appendix c ecological restoration - energy.gov · dbh diameter at breast height . doe u.s....

Appendix C

Ecological Restoration

This page intentionally left blank

U.S. Department of Energy Fernald Preserve 2017 Site Environmental Report May 2018 Doc. No. S17983 Page C-i

Contents Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................. C-iii Measurement Abbreviations ...................................................................................................... C-iii C.1.0 Ecological Restoration Monitoring ..................................................................................C-1 C.2.0 Functional Monitoring .....................................................................................................C-1

C.2.1 Wetland Functional Monitoring ...........................................................................C-3 C.2.2 Prairie Functional Monitoring ..............................................................................C-4 C.2.3 Forest Functional Monitoring ..............................................................................C-4

C.3.0 Wetland Mitigation Monitoring .......................................................................................C-4 C.3.1 Amphibian Surveys ..............................................................................................C-5 C.3.2 Hydrologic Monitoring ........................................................................................C-5

C.4.0 Implementation Monitoring .............................................................................................C-7 C.5.0 Site and On-Site Disposal Facility Inspections ................................................................C-8

C.5.1 Site Inspections Findings .....................................................................................C-8 C.5.2 OSDF Inspection Findings ...................................................................................C-9

C.6.0 Monitoring and Inspection Activities in 2018 .................................................................C-9 C.7.0 References ......................................................................................................................C-10

Tables Table C-1. 2017 Wetland Functional Monitoring Area Summary ........................................... C-13 Table C-2. 2017 Prairie Functional Monitoring Area Summary .............................................. C-15 Table C-3. 2017 Forest Herbaceous Functional Monitoring Area Summary ........................... C-17 Table C-4. 2017 Forest Woody Functional Monitoring Area Summary .................................. C-19 Table C-5. Herbaceous Floristic Quality Assessment Index Comparison ................................ C-21 Table C-6. Wetland Functional Monitoring Comparison ......................................................... C-21 Table C-7. Prairie Functional Monitoring Comparison ............................................................ C-22 Table C-8. Southern Waste Unit Forest Functional Monitoring Comparison .......................... C-22 Table C-9. 2017 Amphibian Monitoring Summary, Species and Number of Individuals ....... C-23 Table C-10. Amphibian Index of Biotic Integrity Comparison ................................................ C-24 Table C-11. Wetland Mitigation Hydrologic Monitoring Results ............................................ C-25 Table C-12. North Woodlot Enhancement Natural Resource Trustee Project ......................... C-26 Table C-13. Central Quadrant Site Inspection Findings, January 2017 ................................... C-27 Table C-14. South Quadrant Site Inspection Findings, February 2017 .................................... C-29 Table C-15. East Quadrant Site Inspection Findings, March 2017 .......................................... C-30 Table C-16. West Quadrant Site Inspection Findings, December 2017 ................................... C-30 Table C-17. Annual Debris Quantities ...................................................................................... C-31 Table C-18. OSDF Inspection Findings including Post-Burn Inspection Findings,

March 2017 .......................................................................................................... C-32 Table C-19. OSDF Inspection Findings, June 2017 ................................................................. C-32 Table C-20. OSDF Inspection Findings, September 2017 ....................................................... C-33 Table C-21. OSDF Inspection Findings, December 2017 ........................................................ C-34

Fernald Preserve 2017 Site Environmental Report U.S. Department of Energy Doc. No. S17983 May 2018 Page C-ii

Figures Figure C-1. 2017 Ecological Monitoring Activities ................................................................. C-35 Figure C-2A. 2017 Ecological Monitoring Survey Areas—Northwest Site Quadrant ............ C-36 Figure C-2B. 2017 Ecological Monitoring Survey Areas—Northeast Site Quadrant .............. C-37 Figure C-2C. 2017 Ecological Monitoring Survey Areas—Southwest Site Quadrant ............. C-38 Figure C-2D. 2017 Ecological Monitoring Survey Areas—Southeast Site Quadrant.............. C-39 Figure C-3A. Wetland Area BAPW2 Hydrograph ................................................................... C-41 Figure C-3B. Wetland Area FPAW2 Hydrograph .................................................................... C-42 Figure C-3C. Wetland Area FPAW9 Hydrograph .................................................................... C-43 Figure C-3D. Wetland Area WM1W1 Hydrograph ................................................................. C-44 Figure C-3E. Wetland Area WM1W3 Hydrograph .................................................................. C-45 Figure C-3F. Wetland Area WM1W5 Hydrograph .................................................................. C-46 Figure C-3G. Wetland Area WM1W6 Hydrograph ................................................................. C-47 Figure C-3H. Wetland Area WM1W7 Hydrograph ................................................................. C-48 Figure C-3I. Wetland Area PRTW1 Hydrograph ..................................................................... C-49 Figure C-3J. Wetland Area PRTW2 Hydrograph ..................................................................... C-50 Figure C-3K. Wetland Area PRTW3 Hydrograph ................................................................... C-51 Figure C-4A. Central Quadrant Site Inspection Findings, January 2017 ................................. C-53 Figure C-4B. South Quadrant Site Inspection Findings, February 2017 .................................. C-54 Figure C-4C. East Quadrant Site Inspection Findings, March 2017 ........................................ C-55 Figure C-4D. West Quadrant Site Inspection Findings, December 2017 ................................. C-56 Figure C-4E. 2017 OSDF Inspection Findings ......................................................................... C-57

