4) to Tennessee Parks and Greenways Foundation ( now under TWRA management) for preservation based on its significant natural assets & riparian value and inaccessibility (

too costly-i.e. one to three bridges would have been needed to accommodate industrial development). You may have noticed the commemorative plaques along the greenway/gravel road designating this conservation agreement.

• 2010 CROET transfers Horizon Center to Oak Ridge Industrial Development Board but retains rights to be compensated $9500 per acre for sales of land.

• In October 2011 the IDB issues $350K contract for land clearing (Area 6).

Soon after clearing a previously unknown large sink hole in middle, began filling with rainfall runoff and stopped draining. IDB again contracted (

~$9100 ) this time for ditching (July 2013) to create drainage.

Horizon Center Industrial Development History and time line -

• April 1999 Theragenics purchases 21 acres on HC Area 3 and announces plans to construct $25 million isotope production facility. Equipped with

~$30 million in mfg equipment begins production in 2002. Closes down in 2005.

• October 2005 Philotechnics announces plan to locate mfg facility on ~5 acres of HC Area 6 - Operations continue-Employment perhaps 20 or less.

• July 2010 ORNL Federal Credit Union announces purchase of 37 acres

($25K per acre ) Horizon Center Area 2, for $ 30 million corporate headquarters, 357 employees. Never built. ORNL Credit Union instead re-directed their growth to North Shore along Pellissippi Parkway. The Credit union had the 38 acre Area 2 for sale for 10 years. It sold to R & R properties of Oak Ridge Nov 5, 2021 for $$29,000 per acre.

• August 2010 -- RSI-EnTech announces purchase of 11.75 acres at HC Area 1 for headquarters ($25K per acre ) - Employment projected to reach 120. After 10 years RSI-EnTech sells to MCLinc for new analytical lab.

MCLinc subsequently decides it too expensive to build on the site ( Area 1 )

because of "shot rock" surface rock, expensive to cut and fill. And subsequently trades the land to R & R properties for a vacant building owned by R & R Properties at 103 Mitchell Rd.

• March 2011 Construction begins on Carbon Fiber Test Facility for ORNL led carbon fiber R & D. --portion of Area 3 - Operational March 2013 -- The

$34.7 million Carbon Fiber Technology Center was built and equipped through a grant from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, better known as post 2008 stimulus funding. Originally owned in a joint venture that included R&R Properties of Oak Ridge and leased to Oak Ridge National Laboratory. There is a staff of ~ 22 for the operation, including 12 technicians who went through a special grant-funded training program offered by Roane State Community College.

• 2015 Carbon Fiber Test Facility land and improvements sold to -- 93 Palladium Way Properties LLC, Owner/Agent: 4525 Main Street, Virginia

Beach, VA 23464-ORNL continues to lease, conducting carbon fiber research. Operational 10 years to date.

• 2008 Theragenics facility ( 103 Palladium Way - H. C. Area 3 ) bought by Herb Newton ( founder of Nissan Auto Dealership in Oak Ridge now Oak Ridge Nissan) -- HLN Properties LLC

• March 2015 Gov. Bill Haslam, TnEcD Commissioner Randy Boyd ( now UT President ) and other state and local officials joined CVMR officials on March 13 to announce they will invest $313 million to establish its global headquarters (now in Toronto Canada ) in Oak Ridge and create the CVMR Center of Excellence for Innovation in Powder Metallurgy and production facilities, resulting in 620 jobs. Plans include purchase the former Theragenics facility. Prospective development discontinued a few months later due to misunderstanding on State Economic Development funding. CVMR is reported to have been offered incentives to keep their headquarters and production in Toronto Canada.

• July 2016 LeMond Composites buys former Theragenics facility/21 acres for $5.4 million. Announces plans for $125 million capital investment and 242 jobs. Announcement made by Governor, Tn Economic Development commissioner, and area business and government leaders.

• July 2020 LeMond Composites announces sale of facility ( unidentified new owner or use ) and move to Knoxville, 12 employees, 6 R & D and 6 Bicycle Mfg. Moved out August 4th, 2020.

• Feb 2020, IDB announces prospective buyer for HC areas 5, 6 & 7 to develop Motorsports Racetrack & Amusement Complex. A project that would not comply with O. R. zoning, HC covenants, Exclusion Areas, nor compatibility with surrounding greenway trails, and BORCE. Strongly opposed by nearby home owners & grassroots organizations. Fourteen months later after over 600 citizen objections, and the possibility of legal action ( violating Exclusion Areas ) -- in May 2021 DOE announces full EIS will be required for any decision to change land use from industry to other potential uses such as recreational - i.e. motorsports complex..

Prospective Motorsports complex developer decides to cancel land purchase contract to buy Areas 5,6, & 7 and any further appeal to DOE for use of the Exclusion Areas between the development areas..

• April 2021, NNSA -- Y-12 announces proposal to locate Y-12 Development Organization at 103 Palladium Way at H. C.. NNSA buys the land and facility from LeMond Composites, fall of 2021. What previously was paying commercial property taxes of $96,000 per year ( half City, half Roane County ) is now tax exempt. O. R. City Council not happy.

• July 2021 IDB announces strong development prospect code named project Liberty interested in H.C. Area 6 & possibly Areas, 5 & 7.

• August 2021 prospective developer hires engineering consultant contractors to begin due diligence, geotechnical, environmental, geologic, historical/cultural, and civil engr surveys. This intense due diligence continues uninterrupted for next 8 months. See at bottom.

• April 4th 2022 Project Liberty is identified as TRISO-X with sale of H. C.

Area 6 ( no cost ) to X-Energy. The FY-2022 IDB annual accounting audit places the book value of this 110.16 acres of H. C. Area 6 at $2,391,381.00 https://x-energy.com/media/news-releases/x-energy-triso-x-selects-oak-ridge-horizon-center-for-first-commercial-advanced-reactor-fuel-fabrication-facility-in-north-america Greater North Boundary Greenway Trails ( ~18 miles ) Timeline https://tnlandforms.us/greenways/gps/googlegwm.php click twice to look at this map in this "link", enlarge, switch to US Topo version, etc, in upper left corner, or other map versions as you choose.

• April 5, 1999: City Council Approval of DOE license agreement for designating the 7 mile single track gravel patrol road around perimeter as North Boundary Greenway

• April 5, 2002: Greenways OR requested/granted the inclusion of Quarry Road ( renamed East Fork Road & west and east Quarry Rd later on )

to the license agreement for North Boundary Greenway

• August 2004 City Licensed Wheat multiuse Greenway established,

License between Oak Ridge and DOE

• August 11, 2004: Meeting between DOE, COR, CROET and Greenways OR to discuss the Quarry Road and its inclusion into the license agreement for North Boundary Greenway

• August 10, 2005: License agreement between DOE and COR with approval from CROET and Greenways OR for previously licensed area plus W Quarry/Poplar Creek Road and Hunley Road

• 2009 McKinney Ridge trail developed -- TWRA & DOE sponsor and assisted by TCWP volunteers

• January 17,2012: Big Oak Trail on ED-6 License agreement between DOE and City. Professionally developed and hand built ( now maintained) by volunteers.

• 2013 Gallaher Cemetery trail established - Sponsored by TWRA and DOE ORR Contact. Professionally developed and hand built ( now maintained) by volunteers.

• In 2016 Sink Hole Trail on ED-6 -- easement agreement between DOE & Legacy Parks Foundation, Professionally developed and hand built ( now maintained) by volunteers.

• In 2017 Boulder Trail - Parallel to Sink Hole Trail on east side of ED-6

, easement agreement between DOE & Legacy Parks Foundation.

Professionally developed and hand built ( now maintained) by volunteers.

• 2020, Sinking Creek Trail tentatively approved, middle of ED awaiting final routing and sensitive plants review ( on hold due to pandemic restrictions ) Easement between DOE & Legacy Parks Foundation

• 2023 additional 2 miles of trails on ED-6 under review This North Boundary greenway trails system is a popular destination for trail runners, hikers, birding enthusiasts, cyclists as well as training area for University of TN and local high school track teams. The extended distance

~18 miles, loop options, even mileage split between dirt tread and gravel surface, moderate gradient, wide corridor, absence of vehicles, is especially appealing to families and those accompanied by their pets. And don't forget the forested canopy throughout. Once described by a O. R.

City council member on visiting for the first time -- "I can see why you advocate so strongly for this -- This is pristine." It is often the site for longer distance competitive running and cycling events. As well various ad-hoc group visits - bike shops, running clubs, birding clubs, weekly hiking groups, etc.

So circling back to the overall point of this public input, -- while this planned economic development ( TRISO-X ) has great potential/benefit &

compatibility for the O. R. economy and the U. S. national priorities, the greater "North Boundary" has now and will have ever increasing

importance to the O. R. and surrounding community environment and quality of life. A balance is achievable & now is the time to assure this is the outcome. We are headed in that direction with open and transparent dialogue like the first meeting in mid January, thanks to NRC's leadership.

.--Respectfully submitted, Doug Colclasure, Citizen of Oak Ridge

)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Horizon Center Area 6 Due diligence engineering & environmental consultants Project Liberty Code name for what eventually becomes TRISO-X --

Horizon Center Area 6.

The H. C. due diligence investigations began in August 2021 and continued through ~ June 2022.

• Surveying and Mapping - SAM www.sam.biz/about/history Surveying And Mapping Inc.

now Surveying And Mapping, LLC (SAM)was founded in 1994 to offer professional land surveying services, including digital aerial mapping; terrestrial, mobile and airborne LiDAR services; hydrographic surveying; subsurface utility engineering (SUE); utility coordination; and geographic information systems (GIS)

• Geovision - Geophysical Services geovision.com GEOVision offers a full range of high-quality geophysical data acquisition, analysis, and imaging services. GEOVision specializes in non-invasive methods of investigtion for engineering, environmental, groundwater, mining, and archaeological applications, including: Characterization of disposal areas. Contaminant detection and monitoring.

• Environment and infrastructure solutions l Wood www.woodplc.com/solutions/expertise/a-z-list-of...

A global leader in integrated environmental and infrastructure solutions. In a world of complex environmental and infrastructure challenges, Wood applies ingenuity, innovative technologies and customer focus to deliver balanced solutions that meet your specific business priorities.

Productivity, efficiency, capacity, asset life, costs, schedule, compliance, risk management, resiliency: your priorities are our priorities.

• M & W Drilling l Home mwdrillingllc.com M & W Drilling (MWD) is a company based on the traditions of hard work, integrity and client service. MWD's reputation forged over many years, is one for completing single well projects or complex, multi-faceted, high profile projects with a focus on safety, innovation, dependability and professionalism. MWD operates a total of 16 rigs...

Drilling Services Drilling Services: Environmental-Small and large diameter...

Sonic Drilling M & W Drilling has the Capability to Obtain Continuous Soil...

Direct Push Technology

Direct Push Technology Our DPT rigs are built by Geoprobe...

Well / Piezometer Installation Well / Piezometer Installation. Our material warehouse is...

Well Abandonment Services Our well abandonment services includes, grouting wells in...

Specialty Services Drilling methods with full containment include Air Rotary,...

From my greenway visits 3 to 4 times a week, i have 100's of pictures of these crews going over Horizon Center with literally a fine tooth comb.

