Biological assessment of the effects of construction and operation of adepleted uranium hexafluoride conversion facility at the Portsmouth, Ohio,site.

Abstract

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride (DUF{sub 6}) Management Program evaluated alternatives for managing its inventory of DUF{sub 6} and issued the ''Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Alternative Strategies for the Long-Term Management and Use of Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride'' (DUF{sub 6} PEIS) in April 1999 (DOE 1999). The DUF{sub 6} inventory is stored in cylinders at three DOE sites: Paducah, Kentucky; Portsmouth, Ohio; and East Tennessee Technology Park (ETTP), near Oak Ridge, Tennessee. In the Record of Decision for the DUF{sub 6} PEIS, DOE stated its decision to promptly convert the DUF{sub 6} inventory to a more stable chemical form. Subsequently, the U.S. Congress passed, and the President signed, the ''2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act for Further Recovery from and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States'' (Public Law No. 107-206). This law stipulated in part that, within 30 days of enactment, DOE must award a contract for the design, construction, and operation of a DUF{sub 6} conversion plant at the Department's Paducah, Kentucky, and Portsmouth, Ohio, sites, and for the shipment of DUF{sub 6} cylinders stored at ETTP to the Portsmouth site for conversion. This biological assessment (BA) has been prepared by DOE, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Endangered Species Act of 1974, to evaluate potential impacts to federally listed species from the construction and operation of a conversion facility at the DOE Portsmouth site. The Indiana bat is known to occur in the area of the Portsmouth site and may potentially occur on the site during spring or summer. Evaluations of the Portsmouth site indicated that most of the site was found to have poor summer habitat for the Indiana bat because of the small size, isolation, and insufficient maturity of the few woodlands on the site. Potential summer habitat for the Indiana bat was identified outside the developed area bounded by Perimeter Road, within the corridors along Little Beaver Creek, the Northwest Tributary stream, and a wooded area east of the X-100 facility. However, no Indiana bats were collected during surveys of these areas in 1994 and 1996. Locations A, B, and C do not support suitable habitat for the Indiana bat and would be unlikely to be used by Indiana bats. Indiana bat habitat also does not occur at Proposed Areas 1 and 2. Although Locations A and C contain small wooded areas, the small size and lack of suitable maturity of these areas indicate that they would provide poor habitat for Indiana bats. Trees that may be removed during construction would not be expected to be used for summer roosting by Indiana bats. Disturbance of Indiana bats potentially roosting or foraging in the vicinity of the facility during operations would be very unlikely, and any disturbance would be expected to be negligible. On the basis of these considerations, DOE concludes that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect the Indiana bat. No critical habitat exists for this species in the action area. Although the timber rattlesnake occurs in the vicinity of the Portsmouth site, it has not been observed on the site. In addition, habitat for the timber rattlesnake is not present on the Portsmouth site. Therefore, DOE concludes that the proposed action would not affect the timber rattlesnake.