Federal Register Notice:

87FR77146 Comment Number:

12 Mail Envelope Properties (71834501.1819352.1675362826065)

Subject:

[External_Sender] Docket ID NRC-2022-0201D-TRISO-X NRC -EIS Review-NRC Permit Issunce -- ED-1 -- North Boundary--- Horizon Center -- Public Input Sent Date:

2/2/2023 1:33:40 PM Received Date:

2/2/2023 1:37:50 PM From:

dougcolcl@aol.com Created By:

dougcolcl@aol.com Recipients:

"TRISOX-EIS Resource" <TRISOX-EIS.Resource@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None "Matthew Barrett" <Matthew.Barrett@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None "Jill Caverly" <Jill.Caverly@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None Post Office:

mail.yahoo.com Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 28866 2/2/2023 1:37:50 PM Cold_War_End_Y_12_Last_Weapon_Made_1993.JPG 2378103 ORR_Land_Use_Study_Group_2002_Part_One.pdf 4659957 ORR_Land_Use_Study_Group_2002_Part_Two.pdf 4369429 BORCE_Management_Plan_Final_12_2005.pdf 263441 Map_North_Boundary_Greenways_BORCE_1_Horizon_Center_Area_4_26_2021.jpg 3157321 Options Priority:

Normal Return Notification:

No Reply Requested:

No Sensitivity:

Normal Expiration Date:

Although messages varied, we heard some thoughts loud and clear from those participating in the process.

These included the desire to identify appropriate areas for development that could increase Oak Ridges tax base and job opportunities, and the desire to protect, through perpetual preservation, the special biological resources that make the Oak Ridge Reservation unique.

The results of this process, I believe, provide the groundwork to accomplish these goals within the planning area. And, in the end, the success of this process will be defined by not only what areas may become available for development, but also by what areas never ever do. Pat Parr, Project Manager Land Use Planning Initiative Shows Significant Accomplishments I

Maps of the Oak Ridge Reservation helped to facilitate discussions at the public meetings.

t has been an intense year of discussions, gathering input, scenario development, technical analyses, and meetings. Now the Oak Ridge Reservation Land Use Planning Process Initiative is drawing to a close.

Public participation throughout the process has been tremendous. The careful thought evident in so many of the comments was not only impressive, but strengthened the process and improved the resulting products. The Focus Group, meeting monthly, included 20 dedicated individuals with expertise ranging from economic development to community needs to environmental quality and protection. They were committed to making the process work. And it did.

OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY U. S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Initiatives Significant Accomplishments

¥ Increased public participation.

¥ Developed cognizance of diverse community values.

¥ Initiated constructive dialogue among community entities.

¥ Involved DOE programmatic participation.

¥ Involved elected officials and regulators.

¥ Identified land use scenarios for a portion of the Oak Ridge Reservation.

¥ Provided input for future planning documents.

¥ Provided a technical analysis report of the alternatives.

¥ Created the Focus Group report.

A key detail is checked at the September 9 public meeting.

Blackoak Ridge, with its large forested area, rises behind the East Tennessee Technology Park.

One portion of land under discussion lies along Bear Creek Road across from Bear Creek Industrial Park.

September 2002

Project Map (May 2002)

This preliminary feedback map shows the areas under analysis in pink.

T he Land Use Technical Report has been completed.

It evaluates the potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts, positive and negative, associated with the four land use scenarios. These scenarios were defined based on discussion and other input from the Focus Group and the public. A list of the analysis topics is given below.

• Socioeconomic

• Environmental Justice

• Interior Bird Species Habitat

• Other Biological Resources (includes threatened and endangered species)

• Wetlands

• Water Resources

• Soils and Geology

• Transportation

• Air Quality

• Utilities

• Noise

• Scenic Resources Public input at early stages of the planning process helped to clarify and validate the four scenarios.

This input was ongoing and valuable to the iterative analysis process. As a result of the public comment, the following changes to the technical report were made:

• expanded significantly information on biodiversity,

• addressed economic models and techniques for valuing biological resources,

• reevaluated water resource impacts using different assumptions,

• added a section on recreation, and

• added an appendix with a summary of comments.

The comment summary (Appendix M) includes comments received throughout the project from more than 70 individuals and organizations. The comments are organized into four categories: land use planning process, scenario preferences, the technical report, and miscellaneous. Similar issues were summarized, and a response was provided.

Major Conclusions

• The Focus Group process resulted in a significant degree of consensus on the best use of a large majority of the land in the study area.

• Impacts associated with the four land use scenarios were similar because 87% of the proposed uses were the same in each scenario.

• Socioeconomic/cost-benefit analysis shows that even the highest development scenario will not replace the expected loss of jobs and tax base by the city of Oak Ridge, but this development could be part of a potential solution.

• Biological resources (biodiversity, interior forest bird species, and surface water) could be most affected by the scenario with the development emphasis.

• Development of the east end of the study area (near Wisconsin Avenue) could have the most potential for biodiversity impact on a significant tract of the interior forest.

• Other topical areas revealed minor differences among scenarios.

ORR Land Use Planning Process Initiative September 2002 2

Land Use Technical Report Completed, Major Conclusions Reached Four Draft Scenarios

• Scenario 1

- Greenspace Emphasis

• Scenario 2

- Development Emphasis

• Scenario 3

- Modified Parcel ED-3

• Scenario 4

- Development North of Highway 58 Land Uses Within Each Scenario

• Greenspace, Conservation, and Research

- All four scenarios

• Light Industrial/Commercial

- All four scenarios

• Office

- Scenario 2

• Residential

- Scenarios 2, 3, and 4

• Open Space

- All four scenarios

Focus Group Report Provides General Agreement and Resolutions T

September 2002 ORR Land Use Planning Process Initiative 3

Marianne Heiskell, DOE contact for the planning process, and Mike Holland, acting DOE-ORO manager, as well as other DOE staff provided opportunities for interacting with DOE staff at the public meetings.

ORR Land Use Planning Process Focus Group members unanimously signed off on the Focus Group report at their final meeting on September 13 at the Midtown Community Center. Members of the Focus Group and Facilitation Team are (back row, left to right) Ralph Lillard, Bill Pardue, Mike Deacon (SAIC), Marianne Heiskell (DOE contact), Eric Rauch, Lawrence Young, Steven Alexander, Paul Boyer, Marshall Whisnant, Robert Kennedy, Pete Craven, Joe Valentino, and Barry Lawson (Facilitator); (front row, left to right) Lloyd Stokes, Lorene Sigal, Scott Davis, Pat Parr (UT-Battelle project lead), Dev Joslin, Dave Mosby, Marty Marina, and Dave McKinney. Members not present for photo were Focus Group members Beth Phillips, Parker Hardy, and Ray Evans; Facilitation Team member: Wayne Tolbert (SAIC).

An evaluation of the land use planning process rated the publics satisfaction regarding many aspects of the process on the basis of a 1 to 5 scale (5 repre-senting the highest satisfaction).

A thorough analysis of evaluations of the project is being prepared.

• Evaluation respondents were generally satisfied with the process (3.5) and its two main products, the Land Use Technical Report (3.5) and the Focus Group report (3.5).

• All respondents were highly satisfied with the cooperation of the DOE staff throughout the project (4.1).

Evaluation of Land Use Project he Focus Group of the Oak Ridge Reservation Land Use Planning Process met monthly from September 2001 to September 2002 to develop suggestions for the utilization of land in the northwest portion of the Oak Ridge Reservation. Principal results identified in the Focus Group report are as follows.

• For the four land use scenarios considered, there was general agreement on use of approximately 87% of the land under consideration.

• The Focus Group had mixed feelings about uses for the remaining land, as reflected in the discussion of and conclusions for the four land use scenarios.

Where there were some preferences, no one scenario could be judged as representing a consensus of the Focus Group.

• In considering these scenarios and the analyses of the relative impacts, the Focus Group agreed upon several values that should be reflected in any action regarding the disposition and management of the land. The five most highly ranked values were

1. protection of threatened or endangered species,

2. concern for water quality,

3. increase of the Oak Ridge tax

base,

4. concentration of any new industry, and

5. increase of number of jobs in Oak Ridge.

• The Focus Group drafted three resolutions concerning the ORR Land Use Planning Process. While not unanimous, the Focus Group recommends the following:

a. The Focus Group recommends that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) finds means for the perpetual preservation of land areas designated by the Focus Group for green space, conservation, and research purposes (see Project Map).

This recommendation holds regardless of which land use scenario, or combination thereof, that DOE decides to adopt for the western portion of the Oak Ridge Reservation as part of its Comprehensive Land Use Plan.

b. The Focus Group advises that the planning process used for the northwest portion of the ORR should be applied to the entire reservation as soon as possible and that stakeholder involvement has proved valuable and should be an integral part of future land use planning.

c. The Focus Group agrees and recommends that an economic evaluation of biological resources should be included in any analysis as an important means of providing decision makers with additional data for assessing the relative values of conservation and development.

Pat Parr, Project Manager Oak Ridge National Laboratory P.O. Box 2008 Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6038 Telephone: 865-576-8123 Email: parrpd@ornl.gov ORNL 2002-03991/jcn Next Steps T

ORR Land Use Planning Process Initiative September 2002 4

The George Jones Memorial Baptist Church, Wheat Historic District, can be viewed from Highway 58.

The goal of the Oak Ridge Reservation land use planning process has been to seek recommendations in developing a set of possible scenarios for portions of the Oak Ridge Reservation that may in the future no longer be needed for DOE mission purposes.

Publishing/Design by ORNL Creative Media at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, managed by UT-Battelle, LLC, for the U.S. Department of Energy under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725.

he information obtained through this land use planning process will be incorporated into the update of future Oak Ridge Reservation planning documents.

It will also serve as a valuable resource of data, input, and suggestions for DOE managers as various land use options are considered for the northwest reservation. The process used for the planning of the northwest portion of the reservation, with extensive stakeholder input throughout the process and expanded types of analyses, offers the framework of a model for future planning.

Copies of the Land Use Technical Report and the Focus Group report will be available at the end of September 2002 at the DOE Information Center 475 Oak Ridge Turnpike Telephone: 865-241-4780 The reports are also available online at the ORR Land Use Planning Process web site, http://landuseplanning.ornl.gov.

Oak Ridge Land Use Planning Focus Group-Final Report Final Report of the Oak Ridge Land Use Planning Focus Group September 2002

Oak Ridge Land Use Planning Focus Group-Final Report 02-182(doc)/091302 ii CONTENTS FIGURES.....................................................................................................................................................iii TABLES......................................................................................................................................................iii EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

.........................................................................................................................iv

1.

FACILITATORS INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 1

2.

BACKGROUND TO THE LAND USE PLANNING PROJECT....................................................... 1

3.

MISSION FOR FOCUS GROUP......................................................................................................... 2

4.

THE LAND USE PLANNING STUDY AREA................................................................................... 2

5.

SELECTING ISSUES AND SETTING FOCUS GROUP AGENDAS............................................... 4

6.

VALUES UNDERLYING THE DEVELOPMENT OF SCENARIOS............................................... 4

7.

PRELIMINARY FEEDBACK MAP................................................................................................ 5

8.

FOUR LAND USE SCENARIOS........................................................................................................ 6

9.

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS CONDUCTED......................................................................................... 6

10. CONSIDERING THE FOUR LAND USE SCENARIOS................................................................... 6

11. RESOLUTION ON LAND PRESERVATION.................................................................................. 12

12. RESOLUTION ON EXTENDING THE LAND USE PLANNING PROCESS TO THE ENTIRE ORR..................................................................................................................................... 12

13. RESOLUTION FOR EXPANDING THE ANALYSIS TO INCLUDE A BIODIVERSITY ECONOMIC EVALUATION............................................................................................................ 13 APPENDICES A

TIME TABLE FOR THE LAND USE PLANNING PROJECT B

FOCUS GROUP FACILITATION PROCEDURES C

FOCUS GROUP VALUES D

FOCUS GROUP STRAW VOTE ON PREFERENCES AMONG FOUR LAND USE SCENARIOS E

FOCUS GROUP MEMBERS AND ALTERNATES F

SIGNATURES OF FOCUS GROUP MEMBERS

Oak Ridge Land Use Planning Focus Group-Final Report 02-182(doc)/091302 iii FIGURES 1

Study Area map.................................................................................................................................... 3 2

Feedback map....................................................................................................................................... 7 3

Scenario One......................................................................................................................................... 8 4

Scenario Two........................................................................................................................................ 9 5

Scenario Three.................................................................................................................................... 10 6

Scenario Four...................................................................................................................................... 11 TABLES 1

Values That Both Economic and Environmental Perspectives Ranked Very Important (>3.50).............. 5 2

Values That Both Economic and Environmental Perspectives Ranked Important (> 3.00)................. 5

Oak Ridge Land Use Planning Focus Group-Final Report 02-182(doc)/091302 iv EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

The Oak Ridge Land Use Focus Group met, at the U.S. Department of Energys invitation, once a month from September 2001 to September 2002 to develop suggestions for the utilization of land in the northwest portion of the Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR). The principal results of this land use planning process are listed below.

General Agreement on Land Use Scenarios For the four land use scenarios considered, there was general agreement on use of approximately 87% of the land under consideration.

Multiple Options Suggested for Remaining Land The Focus Group had mixed feelings about uses for the remaining land, as reflected in discussions of and conclusions for the four land use scenarios. While there were some preferences, no one scenario could be judged as representing a consensus of the Focus Group.

Values Identified In considering these scenarios and the analyses of their relative impacts, the Focus Group agreed upon several values that should be reflected in any action regarding the disposition and/or management of the land. The five most highly ranked values, in decreasing order of importance, were:

1.

Protect Threatened/Endangered Species

2.

Concern for Water Quality

3.

Increase Oak Ridge Tax Base

4.

Concentrate Any New Industry

5.

Increase Number of Jobs in Oak Ridge Three Resolutions Drafted by Focus Group The Focus Group drafted three resolutions concerning the ORR Land Use Planning process.

While not unanimous, the group recommends the following:

A. Resolution on Land PreservationThe Focus Group recommends that the Department find means for the perpetual preservation of land areas designated by the Focus Group for green space/conservation and/or research purposes on the Preliminary Feedback Map (see Page 7). This recommendation holds regardless of the land use scenario(s), or the combinations thereof, that the Department of Energy decides to adopt for the western portion of the Oak Ridge Reservation as part of its Comprehensive Land Use Plan.

B. Resolution on Extending the Land Use Planning Process to the Entire ORRThe Focus Group resolved that the planning process used for the northwest portion of the ORR should be applied to the entire Reservation as soon as possible, and that stakeholder involvement has proved valuable and should be an integral part of future land use planning.

C. Resolution for Expanding the Analysis to Include a Biodiversity Economic Evaluation The Focus Group also agreed that including an economic evaluation of biological resources can provide decision makers with additional data for assessing the relative values of conservation and development.

Oak Ridge Land Use Planning Focus Group-Final Report 02-182(doc)/091302 1

1. FACILITATORS INTRODUCTION This Report was prepared during the summer of 2002 to present the conclusions, suggestions, and recommendations of the Focus Group. The Focus Group consisted of a broad cross-section of the community, as well as representatives from agencies and organizations having an interest in the future of Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR) land. By signing the statement at the end of the report (Appendix F),

members indicate their acceptance of this final report as representing the set of suggestions made and conclusions reached by the Focus Group. It is intended that the results of this study will become a part of the Comprehensive Integrated Plan for the ORR.

The public was invited to participate throughout the planning process at Focus Group meetings, an introductory open house and three public meetings, and through review and comment on the Draft Technical Report. The Technical Report contains an analysis of the relative effects of the four land use scenarios. A small number of the public attended most Focus Group meetings and over 50 members of the public attended some of the public meetings.

As the preparer of the Report and Facilitator for the Focus Group, I acknowledge my responsibility in its preparation for its content but with the caveat that it was reviewed and edited by Focus Group members. I also wish to express gratitude to all members of the Focus Group for their collaborative spirit throughout the project and for their assistance and cooperation in reviewing drafts and finalizing this Report. In promoting better communication and mutual understanding among sometimes competing interests, the land use planning process has benefited its participants and those who may be affected by its results and subsequent actions.

2. BACKGROUND TO THE LAND USE PLANNING PROJECT In August 2001, Leah Dever, then Manager of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)-Oak Ridge Operations Office (ORO), requested the assistance of several citizens and agencies to form a Focus Group in order to develop and supply suggestions on land use planning for the ORR. The Focus Group included 20 individuals with expertise on economic development, environmental and historic values, and community needs. UT-Battelle, working with DOE-ORO, formed a Facilitation Team to support the Focus Group. Please see Appendix E for lists of the Focus Group and Facilitation Team members.

Midway through the process, Michael Holland was appointed Interim DOE-ORO Manager.

From the beginning of the project in August 2001, the Focus Group met almost every month. The public was invited to attend all Focus Group meetings and was provided opportunities for comments at specific times at those meetings. The Facilitation Team met before each Focus Group meeting to prepare tentative agendas, invite and coordinate invited speakers, prepare handouts and technical materials, and help to organize the flow of information to Focus Group members. The Facilitation Team also organized and conducted public meetings, workshops, and field trips to the project site. A chart, highlighting the major activities of the process, is shown in Appendix A.

The initial meetings of the Focus Group were devoted to developing a common understanding of the purposes of the Focus Group and developing a set of procedures that all members of the Focus Group, plus the Facilitator and Facilitation Team, would follow during the project. Most of these procedures concerned how and when meetings would be held; the role of the Facilitator; and expectations that Focus Group members had for the project, as well as for themselves (see Appendix B).

Oak Ridge Land Use Planning Focus Group-Final Report 02-182(doc)/091302 2

3. MISSION FOR FOCUS GROUP Early in the land use planning process the following mission statement was developed by Focus Group members and the Facilitator.

The mission of the Land Use Focus Group is to provide DOE with recommendations in developing a comprehensive plan for the future use of the land resources of Oak Ridge Reservation that are currently or potentially surplus to DOEs mission for the next 20 years.

Special emphasis will be on a planning strategy for the next five years.

4. THE LAND USE PLANNING STUDY AREA At the beginning of the land use planning process, DOE had already designated some ORR land for economic development and was considering designation of more. Utilization of the ORR for DOE programmatic needs was stated as taking precedent over any other land uses. After a review of projected programmatic needs, DOE decided that the only ORR land that would be considered for this land use planning effort would be the northwest portion (see Fig. 1). It is understood that DOE retains fiduciary responsibility for the land retained for fulfillment of DOEs national mission.

DOE excluded several parcels of land within the northwest part of the ORR from consideration.

Areas excluded from the land use planning process were as follows:

Horizon Center (Parcel ED-1). About 1000 acres leased to the Community Reuse Organization of East Tennessee (CROET) for industrial development; East Tennessee Technology Park (ETTP), formerly the K-25 facility at Oak Ridge and often referred to as Heritage Center. About 1219 acres currently undergoing hazardous waste investigation and cleanup as part of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (Superfund) Program. DOE anticipates completion of the cleanup in 2008. However, the City of Oak Ridge and some land developers do not consider remediated land as prime industrial sites for new development; and A small site (Parcel ED-2) located along the Clinch River west of ETTP.

Also outside the purview of the Focus Group, but within the northwest study area, were a small site belonging to the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and a research area on Blackoak Ridge. In addition, TVAs former breeder reactor site (almost 1200 acres adjacent to the study area) was not considered.

However, TVA recently announced that about 10% of the site might be available and suitable for industrial development.

The final study area consisted of slightly over 5100 acres.

The Wheat Historic District was included in the land use analysis and deliberations although it was understood that the buildings, cemetery, grounds, and view shed were to be protected. Also included was Parcel ED-3, a separate area considered for possible release by DOE to CROET. The Tennessee Department of Transportation improvements to State Routes 58 and 95 that run through the study area were recognized, but considered beyond the purview of the Focus Group.

w 00 1'J c:

g

'2j

~

0......

'=I (IQ -

r.n c c..

-~

i;..

~

~

Land Use Planning Study Area Map KEY

_ _ Surplus or underutilized land C Mission areas Leased land (CROET)

Use Must be Compatible with Research EM Areas of Concern

~

CITY OF OAK RIDGE Bea~

Cr~k_13oa Bethel Valley Road

~l*~

Miles 9-12-02 Loindu:.e1

~

~

~

(\\)

t-

~

~

s;:

(\\)

l

~-

~

Q 0

c::i

-§

"'1

~

~

~

Oak Ridge Land Use Planning Focus Group-Final Report 02-182(doc)/091302 4

The Oak Ridge Regional Planning Commission had previously included the entire ORR in a yearlong land use planning effort. The result of that effort was the development of a variety of land use and zoning designations for the ORR. The Planning Commission proposed those designations for adoption by the Oak Ridge City Council. However, the City Council deferred its consideration pending the results of this Focus Groups conclusions. Subsequently, the Planning Commission and the City Council have established a new Federal Industry and Research Zoning designation for the entire ORR. That designation is essentially a place holder until specific land use determinations have been made.

5. SELECTING ISSUES AND SETTING FOCUS GROUP AGENDAS Throughout the land use planning process, the Focus Group guided the Facilitation Team in determining the issues to be addressed, the technical information to be included in the planning effort, and the general agenda for each meeting. The Focus Group made suggestions regarding the type of information to be collected and often arranged for speakers to be invited to address the Focus Group.

Guest speakers came from the economic development community, the City of Oak Ridge Department of Community Development, the University of Tennessee, and the environmental community.

At the same time, DOE brought evolving issues relevant to the land use planning process to the Focus Group at its monthly meetings. Often the input and thoughts of the Focus Group members were solicited on these issues. At other times, the purpose was primarily informative. A major objective of the Focus Group meetings was to ensure that members had the opportunity to hear and understand the various perspectives and interests represented on the Focus Group.

In general, all parties tried to identify issues or other background information that would help the Focus Group fulfill its mission. It was generally believed that the Focus Group would better reflect community feelings regarding land use planning in the study area if there was unanimity or consensus among Focus Group members on issues of importance. At the same time, there was a realization that it might not be possible to have such consensus on every issue; and in such cases, it was judged appropriate to include opinions shared by at least a number of members.

6. VALUES UNDERLYING THE DEVELOPMENT OF SCENARIOS While information shared by the Focus Group helped to sensitize members to the interests of others, each member maintained his/her own perspective on important issues related to alternative land uses for the study area. However, some members, believing that division among members was not as great as many feared, suggested testing the hypothesis. A survey was developed by the Facilitation Team to determine what values were shared/not shared among members. If there were even a few values on which there was significant consensus, they might provide a basis for agreement on some of the land use challenges.

Possible values were derived from Focus Group discussions, presentations, and other information presented to and shared by the Focus Group. In January 2002, the Focus Group members participated in the survey. The results, if averaged for the entire Focus Group, showed how important each value was to the members. More significantly, however, when the responses were divided into two categories -

responses from those with a primarily environmental perspective and responses from those inclined more toward an economic development perspective - it led to some even more revealing results. Appendix C contains a more complete description of the values survey.

Oak Ridge Land Use Planning Focus Group-Final Report 02-182(doc)/091302 5

Focus Group members had been asked, individually, to rank each value in importance from 1 - least important, to 5 - most important. Both subgroups scored 15 of the thirty values greater than 3.50 in relative importance and agreed in common on a set of five values - ranked 3.50 or higher for both subgroups. These are shown below (see Tables 1 and 2) in the order in which they were scored from the highest.

Table 1. Values That Both Economic and Environmental Perspectives Ranked Very Important (>3.50)

Value Overall (Eco, Env)

Protect Threatened/Endangered Species 4.26 (3.56,4.90)

Concern for Water Quality 4.22 (3.67,4.78)

Increase Oak Ridge Tax Base 4.21 (4.89,3.60)

Concentrate Any New Industry 4.06 (3.78, 4.33)

Increase Number of Jobs in Oak Ridge 4.00 (4.22, 3.80)

Table 2. Values That Both Economic and Environmental Perspectives Ranked Important (> 3.00)

Value Overall (Eco, Env)

Minimize Land Fragmentation 4.00 (3.33, 4.60)

Clean Up CERCLA Sites Quickly 3.89 (4.63,3.30)

Conserve Natural Resource/Wildlife 3.84 (3.33, 4.30)

Protect Natural Resources for a 15-year Period of Research 3.79 (3.22, 4.30)

Increase Commercial Development in Oak Ridge 3.79 (4.44, 3.20)

Conserve Forest Resources 3.61 (3.11, 4.11)

Concern for Air Quality 3.61 (3.44, 3.78)

Public Access to Natural Resources 3.58 (3.33, 3.80)

Preserve Historical/Cultural Resources 3.58 (3.00, 4.10)

Protect Existing Wildlife 3.58 (3.22, 3.90)

CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.

Subsequently, the same survey was given to members of the public attending the first public meeting.

The results were comparable, with some minor variation. In effect, the public survey substantially reinforced the value statements made by the Focus Group.

7. PRELIMINARY FEEDBACK MAP From the beginning of the land use planning process, it was assumed that the Focus Group would develop more than one land use scenario. It was also apparent that the Focus Group would be unable to reach consensus on a single land use scenario. However, DOE saw such an outcome as beneficial to its needs. The pros and cons of various scenarios would have been examined and comments from the Focus Group would serve DOE well as it moved forward with land use planning for the northwest area of the ORR.

With information concerning the values shared in common, the Facilitation Team sought comments on the existing and possible land use options for the study area. Members of the public and the Focus Group identified areas for conservation and/or development, and a preliminary map of these was prepared. After Focus Group discussion, clarification, and some modification to the map, the Facilitation Team produced a revised feedback map that became the basic tool for generating four land use scenarios. Formal agreement on the scenarios was achieved later in the process after the group discussed clarifications on intent.

Oak Ridge Land Use Planning Focus Group-Final Report 02-182(doc)/091302 6

The feedback map (see Fig. 2) shows that there was consensus on land use for approximately 87% of the study area and there were only a few areas where the Focus Group considered options. This map and the resulting four scenario maps were presented to the public at the second public meeting.

8. FOUR LAND USE SCENARIOS After presentation of the feedback map and the four preliminary scenarios to the Focus Group, four more well-defined land use scenarios were developed for analytical purposes. The Focus Group agreed on the details of each of the scenarios prior to analysis. Agreement did not mean the members preferred one or more scenarios, only that comparable analyses would be done for all four scenarios (see Figs. 3 through 6).

9. TECHNICAL ANALYSIS CONDUCTED From the beginning of this land use planning process, it was agreed that an impact analysis was appropriate. Input from the Focus Group gave direction to the types of analyses undertaken by the Technical Team. In addition, the important shared values (page 5) were used to identify areas of interest for analysis. For example, considerable attention was devoted to understanding the relative differences among the four scenarios regarding socio-economic factors (e.g., number of jobs and effect on local taxes). One important example of consensus building within the Group was the general agreement reached on some of the assumptions used to compute job and income projections as part of the socio-economic analysis in the Technical Report (see page B-1, Technical Report).

The Focus Group reached similar agreements on the following areas of interest and on the type and depth of analysis and the relative emphasis to be given to each:

Socio-economics Biodiversity Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Visual Resources Air Quality Interior Forest and Sensitive Habitat Surface Water Transportation Wetlands Utilities Noise and Light Pollution

10. CONSIDERING THE FOUR LAND USE SCENARIOS The Focus Group had, prior to any technical analysis, agreed that the four land use scenarios were developed for analytical purposes and that it was unlikely that any one scenario would surface as preferred either by the Focus Group or by DOE. With the completion of the Draft Technical Report, the Focus Group thought it would be informative to see if there was a consensus within the Focus Group for one or more of the scenarios. At its July 2002 meeting, two straw votes were taken (described in Appendix D). It is important to note that the Focus Group did not feel compelled to try to negotiate toward one option or another; in fact, the prevailing opinion was to use the results of the straw votes to try to reach conclusions that might be the basis for recommendations to DOE.

I

(

I

[__

Oak Ridge Land Use Planning Focus Group-Final Report

)

I c::::J................................ BUILDING

=====.................... ASPHALT ROAD

- ---*........................ FENCE LINE

............................. STREAM

~:::.:::;................................ POND

-o---0--.................... UTILITY LINES rz7Z/J....................................... LEASED LAND (CROET)

I I.................................. INDUSTRIAUCOMMERCIAL I

L.... GREENSPACE/CONSERVATION AND RESEARCH

':====J. * * * *.......................................

OPTIONS ANALYSIS I

L * * * * * * * * * * * * * *.. *................. OPEN SPACE/INDUSTRIAL

---

................. DOE BOUNDARY

-**-**-............. ZONE 1 BOUNDARY

.. WHEAT HISTORIC DISTRICT j

I NEW DOE PROPOSAL FOR

.Y Y Y Y Y................... EXPANDED MISSION REQUIREMENTS l\\\\S\\j... ETIP SITE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AREA 02-I 82(doc)/091302 7

NOTE:

BASED ON MARK-UP OF MAPS FROM FOCUS GROUP AND WORKSHOPS.

Fig. 2. Feedback map.

SCALE: 1" = 2500' 5000 I

PRELIMINARY FEEDBACK MAP LAND USE PlANNING OAK RIDGE RESERVATION

~

IN:

RE.V. NO./Ml[;

CM nu:

+

P. llOUA RE.V. 8 I 09~-02 01047/0llCS/W59SCIJl-ll9(Jf'

(

I L

Oak Ridge l and Use Pla1111i11g Focus Gro11p-Fi11a/ Report ACRES (1001)1/

~~z~z-z-1...................................... LEASED LAND (CROET)

(1126) I I

===~".... * * *.. * * *....... *............ INDUSTRIAUCOMMERCIAL (4045)

..... GREENSPACE/CONSERVATION AND RESEARCH c=:::::J................................ BUILDING

===.................... ASPHALT ROAD

-*-*-*-*........................ FENCE LINE

---

* **~ *.. ****...................... STREAM

.::::::-::::.:::>................................ POND (485) I L.................................. OPEN SPACE/INDUSTRIAL (692) (*;*;*;*:*;*;!................... LAND USE~~~~SB~~~8c~~~i~:~~6 -----0----.................... UTILITY LINES

................. DOE BOUNDARY

............. ZONE 1 BOUNDARY (1219) f\\S\\\\'!... ETIP SITE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AREA

---

.. WHEAT HISTORIC DISTRICT 02-l 82(dnc)/091302 8

Fig. 3. Scenario One.

NOTE:

BASED ON MARK-UP OF MAPS FROM FOCUS GROUP AND WORKSHOPS.

~ ; -.. __....r.. _,

SCENARIO 1 - GREENSPACE EMPHASIS Land uses within the options analysis area include:

1. ~reens~ace, Conse~ati on, and Research (4,045 acres)

Active conservation-based management (wildlife, habitat re.st.oration/rehabilitation, forest health)

Minimal.creation. of additional corridors (i.e., roads)

Comp?t~~le public uses (hiking, biking, hunting, historic sites)

All activ1t1es must be compatible with research

2. Light Industrial/Commercial (648 acres)

3. Open Space (485 acres)

Temporary storage or staging areas Research Wildlife management 0

Habitat restoration/rehabilitation 5000 I

e Science Applications

/ntem ational Corporation SCENARIO 1 IAND USE PlANNING OAK RIDGE RESERVATION SCALE: 1" = 2500' P. HOU.I RCV. 8 / 09~2 OI017/0ICS/1159SID-1

Oak Ridge La11d Use Pla1111i11g Focus Gro11p-Fi11a/ Report

. /

I

-=-"~---...0.'--=

...L PAACEL ED*2 LEGEND:

c=J................................ BUILDING

====.................... ASPHALT ROAD

• -........................ FENCE LINE

,,....---*. ~

............................. STREAM

.::::::-::.*.:.:>................................ POND

-<>---<>---.................... UTILITY LINES

................. DOE BOUNDARY

-**-**-*............ ZONE 1 BOUNDARY acres,,.--,,....,.....,,...-,.,

(1001)tz7ZZJ....................................... LEASED LAND (CROET)

(1485)1

!.................................. INDUSTRIAUCOMMERCIAL (3817)1 I..... GREENSPACE/CONSERVATION AND RESEARCH (109) I

!............................................................ OFFICE (485) I I................................... OPEN SPACE/INDUSTRIAL (219)

.................................................... RESIDENTIAL (692)

AREAS WHERE DIFFERENT t.'.'1 '

• 1*'11................... LAND USES ARE BEING CONSIDERED

---

.. WHEAT HISTORIC DISTRICT (1219) K\\SS'!... ETIP SITE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AREA 02* I 82(uoc)/09 IJ02 9

Fig. 4. Scenario Two.

NOTE:

BASED ON MARK-UP OF MAPS FROM FOCUS GROUP AND WORKSHOPS.

)

,,..-//

SCENARIO 2 - DEVELOPMENT EMPHASIS Land uses within the options analysis area include:

1. Light Industrial/Commercial (941 acres)

2. Office (109 acres)

3. Residential (219 acres)

4. Greenspace, Conservation, and Research (3358 acres)

Active conservation-based management (wildlife, habitat restoration/rehabilitation, forest health)

Minimal creation of additional corridors (i.e., roads)

Compatible public uses (hiking, biking, hunting, historic sites)

All activities must be compatible with research

5. Open Space (485 acres)

Temporary storage or staging areas Research Wildlife management Habitat restoration/rehabilitation aide Science Applications International Corporation SCENAR102 5000 I

lAND USE PLANNING OAK RJDGE RESERVATION DROOi Ill':

REV. lllJ.~1£;

CAD fll.E:

SCALE: 1" = 2500' P. HOOA REV. 8 / 09-<<Hll 01047/w:t;/ WJNDl-2

- L Oak Ridge Land Use Plw111i11g Focus Gro11p-Fi11al Report LEGEND:

!=::J................................ BUILDING

===.................... ASPHALT ROAD

-*-*-*-* ***.................... FENCE LINE

,,------~............................. STREAM

.

:::::_-_-:.J................................ POND

-¢----<>----.................... UTILITY LIN ES

---

................. DOE BOUNDARY

-**-**-............. ZONE 1 BOUNDARY

---

.. WHEAT HISTORIC DISTRICT 02-l 82(doc)/09 I 302 acres __

(1001) VZZZ)............................................... LEASED LAND (CROET)

(1403)

.......................................... INDUSTRIAUCOMMERCIAL (3548) I l............. GREENSPACE/CONSERVATION AND RESEARCH (219)

............................................................ RESIDENTIAL (485) I 1........................................... OPEN SPACE/INDUSTRIAL (692) t:*:*:*:*:*;*I........................... LAND USE~~~~SB~~~RJd~~f6~~~J (150) I

,, UNDUSTRIAUCOMMERCIAL LAND ADDED FROM ETTP EA (1 219) !SS\\SI........... ETTP SITE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AREA 10 Fig. 5. Scenario Three.

NOTE:

BASED ON MARK-UP OF MAPS FROM FOCUS GROUP AND WORKSHOPS.

SCENARIO 3 - MODIFIED ED-3 Land uses within the options analysis area include:

1. Light Industrial/Commercial (859 acres)

2. Residential (219 acres)

3. Greenspace, Conservation, and Research (3548 acres)

Active conservation-based management (wildlife, habitat restoration/rehabilitation, forest health)

Minimal creation of additional corridors (i.e., roads)

Compatible public uses (hiking, biking, hunting, historic sites)

All activities must be compatible with reasearch

4. Open Space (485 acres)

Temporary storage or staging areas Research Wildlife management Habitat restoration/rehabilitation NOTE: Scenario agreement contingent on assumption of future availability of other ORR lands for development.

SCALE: 1" = 2500' 5000 I

SCENARIO 3 LAND USE PLANNING OAK RIDGE RESERVATION

()AAWN B'I':

REV. lol),/t\\11[;

CJD f1L£:

P. HOUI REV. 6 I ()9~-02 010l7/CHl.fJS/~3

Oak Ridge land Use Pla1111i11g Focus Gro11p-Fi11al Report

/

LEGEND:

i===J................................ BUILDING

===*................... ASPHALT ROAD

• - *........................ FENCE LINE 2.3 :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~~~~

-<>-<>-.................... UTILITY LINES acres-~~

(1001) tzOZJ............................................... LEASED LAND (CROET)

(1223) I 1.......................................... INDUSTRIAUCOMMERCIAL (3690) I l............. GREENSPACE/CONSERVATION AND RESEARCH (59)

.. * * * * *..................................................... RESIDENTIAL (465) I I........................................... OPEN SPACE/INDUSTRIAL

---

********** *******DOE BOUNDARY

• • -**-*****........ ZONE 1 BOUNDARY (692) G+:*:*:*:*:*I........................... LAND USE~~~~sBig,~~,RJd~J~f6~~rJ (150) I

, U NDUSTRIAUCOMMERCIAL LAND ADDED FROM ETTP EA

.. WHEAT HISTORIC DISTRICT (1219) KS\\S'i_.......... ETTP SITE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AREA 02-l 82(doc)/09 I J02 11 Fig. 6. Scenario Four.

NOTE:

BASED ON MARK-UP OF MAPS FROM FOCUS GROUP AND WORKSHOPS.

SCENARIO 4 - LESS DEVELOPMENT (no development south of Highway 58)

Land uses within the options analysis area include:

1. Light Industrial/Commercial (679 acres)

2. Residential (59 acres)

3. Greenspace, Conservation, and Research (3890 acres)

Active conservation-based management (wildlife, habitat restoration/rehabilitation, forest health)

Minimal creation of additional corridors (i.e., roads)

Compatible public uses {hiking, biking, hunting, historic sites)

All activities must be compatible with reasearch

4. Open Space (485 acres)

Temporary storage or staging areas Research Wildlife management Habitat restoration/rehabilitation NOTE: Scenario agreement contingent on assumption of future availability of other ORR lands for development.

~

~

o2

~

0

~

0 1250 2500

~sJ I

SCALE: 1" = 2500' 5000 I

Science Applications lntemotiona/ Corporation SCENARJ04 LAND USE PLANNING OAK RIDGE RESERVATION DAAllN SY:

RlV. M>./i)lf"E:

CAD fl.£:

P. l<<lt.M RE.Y. 8 I 09--0;-0'1 01041~

Oak Ridge Land Use Planning Focus Group-Final Report 02-182(doc)/091302 12 A few observations can be made concerning the results of these straw votes. In both cases, Scenario One, the greenspace option received the largest number of top votes; but it also received a number of negative votes as well. Scenario Two, the development option, received generally lower rankings.

Scenario Three, the modified ED-3 option, did favorably well, but had the lowest number of total first and second place votes in the second poll. Scenario Four, the less development option, although scoring a small number of first place votes, had the highest number of second place votes, and like Scenario Three, also had only one person who ranked it last. It also had the fewest number of no votes in Straw Vote A.

While the results could be interpreted in many ways, it was clear no one scenario was preferred by a consensus of the Focus Group. Therefore, the Focus Group agreed to present these mixed results, leaving their interpretation to DOE.

11. RESOLUTION ON LAND PRESERVATION While the Focus Group did not reach consensus on a preferred land use scenario, it generally agreed on preservation of those areas designated as greenspace/conservation and research on the Preliminary Feedback Map. The Focus Group agreed to the following resolution:

The Focus Group recommends that the Department of Energy find means for the perpetual preservation of land areas designated by the Focus Group for green space/conservation and/or research purposes on the Preliminary Feedback Map (see Page 7). This recommendation holds regardless of the land use scenario(s), or the combinations thereof, that the Department of Energy decides to adopt for the western portion of the Oak Ridge Reservation as part of its Comprehensive Land Use Plan.

DOE currently provides the City of Oak Ridge with a payment in lieu of taxes for all the land within the ORR that otherwise would be taxable if it were in private hands. Because these lands, if released by DOE, could potentially be subject to property taxation by the City of Oak Ridge, the City should be held harmless as a result of any action taken to accomplish this preservation. That is, it is the Focus Groups suggestion that the City not be deprived of comparable revenue if such preserved lands are no longer part of DOEs in lieu of tax payment base.

12. RESOLUTION ON EXTENDING THE LAND USE PLANNING PROCESS TO THE ENTIRE ORR The original purpose of the Focus Group and the land use planning process was to consider the entire ORR; however, DOE reduced the study area to the northwest portion only. The Focus Group resolved, therefore, that as soon as possible the land use planning process be applied to the entire ORR.

Furthermore, the Focus Group recommended full stakeholder involvement in that process.

This resolution addressed what the Group considered to be DOEs past practice of conducting its land use planning and implementation on a piecemeal basis. While the Focus Groups process, with its direct involvement of interested stakeholders, covered only a portion of the ORR, it was, according to the Focus Group, a refreshing change to DOEs past practice.

Oak Ridge Land Use Planning Focus Group-Final Report 02-182(doc)/091302 13

13. RESOLUTION FOR EXPANDING THE ANALYSIS TO INCLUDE A BIODIVERSITY ECONOMIC EVALUATION The Focus Group also noted the potential value that using a biodiversity economic analysis could have had in providing balance to the evaluation of socio-economic impacts conducted for this study. A number of references for such an analysis were provided to the Technical Team and the suggestion made that DOE include a biodiversity economic evaluation in its land use planning for the entire ORR. Such an evaluation would provide the economic value of open land, green space, and biological diversity, to name a few important environmental values. Furthermore, including this type of evaluation in land use planning would provide decision makers with a tool to compare the relative values of conservation and development.02-182(doc)/091302 A-1 Oak Ridge Land Use Planning Focus Group-Final Report APPENDIX A TIME TABLE FOR THE LAND USE PLANNING PROJECT L

~

-1 2Oii2 I J.'. I Ao,u' DCIObl1 I

~

~ ~

",VO'..,

Focus Group Meelin~

T T

Publie Meeling

~ ~

I u

V '

I

~ ~~~~~{~i~l;h'

~

~ I l r

.~ 1 R:';~"'

I Newsletter ~

I,

Public Mealing:

Focus Group Aeporl on Land Use

~,

Seennlos and Impact Analysis

~

APril ~

Oak Ridge Land Use Planning Focus Group-Final Report 02-182(doc)/091302 B-1 APPENDIX B FOCUS GROUP FACILITATION PROCEDURES At the beginning of the land use planning process, Focus Group members agreed to the procedures listed below.

GENERAL Start and end sessions on time.

Respect for differing points of views.

Facilitator recognizes speakers.

Do not interrupt speakers; one person speaks at a time.

Stay on topic, if possible, before going on to new subject.

Use I agree.

Facilitator uses Is there anyone who doesnt agree?

Participants may have outside conversations with facilitator; participant choice if conversations are confidential or not.

Role of Focus Group members - insights, ideas, suggestions, and opinions.

Role of Facilitation Team - organize sessions, determine agenda, and prepare material.

Role of public at meetings - observe proceedings and comment at selected times in meetings.

Use of alternate members allowed - should be minimized and alternates should be briefed by member before meeting.

FOCUS GROUP MEETINGS Check attendance, welcome, introductions; Preview agenda; Review notes from previous session; Announcements; Public comment; Take up items on agenda Have any scheduled presentation(s);

Seek perspectives, facts, and interests, hold discussion, ask questions, and draw conclusions; and Identify data and information needs; Solicit agenda items for next focus group meeting; Public comment; and Adjourn.

Oak Ridge Land Use Planning Focus Group-Final Report 02-182(doc)/091302 B-2 REACHING TENTATIVE AGREEMENTS No Roberts Rules of Order - Facilitator runs session.

Consensus (on procedures and other matters) means agreement among all Focus Group members.

Facilitator will try to forge consensus agreements on substantive matters only if requested by Focus Group members. Minority opinions welcomed.

Caucuses allowed, if appropriate.

Straw voting initiated by Facilitator only to get a sense of leanings.

On any particular topic, No (consensus) agreement is final until everything is final.

RELATIONS WITH EXTERNAL GROUPS/INTERESTS Public statements may be made by any member, but when to talking to others (including the media) it must be clear that one is speaking only for himself or herself and not for the Focus Group. Be courteous, respectful of others, and use decorum.

All public statements from Focus Group are to be agreed upon beforehand by all participants and the facilitator.

Facilitator is the spokesperson with external parties.

Focus Group may decide to invite others to join for specific purposes (e.g., economic or environmental expertise).

Oak Ridge Land Use Planning Focus Group-Final Report 02-182(doc)/091302 C-1 APPENDIX C FOCUS GROUP VALUES BASED ON POLLING OF MEMBERS REGARDING ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES INTRODUCTION This is a summary of an informal survey for the Oak Ridge Land Use Planning Process Focus Group in January 2002 by the projects Facilitation Team. The purposes of the survey were to determine the economic and/or environmental values that were most important to the Focus Group and to distinguish differences among subgroups of the Focus Group. The results of the survey would also help the Facilitation Team design the land use scenarios.

The survey form was designed by the Facilitation Team and distributed to members of the Focus Group. Responses were completed and preliminary results were reported at the January Focus Group meeting. This report is a more detailed analysis of the results and conclusions drawn from the analysis.

Focus Group members were asked first to identify their individual perspectives of economic and environmental values along a continuum. For this question and the follow-up question regarding ones perception of the ideal or most likely acceptable overall perspective, the scale on the continuum was calibrated from 1 to 10, with 1 representing the environmental end of the continuum and 10 representing the economic end.

Next, respondents then scored each of 30 values from 0 to 5 with 0 representing no importance, and 5 representing greatest importance. 1 and 2 were little and some importance, respectively; 3 and 4 were moderate and great importance, respectively. For the analysis, it was assumed that an average score of 3.5 or greater reflected a feeling among members that a value was of significant importance, and an average score of 4 or more would indicate even greater importance.

The standard deviation among the scores was also calculated. This measure, or statistic, served as a surrogate for the range of responses, or diversity of a particular value within the Focus Group. A low (arbitrarily less than 1.00) standard deviation meant that there was relative agreement among the Focus Group regarding the level of importance of a value. The higher the standard deviation, the more varied (i.e., less agreement) were the responses to a value.

As part of the analysis and on the basis of responses given by Focus Group members, the Group was also divided into two subgroups: those who considered their perspectives to be more environmental (n=10) and those who considered their perspectives to be more economic (n=9).

OVERALL RESULTS Perspectives Interpreting responses to the first two questions showed that halfway between the two ends of the continuum was a so-called balanced perspective of 5.50. As shown in Tables C.1 and C.2 on the next page, the average of all respondents was 5.11, that is, slightly more toward the environmental side than the economic. Given that there was one more respondent from the environmental side, one could argue that the average respondent was sufficiently close to half way to be called balanced. Furthermore, the ideal perspective (5.03) was just slightly different from the balanced perspective of the average respondent.

Oak Ridge Land Use Planning Focus Group-Final Report 02-182(doc)/091302 C-2 Table C.1. Values That Both Economic and Environmental Perspectives Ranked Very Important (>3.50)

Value Overall (Eco, Env)

Protect Threatened/Endangered Species 4.26 (3.56,4.90)

Concern for Water Quality 4.22 (3.67,4.78)

Increase Oak Ridge Tax Base 4.21 (4.89,3.60)

Concentrate Any New Industry 4.06 (3.78, 4.33)

Increase Number of Jobs in Oak Ridge 4.00 (4.22, 3.80)

Table C.2. Values That Both Economic and Environmental Perspectives Ranked Important (3<3.50)

Value Overall (Eco, Env)

Minimize Land Fragmentation 4.00 (3.33, 4.60)

Clean Up CERCLA Sites Quickly 3.89 (4.63,3.30)

Conserve Natural Resource/Wildlife 3.84 (3.33, 4.30)

Protect Natural Resources for 15-year Research 3.79 (3.22, 4.30)

Increase Commercial Development in Oak Ridge 3.79 (4.44, 3.20)

Conserve Forest Resources 3.61 (3.11, 4.11)

Concern for Air Quality 3.61 (3.44, 3.78)

Public Access to Natural Resources 3.58 (3.33, 3.80)

Preserve Historical/Cultural Resources 3.58 (3.00, 4.10)

Protect Existing Wildlife 3.58 (3.22, 3.90)

CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.

The standard deviation of these two perspectives was 2.05 and 1.24, respectively. This meant that the range of responses to individual perspectives was greater than the range of responses to the ideal perspective - the one believed to be found mutually acceptable to all Focus Group members.

After separating respondents into the two subgroups, it was found that among those who categorized themselves on the environmental side, the average respondent felt the most acceptable perspective was closer to the balanced perspective than their own perspective. The same observation can be made of those who categorized themselves on the economic side. Both subgroups appeared to be saying that the most acceptable balance was generally more toward the middle of the road than their own perspectives.

However, although the acceptable position was closer to the middle for both subgroups, the average respondent from neither group actually came all the way toward the middle. If 5.50 were considered middle, the environmental subgroup scored 4.17 on acceptable to Focus Group while the economic subgroup scored 5.89. On this basis alone, it appears that there is some room for compromise on the survey values. However, there are also important areas of disagreement that will have to be negotiated if there is to be consensus on one scenario. If not, two or more scenarios will have to be developed.

Economic and Environmental Ranking of Values Tables C.1 and C.2 on the following page provide, in rank order, the average scores of all respondents for the top fifteen values in the survey. The three highest average scores went to the protection of threatened and endangered species, concern for water quality, and increases to the City of Oak Ridge tax base. Six values average 4.00 or greater, 15 averaged greater than 3.50.

Oak Ridge Land Use Planning Focus Group-Final Report 02-182(doc)/091302 C-3 With regard to the standard deviation among the 30 values, 9 values showed a standard deviation of less than 1.00, with the greatest concentration among all respondents for conserving natural resources and wildlife and increasing Oak Ridge jobs. The least agreement among Focus Group members (and thus a higher standard deviation) was for including residential development in the study area and for DOE selling land in the study area. Both of the standard deviations exceeded 2.00. In any case, the average respondent did not judge either of these values as important.

Values Ranking by Subgroup On the basis of average scores of Focus Group members, there is general agreement (average values of at least 3.50) on 15 of the 30 values surveyed. However, it is more informative to separate the Focus Group into the two subgroups (environmental or economic) to see if there are any values that both of these subgroups judged as important. If this were the case, there would be basis for concluding that some values are sufficiently important to all (or at least most) Focus Group members and that these values at least should be reflected in any land use scenario developed for this project.

Tables C.1 and C.2 provide, in rank order, the list of values the Focus Group scored greater than 3.50 in relative importance. Of these values, only five were ranked 3.50 or higher for both subgroups, but a number of others scored greater than 3.50 on average for the entire Group (and 3.00 or more for each subgroup).

Oak Ridge Land Use Planning Focus Group-Final Report 02-182(doc)/091302 D-1 APPENDIX D FOCUS GROUP STRAW VOTE ON PREFERENCES AMONG FOUR LAND USE SCENARIOS The Focus Group participated in two straw votes to see if any preference patterns were discernible among the four land use scenarios. Based on the votes (see below), the Focus Group decided that it would leave final interpretation of the results to the U.S. Department of Energy.

STRAW VOTE A In the first vote each Focus Group member was asked to identify the relative acceptability of each scenario, as:

1.

Clear preference, as is - the personal choice as it is currently portrayed;

2.

Almost clear preference - the personal choice if only a minor change were made to the way it is currently portrayed;

3.

Acceptable, as is - while not the first choice or ideal, one could live with its being preferred by the Focus Group; and

4.

Almost acceptable -acceptable if only a minor change were made to the way it is portrayed.

If an option were unacceptable even with a minor change, he/she would not categorize it in this vote (i.e., no vote).

The scenarios were identified as Scenario One = Green Space Emphasis Scenario Two = Development Emphasis Scenario Three = Modified ED-3 Scenario Four = Less Development The results of this exercise are shown in the Table D.1.

Table D.1. Results of Straw Vote A Scenarios Category 1

Green Space Emphasis 2

Development Emphasis 3

Modified ED-3 4

Less Development Clear preference 7

5 3

4 Almost clear preference 2

1 5

1 Acceptable, as is 1

1 0

6 Almost acceptable 1

4 2

3 No vote 7

7 8

4

Oak Ridge Land Use Planning Focus Group-Final Report 02-182(doc)/091302 D-2 STRAW VOTE B A second vote was requested, with each member ranking the four options from 1 to 4 - 1 being most preferable, and 4 being least preferable. The results of this vote are shown in Table D.2. At the bottom of the table, votes are weighted in two different ways in attempt to try and detect any pattern that might thereby become more apparent.

Table D.2. Results of Straw Vote B Scenarios Ranking 1

Green Space Emphasis 2

Development Emphasis 3

Modified ED-3 4

Less Development No. 1 8

5 3

3 No. 2 2

4 5

8 No. 3 3

0 10 6

No. 4 6

11 1

1 Weighted Vote (4 points for #1, 3 points for #2, etc.)

50 43 48 49 Weighted Vote (+3 points for #1;

+1 point for #2; -1 point for #3; and -3 points for #4)

+5

-14

+1

+8

Oak Ridge Land Use Planning Focus Group-Final Report 02-182(doc)/091302 E-1 APPENDIX E FOCUS GROUP AND FACILITATION TEAM MEMBERS AND ALTERNATES FOCUS GROUP MEMBERS Steven Alexander, Senior Environmental Contaminants Biologist, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Tennessee/Kentucky Field Office, Cookeville, TN Paul Boyer, City Manager, Oak Ridge, TN Pete Craven, Oak Ridge Businessman, Oak Ridge, TN Scott Davis, Executive Director, Tennessee Chapter, The Nature Conservancy, Nashville, TN Ray N. Evans, Jr., Oak Ridge City Council, Oak Ridge, TN Parker Hardy, President, Oak Ridge Chamber of Commerce, Oak Ridge, TN John Devereux Joslin, Chair, Advocates for the Oak Ridge Reservation, Oak Ridge, TN Robert Kennedy, President, Friends of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN Ralph Lillard, Businessman, Member, Oak Ridge Chamber of Commerce, Oak Ridge, TN Marty Marina, Tennessee Conservation League, Nashville, TN David McKinney, Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Nashville, TN David N. Mosby, Oak Ridge City Council, Oak Ridge, TN William Pardue, Member, Oak Ridge Chamber of Commerce, Oak Ridge, TN Beth Phillips, Alternate for Tony Grande, Tennessee Economic and Community Development Department, Knoxville, TN Eric W. Rauch, Projects Manager, Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, TN Lorene Sigal, Citizen, Oak Ridge, TN Lloyd Stokes, Oak Ridge Heritage and Preservation Association, Oak Ridge, TN Joseph Valentino, Executive Director, Oak Ridge Convention and Visitors Bureau, Oak Ridge, TN Marshall Whisnant, Member, Oak Ridge Regional Planning Commission, Oak Ridge, TN Lawrence Young, President, Community Reuse Organization of East Tennessee, Oak Ridge, TN

Oak Ridge Land Use Planning Focus Group-Final Report 02-182(doc)/091302 E-2 FACILITATION TEAM Patricia Parr (UT-Battelle) managed and had overall responsibility for the effort Marianne Heiskell [U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Oak Ridge Operations (ORO)] was the DOE-ORO point of contact for the project Wayne Tolbert and Mike Deacon [Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC)] were supported by other SAIC staff and were responsible for scenario impacts analysis, report preparation, meeting logistics, and technical support Barry Lawson (Barry Lawson Associates), an independent, professional facilitator, was responsible for facilitating the Focus Group process and preparing the Focus Group Report

Oak Ridge Land Use Planning Focus Group-Final Report 02-182(doc)/091302 F-1 APPENDIX F SIGNATURES OF FOCUS GROUP MEMBERS The signatures below indicate that the individual members of the Oak Ridge Land Use Planning Focus Group accept this Final Report as representing the set of suggestions made and conclusions reached by the Group. Each individual has participated as an individual and ones signature does not necessarily indicate the acceptance or approval of ones organization or agency. Signed September 13, 2002.

Steven Alexander Paul Boyer Pete Craven Scott Davis Ray N. Evans, Jr.

Parker Hardy John Devereux Joslin Robert Kennedy Ralph Lillard Marty Marina David McKinney David N. Mosby William Pardue Beth Phillips Eric W. Rauch Lorene Sigal Lloyd Stokes Joseph Valentino Marshall Whisnant Lawrence Young

December 20, 2005 BLACK OAK RIDGE CONSERVATION EASEMENT FINAL MANAGEMENT PLAN Managing Agency STATE OF TENNESSEE TENNESSEE WILDLIFE RESOURCES AGENCY in consultation with DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION DIVISION OF NATURAL HERITAGE

i BLACK OAK RIDGE CONSERVATION EASEMENT FINAL MANAGEMENT PLAN PURPOSE

................................................................................................................... 1 BACKGROUND / LOCATION...................................................................................... 1 PART 1: GENERAL MANAGEMENT OF THE BLACK OAK RIDGE CONSERVATION EASEMENT.................................................................. 2 A.

Facilities................................................................................................................2 B.

Roads....................................................................................................................2 C.

Fences...................................................................................................................3 D.

Cemeteries.............................................................................................................3 E.

Quarries.................................................................................................................3 F.

Oversight...............................................................................................................3 G.

Public Access........................................................................................................3 H.

New Projects and Initiatives.................................................................................4 I.

General Management of Flora and Fauna in Open Areas.....................................4 J.

General Management of Flora and Fauna in Forested Areas...............................4 PART 2: MANAGEMENT OF THE PROPOSED EAST BLACK OAK RIDGE STATE NATURAL AREA/WMA AND THE WEST BLACK OAK RIDGE WMA.................................................................................................. 5 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 5 A.

Goals....................................................................................................................5 B.

Significance...........................................................................................................6 C.

Management Authority.........................................................................................6 DESCRIPTION................................................................................................................. 7 A.

Statutes, Rules, and Regulations...........................................................................7 B.

Natural Resource Assessment...............................................................................7

1. Description of the Area................................................................................... 7

2. Description of Threats..................................................................................... 9 C.

Cultural Assessment..............................................................................................9 D.

Target Elements:.................................................................................................10

1. Communities................................................................................................. 10

2. Species.......................................................................................................... 10 MANAGEMENT OF TARGET ELEMENTS FOR CONSERVATION.................. 10 A.

Major Goals........................................................................................................10

ii PUBLIC USE................................................................................................................. 10 A.

Permitted Uses....................................................................................................11 B.

Conditional Uses.................................................................................................11 C.

Prohibited Uses...................................................................................................11 ACCESS AND MAINTENANCE................................................................................. 13 A.

Parking................................................................................................................13 B.

Signs..................................................................................................................13 C.

Trails..................................................................................................................13 D.

Buildings.............................................................................................................13 E.

Boundary / Site Patrol.........................................................................................13 F.

Litter Removal....................................................................................................13 EDUCATION AND RESEARCH................................................................................. 13 RESPONSIBILITIES OF PARTICIPANTS............................................................... 13 LIST OF APPENDICES................................................................................................ 14

Page 1 of 14 BLACK OAK RIDGE CONSERVATION EASEMENT FINAL MANAGEMENT PLAN PURPOSE The purpose of this management plan is to identify and outline the goals, objectives, and technical services necessary for conserving, protecting and managing the lands and habitat known as the Black Oak Ridge Conservation Easement (BORCE). The BORCE is approximately 3,000-acres (exact acreage will be determined by final DOE-approved survey) of the Department of Energys (DOE) Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR). The Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA) will be the lead state managing entity for the BORCE, in consultation with the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), and will manage the BORCE as specified by the Black Oak Ridge Conservation Easement (Appendix A),

the Cooperative Management Agreement (Appendix B), and the terms set forth in this management plan.

There are two basic parts to this management plan: Part 1) the general management of BORCE specified by the conservation easement which assigns responsibility for maintenance and upkeep of infrastructure of the area, and also the general management practices of open fields and forested areas. Part 2) the specific management of BORCE as a part of Oak Ridge Reservation Wildlife Management Area (WMA) and as a proposed designated state natural area.

Part 1 addresses management of: (A) facilities utilization, (B) road maintenance, (C) fence maintenance, (D) cemeteries, (E) oversight, (F) public access, (G) new projects and initiatives, (H) general management of the flora and fauna in open areas; and, (I) general management of the flora and fauna in forested areas. Part 2 addresses the specific management of the proposed natural area within the WMA and WMA outside of the proposed natural area.

BACKGROUND / LOCATION The BORCE is situated in the northwest section of 33,749-acre Oak Ridge Reservation and located in Roane County, Tennessee within the city of Oak Ridge (Appendix C). The approximately 3,000-acre BORCE will be subdivided into two units. The proposed natural area will be referred to as East Black Oak Ridge (EBOR), while the section excluded from the natural area is referred to as West Black Oak Ridge (WBOR). The EBOR will be managed both as a WMA and a proposed State natural area. The WBOR will be exclusively managed as a WMA.

The ORR is listed as a National Priorities List (NPL) Site pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. The BORCE area has been investigated for

Page 2 of 14 hazardous substance contamination. This investigation revealed that no known hazardous substance contaminates occur here.

Both TWRA and TDEC have had longstanding relationships with the ORR. TWRA has managed much of the ORR as the Oak Ridge Wildlife Management Area through a TWRA/DOE WMA Agreement (Appendix D) since 1984. The TDEC Division of Natural Heritage Tennessee Natural Areas Program (TNAP) has maintained a suite of registered State natural areas (rsnas) on the ORR since the mid 1980s, and in the late 1990s proposed that these natural areas be significantly increased in size and protected through designation. A more thorough description of the significance of the area is provided in the natural area section of this plan.

PART 1: GENERAL MANAGEMENT OF THE BLACK OAK RIDGE CONSERVATION EASEMENT The BORCE will be managed on a day-to-day basis by the TWRA, in consultation with TDEC. The primary focus of the management plan will be to protect and enhance the area for native and migratory wildlife, native plants and plant communities, and public use consistent with the easement.

The framework for this management plan is based on nine management sections consisting of:

facilities roads fences cemeteries quarries oversight public access new projects and initiatives flora and fauna management in open areas flora and fauna in forested areas A.

Facilities As specified on page 1 of the easement agreement (Appendix A), there are no known facilities within the BORCE.

B.

Roads The EBOR has four gravel roads that are currently maintained by the Department of Energy. They are Poplar Creek Road (approximately 2.3 miles), East Quarry Road (approximately 1.0 mile), West Quarry Road

Page 3 of 14 (approximately 2.5 miles), and Hunley Road (approximately 0.7 mile). The total amount of gravel roads within the EBOR is approximately 6.5 miles.

The WBOR has six gravel roads. They are Dyllis Orchard Road (approximately 4.0 miles), Raby Road (approximately 2.0 miles), and West Ridge Road (approximately 3.0 miles), C-1 Power Line Access Road (approximately 1.5 miles), K-901-A Pond Access Road (approximately 0.5 mile), and Black Locust Trail/Clack Road (approximately 1.0 mile). The total amount of gravel roads within the WBOR is approximately 12 miles.

The total amount of roads for both parcels is approximately 18.5 miles. The Department of Energy will continue to be responsible for these roads for the duration of this Agreement. The Department of Energy has expressed an interest that greater public access be provided, and that existing roads within the BORCE be considered for future greenway expansion.

C.

Fences The EBOR and WBOR are bordered by a 6-ft high chain link fence that is approximately four miles long within each parcel, for a total of eight miles of fencing. DOE will continue to be responsible for these fences for the duration of this Agreement.

D.

Cemeteries There are four cemeteries on the BORCE that are excluded from the easement area.

These cemeteries are the George Jones Memorial Cemetery, the Silvey Cemetery, the Gallaher Cemetery, and the Rather Cemetery. DOE will continue to assure cemetery visitations and immediate rights of access.

E.

Quarries The quarries are excluded from the easement area and will remain the responsibility of DOE.

F.

Oversight DOE will control all gates, locks, and keys. Access to the BORCE will be in consultation with TWRA.

G.

Public Access Currently, public access is not provided to the BORCE. However, subject to provisions of the WMA, consideration will given to allow for expansion of the existing greenway system (that is predominantly outside the easement area) into the easement area by utilizing some of the 18.5 miles of existing roads.

Page 4 of 14 H.

New Projects and Initiatives Parking and access areas, as well as limited new hiking and interpretive trails, may be considered to provide the public with access to the BORCE.

Additionally, establishing a canoe trail on East Fork Poplar Creek and Poplar Creek is a long-term goal. Any such improvements shall be subject to DOE approval, the restrictions of the Easement, and the provisions of the WMA I.

General Management of Flora and Fauna in Open Areas Currently, no open fields are located in either the EBOR or WBOR. The only existing open areas are under and along existing power line and road right-of-ways. TWRA will work with the right-of-way easement holders to develop plans and/or agreements to identify and eradicate - or control - invasive, exotic plant species such as: privet, fescue, sericea lespedeza, Japanese honeysuckle, autumn olive, etc.

TWRA will also work with the right-of-way easement holders to develop plans and/or agreements to allow these areas to regenerate into native plant communities and to maintain them in early succession stages, provided that such will not interfere with the operation of roads or power lines. In areas where natural regeneration is not successful, consideration may be given to planting native warm season grasses or other appropriate native plant communities. Such plans may include the use of tractor bush hogs, herbicides, no-till drills and prescribed burns to accomplish this objective.

Efforts will be made to locate and map all known occurrences of state and federal concern plant and animals species, as well as rare or high quality ecological communities, and management efforts will be directed to sustain and enhance them. Additionally, similar efforts will be made to locate and map known occurrences of invasive exotic pest species, and management efforts will be directed toward their control and eradication.

The success of these plans may be limited by the roughness of the terrain and possible prohibition on using fire as management tool. Fire control will remain the responsibility of DOE. Additional management strategies or ideas may be suggested by the TDEC Natural Areas Program and may be incorporated, when possible, subject to the availability of money, time, and equipment.

J.

General Management of Flora and Fauna in Forested Areas The WBOR parcel may be managed in conjunction with the Partners-in-Flight Neo-tropical Migratory Bird Management Plan for the Ridge and Valley Physiographic Regions of Tennessee. This plan when completed will call for

Page 5 of 14 specific forest management objectives in various parts of the Ridge and Valley province to provide critical forest habitats for specific bird species. The EBOR forested area will be managed as specified in Part 2 as proposed State natural area, which will also be consistent with the Partners-in-Flight Neo-tropical Migratory Bird Management Plan for the Ridge and Valley Physiographic Regions of Tennessee.

With acceptance and approval of this plan by the DOE, TWRA will provide forest management recommendations for the EBOR and WBOR to DOE for incorporation into DOEs ongoing Forest Management Plan. Existing forest management plans will be implemented until other plans can be developed.

Forest fire control and all other forest management responsibilities will remain the responsibility of DOE.

PART 2: MANAGEMENT OF THE PROPOSED EAST BLACK OAK RIDGE STATE NATURAL AREA/WMA AND THE WEST BLACK OAK RIDGE WMA INTRODUCTION The East Black Oak Ridge (EBOR) State Natural Area will be managed on a day-to-day basis by the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA) in consultation with the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), Division of Natural Heritage (DNH). Management will occur in accordance with the Cooperative Management Agreement between these two agencies found in Appendix B and will be consistent with the terms of the Black Oak Ridge Conservation Easement (BORCE) agreement between TWRA and the U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge Reservation (Appendix A), and in accordance with the Tennessee Natural Areas Preservation Act of 1971 (Appendix E), and the Rules for Management of Tennessee Natural Resource Areas (Appendix F). The West Black Oak Ridge area will be managed in exclusively as WMA (T.C.A. 70-1-101 et seq. Rules of the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Chapter 1660-1-1 et seq.).

A. Goals The BORCE has two distinct parcels: East Black Oak Ridge (EBOR) and West Black Oak Ridge (WBOR). The east and west parcels are separated by the Poplar Creek water gap and Blair Road. The east parcel will be managed as a State natural area.

The main goals for managing the EBOR State Natural Area are:

1.

Maintain values as a Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation Class II Natural-Scientific Natural Area.

Page 6 of 14

2.

Restore and maintain the ecological integrity of East Black Oak Ridge.

3.

Provide and maintain reasonable, safe public access to the natural area for passive day-use recreation in cooperation with the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy.

B. Significance The BORCE comprises approximately 3,000 acres located in the northwestern part of the Oak Ridge Reservation. Both the EBOR and the WBOR will continue to be part of the TWRAs Oak Ridge Wildlife Management Area. In addition, the East parcel will be managed by TWRA as a state natural area, in consultation with TDEC.

Prominent features of the BORCE include:

Black Oak Ridge McKinney Ridge mixed hardwood-native pine forest large forested wetland river bluffs The significant features of the EBOR State Natural Area are more specifically described in Section VI.B.1.

C. Management Authority The principal manager of the BORCE is the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. The EBOR will be managed on a day-to-day basis by the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA). The Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), Division of Natural Heritage (DNH)

Tennessee Natural Areas Program will provide consultation, technical assistance, and consent to the management of EBOR. The administration of Natural Areas Preservation Act of 1971 is the responsibility of the State of Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Natural Heritage, Natural Areas Program.

Contacts: Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA), TWRA, Region III, Attn: Jim Evans, 464 Industrial Blvd., Crossville, TN 38555, 865-574-8204 Division of Natural Heritage, 401 Church Street, 14h Floor L&C Tower, Nashville, TN 37243-0447, (615) 532-0431 or Division of Natural Heritage, 2700 Middlebrook Pike, Suite 220, Knoxville, TN 37921 (865) 594-5601.

Page 7 of 14 DESCRIPTION A. Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Both the EBOR and WBOR are managed as part of the TWRA Oak Ridge Wildlife Management Area (T.C.A. 70-1-101 et seq. Rules of the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency Chapter 1660-1-1 et seq.) and in compliance with the Black Oak Ridge Conservation Easement.

The EBOR will be managed as a Class II Natural Area under the Natural Areas Preservation Act of 1971 (T.C.A. 11-14-101) (Appendix E). The classification is natural-scientific... which are areas associated with and containing floral assemblages, forest types, fossil assemblages, geological phenomena, hydrological phenomena, swamplands and other similar features or phenomena which are unique in natural or scientific value and are worthy of perpetual preservation (T.C.A. 11-14-105). The area is managed in accordance with the Rules for Management of Tennessee Natural Resource Areas Chapter 0400-2-8, Appendix F).

B. Natural Resource Assessment

1. Description of the Area The BORCE is situated within the 33,749-acre Oak Ridge Reservation and is located in Roane County, Tennessee. It is comprised of two parcels hereafter referred to as East Black Oak Ridge (EBOR) and West Black Oak Ridge (WBOR). These Black Oak Ridge parcels are part of Oak Ridges National Environmental Research Park (NERP) on which the Department of Energy performs research and extracts valuable data for environmental and ecological preservation. The ORR is listed as a National Priorities List (NPL) Site pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. The areas comprising the Black Oak Ridge parcels have been investigated for hazardous substance contamination and it is shown that said hazardous substances do not contaminate the parcels.

Both the EBOR and WBOR sections include the following forest types:

southern red oak-tuliptree-white oak-pine-hickory; tuliptree-southern red oak-white oak; and northern red oak-tuliptree-white oak.

The EBOR and WBOR include some pine plantations that will eventually be replaced by natural communities, either through forest management or natural succession. Some invasive species exist within the natural area, including kudzu in the west portion and privet in the forested wetlands of the east section. Control and management of these invasive species is

Page 8 of 14 recommended. Appendix G contains a list of exotic invasive species in Tennessee.

a)

East Black Oak Ridge State Natural Area East Black Oak Ridge contains three significant ecological sites within its boundaries: Poplar Creek Bluff, McKinney Ridge Hemlock-Rhododendron Forest, and Black Oak Ridge Forest. Each of these sites harbors numerous uncommon and some rare species, including Tennessee dace (Phoxinus tennesseensis), American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius), golden seal (Hydrastis canadensis), pink ladys-slipper (Cypripedium acaule), and spreading false-foxglove (Aureolaria patula).

Sites of Ecological Importance within East Black Oak Ridge Natural Area include:

Poplar Creek Bluff McKinney Ridge Hemlock-Rhododendron Forest Black Oak Ridge Forest Site 1: Poplar Creek Bluff Poplar Creek Bluff is a steep, southwest-facing slope in the Poplar Creek Water Gap that bisects Black Oak Ridge. It is located a short distance upstream from the East Fork Poplar Creek confluence with Poplar Creek.

Small limestone cliffs occur near the stream. Many species that are unusual within the ORR occur here, including hemlock (Tsuga canadensis),

rhododendron (Rhododendron maximum), fringe tree (Chionanthus virginicus), spider lily (Hymenocallis occidentalis), and mock orange (Philadelphus hirsutus). Pink ladys-slipper (Cypripedium acaule) and spreading false-foxglove (Aureolaria patula) also occur at this site. This site was one of the eight original Registered State Natural Areas established in 1985 at the ORR.

Site 2: McKinney Ridge Hemlocks McKinney Ridge Hemlocks is found northeast of the East Tennessee Technology Park (ETTP) facilities on the slopes of McKinney Ridge overlooking Poplar Creek. Spreading false-foxglove and whorled horse-balm (Collinsonia verticillata) are found here. This site is the most extensive area of hemlocks and rhododendrons on the ORR and represents a rare forest community type in the Ridge and Valley Province. Additionally, two small cave entrances are found near Poplar Creek. This also was one of eight original Registered State Natural Areas established at ORR in 1985.

Page 9 of 14 Site 3: Black Oak Ridge Forest Black Oak Ridge Forest is northwest of Lamberts Quarry and is a large forested area of mature mixed hardwoods and pines. Much of the forest is oak-hickory-tuliptree, but native pine forests of shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata) and white pine (Pinus strobus) dominate some areas. This large forested area includes commercially exploited pink ladys-slipper. The white-topped sedge (Rhynchospora colorata) occurs at the edge of the pond in a quarry located within the site. This is the only confirmed site for this sedge in Tennessee.

b)

West Black Oak Ridge Section Sites of Ecological Importance within the West Black Oak Ridge conservation area include:

Leatherwood Bluff Site 4: Leatherwood Bluff Leatherwood Bluff is a site west of Blair Road and the Poplar Creek Water Gap through the ridge and extending southwest along the ORR boundary on top of Black Oak. This is a largely mature forest of hardwoods and hemlocks with an understory of rhododendron, maple-leaf viburnum (Viburnum acerifolium), buffalo-nut (Pyrularia pubera), and leatherwood (Dirca palustris). This understory assemblage is not found elsewhere on the ORR and, indeed, is rare within the Ridge and Valley physiographic province. The site is on a steep north-facing slope overlooking Poplar Creek in an area of limestone outcrops and three cave entrances. At least four plant species are found here, but nowhere else on the ORR. These are a milkweed (Asclepias quadrifolia), purple sedge (Carex purpurifera),

buffalo-nut, and Vaseys trillium (Trillium vaseyi).

2.

Description of Threats Exotic invasive species are threatening the integrity of the natural area.

Common exotic invasive species include kudzu, in the west portion, and privet in the forested wetlands of the east section. Control and management of these invasive species is recommended.

C. Cultural Assessment There are no known cultural resources within the BORCE. Any such resources that may be discovered will be protected from disturbance and be reported to DOE immediately. Any cemeteries or burial sites that may be discovered within the surveyed boundary of the BORCE will be fenced and excluded from the BORCE and remain in their same location as a separate land unit.

Page 10 of 14 D. Target Elements:

1. Communities The following community types have been recognized in both the east and west sections of the BOR:

southern red oak-tuliptree-white oak-pine-hickory; tuliptree-southern red oak-white oak; and northern red oak-tuliptree-white oak.

2. Species Rare and threatened species within the EBOR include:

Global Federal State State Rank Rank Rank Status pink ladys-slipper (Cypripedium acaule)

G5 S4 E-CE spreading false-foxglove (Aureolaria patula)

G2G3 S2 T

golden seal (Hydrastis canadensis)

G4G5 S3 S-CE American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius)

G3G4 S3S4 S-CE southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris)

S4 D

Tennessee dace (Phoxinus tennesseensis)

S3 D

MANAGEMENT OF TARGET ELEMENTS FOR CONSERVATION A. Major Goals

1. Set up and implement a monitoring plan for the threatened and endangered species in the EBOR. Monitor the populations of threatened and/or endangered species on a regular basis.

2. Provide interpretive signage that educates users about the ecological significance of the EBOR and the BORCE.

3. Locate, assess, and map invasive exotic plant species. Develop and implement a plan for their eradication and/or control.

4. Promote the ecological significance of the EBOR and BORCE to the larger East Tennessee community. Management of the BORCE will emphasize the importance of the forested areas as habitat for avian and other fauna that are dependent upon large, contiguous forested areas.

5. Increase public access opportunities in the BORCE.

PUBLIC USE The EBOR State Natural Area will be a day-use only natural area. It will be a favorite location for amateur ornithologists and for hikers. EBOR will provide the

Page 11 of 14 public an opportunity for passive recreation associated with various foot travel activities. The natural area will be open daily dawn until dusk. Hiking and all other related activities including photography, birding, and organized interpretive hikes will be permitted on trails. Off-trail activities may be permitted with approval of DOE, in conjunction with the State Natural Areas Program (regional stewardship ecologist) and TWRA consistent with the BORCE agreement with the U.S. DOE (Appendix A) and management objectives. Consideration will be given to expanding the greenway into the BORCE conservation area along exiting roads.

A.

Permitted Uses

1. Hiking - Visitors may use trails, when developed, for pedestrian foot travel (Appendix A, Item 15).

2. Nature enjoyment - Passive, low-impact nature recreation such as bird watching, photography, guided hikes and similar activities will be encouraged in public access areas when developed.

B.

Conditional Uses

1. Hunting - Hunting will be in accord with the Oak Ridge WMA Agreement.

2. Pets - Leashed pets might be permitted in the BORCE in the future pending public access development. Free-roaming pets can cause significant degradation to natural resources through trampling and loss of vegetation, digging up plants and wildlife, and harassment or killing of wildlife.

3. Motorized vehicles - Use of motorized vehicles will be in accord with the Oak Ridge WMA Agreement.

4. Prescribed fires - Prescribed fires will be allowed as per the BORCE agreement with DOE (Appendix A, Item 25b).

C.

Prohibited Uses The following uses by the public are prohibited because these activities cause damage to archeological, scientific, historical, or other significant resources, including rare natural features of interest for scientific study and\\or because they conflict with passive use recreation activities or policy, unless specifically approved by DOE in consultation with TWRA.

1. Horseback riding - Horseback riding is not permitted anywhere within the natural area. Horses can cause significant degradation of the natural resources within the natural area through dispersal of invasive exotic pest plants, increased soil erosion, trail damage (especially at switchbacks),

Page 12 of 14 trampling and loss of vegetation, soil compaction, alteration of wetland or bog areas, and decreased water quality.

2. Camping - Camping is not allowed anywhere on the property.

3. Motorized and non-motorized off-road vehicle riding (motorcycles, ATVs, go-carts, jeeps, bicycles*, etc.) - Use of motorized and non-motorized off-road vehicles is not permitted anywhere within the natural area Off-road vehicle riding can cause significant degradation of the natural resources within the natural area through increased soil erosion, trail damage, crushing and loss of vegetation, soil compaction, alteration of wildlife behavior, alteration of wetland or bog areas, decreased water quality, and disrupts passive recreation activities.

• Bicycles will be permitted only on designated roads in the conservation area if the greenway system is expanded.

4. Rappelling - Rappelling is not permitted anywhere within the natural area.

Rappelling can cause significant degradation of the natural resources within the natural area through the trampling and/or removal of vegetation especially mosses and lichens, alteration of plant population and community structure, alteration of wildlife habitat and/or behavior, and alteration and/or degradation of natural rock surfaces.

5. Fires - The use of any fire, including campfires, is not permitted anywhere within the natural area. Fire can cause significant degradation of the natural resources within the natural area through loss of vegetation, loss of wildlife, alteration of plant and animal population structure and community composition, loss of forest litter layer, alteration of the soil fertility, increased soil erosion, decreased water quality, and decreased aesthetics. Fires within the natural area may also pose a significant safety hazard to other visitors within the natural area and to neighboring residents. Fire and smoke may damage or destroy both private property and state owned structures.

6. Collection - Collection or destruction of plants, animals, minerals, or artifacts. The collection or destruction of any natural feature is not permitted anywhere within the natural area.

7. Consumption or possession of alcoholic beverages and controlled substances

- The consumption or possession of alcoholic beverages, controlled substances, and other intoxicating drugs or chemicals is not permitted anywhere in the BORCE area.

Page 13 of 14 ACCESS AND MAINTENANCE A. Parking There are no public parking areas developed within the boundary of the BORCE. Development of parking and access areas may be considered to provide the public with access to the BORCE. Any such improvements shall be subject to DOE approval, the restrictions of the Easement, and the WMA.

B. Signs The DNH and TWRA will place signs in the EBOR per the BORCE agreement (Appendix A, Item 21).

C. Trails There are currently no public use trails located within the BORCE. Future hiking and interpretive trails may be considered to provide the public with access to the BORCE. Any such improvements shall be subject to DOE approval and the restrictions of the Easement.

D. Buildings There are no buildings within the EBOR and none are planned.

E. Boundary / Site Patrol Boundary and site patrol will occur consistent with the BORCE agreement.

F. Litter Removal Litter is generally not a problem within the area. Public use areas will be monitored and maintained.

EDUCATION AND RESEARCH The EBOR State Natural Area provides an opportunity to demonstrate the importance of natural area values in a rapidly urbanizing area. As part of the ORR, the EBOR provides scientists from all over the world the opportunity to conduct research.

RESPONSIBILITIES OF PARTICIPANTS Cooperative Management Agreement to be developed.

Page 14 of 14 LIST OF APPENDICES A

Black Oak Ridge Conservation Easement Agreement (to be appended when executed and recorded)

B Cooperative Management Agreement between TWRA and TDEC/DNH (to be appended when developed)

C Location map of Black Oak Ridge Conservation Easement (to be appended when developed upon completion of boundary survey)

D TWRA Oak Ridge Wildlife Management Area Agreement (annual hunting proclamations are available at TWRA Region 3 office)

E Natural Areas Preservation Act of 1971 F

Rules for Management of Tennessee Natural Resource Areas G

List of Invasive Exotic Pest Plants in Tennessee