U.S. Department of Energy Fernald Preserve 2017 Site Environmental Report May 2018 Doc. No. S17983 Page C-iii

Abbreviations AIBI Amphibian Index of Biotic Integrity

CC coefficient of conservatism

DBH diameter at breast height

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

FQAI Floristic Quality Assessment Index

NRRP Natural Resource Restoration Plan

Ohio EPA Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

OSDF On-Site Disposal Facility

VIBI Vegetation Index of Biotic Integrity

VIBI-FQ Vegetation Index of Biotic Integrity–Floristic Quality

Measurement Abbreviations cm centimeters

m2 square meters

Fernald Preserve 2017 Site Environmental Report U.S. Department of Energy Doc. No. S17983 May 2018 Page C-iv


U.S. Department of Energy Fernald Preserve 2017 Site Environmental Report May 2018 Doc. No. S17983 Page C-1

C.1.0 Ecological Restoration Monitoring Ecological restoration monitoring at the Fernald Preserve in 2017 involved functional monitoring, implementation monitoring, and wetland mitigation monitoring. Wetland, prairie, and forest communities in the southern and eastern portions of the site were evaluated as part of functional monitoring. Implementation monitoring consisted of herbaceous surveys and woody vegetation survival for the North Woodlot Enhancement Natural Resource Trustee restoration project. Wetland mitigation monitoring consisted of amphibian surveys and hydrologic monitoring in select wetlands. Figure C-1 shows the location of 2017 ecological monitoring activities. Ecological restoration monitoring is required as a result of the natural resource damage settlement between the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA), and U.S. Department of Interior. The Fernald Preserve Natural Resource Restoration Plan (NRRP) (State of Ohio 2008) specifies ecological restoration monitoring requirements. The Fernald Preserve Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Report (DOE 2012) included provisions to continue evaluation of wetland communities through the functional monitoring program. In addition to continuation of vegetation and amphibian surveys, water elevations continue to be monitored within mitigation wetlands. Vegetation goals have been established in the NRRP. These include 50% native species composition and 90% total cover. For implementation monitoring, the goal is 80% survival of planted vegetation. Additional goals for wetland mitigation monitoring are included in the Fernald Preserve Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Report (DOE 2012).

C.2.0 Functional Monitoring In 2017, functional monitoring was performed in wetland, prairie, and forest communities within the southern and eastern portions of the site (Figure C-1). This approach was different before 2015 when monitoring was conducted on a sitewide community basis, with wetland monitoring completed one year, prairie monitoring the next, and forest monitoring the third year. This management-area approach instead of the former plant community approach is a result of the revised prairie management process that was undertaken in 2015 and ensures that restored areas are managed on a 3-year rotation. Section 5.0 provides additional discussion regarding management areas. Monitoring areas for 2017 included 13 wetland basins, 8 prairie areas, and 8 forest communities. For each prairie and forested area, 15 random 1 square meter (m2) quadrats were surveyed for herbaceous vegetation during the growing season (April through September). Surveys were divided into three rounds of five samples to ensure coverage throughout the growing season. Species richness and cover data were recorded for herbaceous vegetation. Additional 1,000 m2 plots were used to collect woody data from forest communities. Species abundance and size data using diameter at breast height (DBH) measurements were collected for woody vegetation in forest communities. Wetland communities were surveyed via fixed grids as described in the Fernald Preserve Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Plan (DOE 2009). Processes for calculating monitoring parameters for all communities are described in the Fernald Preserve, Fernald, Ohio,

Fernald Preserve 2017 Site Environmental Report U.S. Department of Energy Doc. No. S17983 May 2018 Page C-2

Ecological Monitoring Methods Plan and Procedures (DOE 2015). Quadrat and fixed grid locations within each monitoring area are identified in Figures C-2A through C-2D. Past annual Site Environmental Reports have presented area-specific data summaries. Beginning in 2015, a single species list for each habitat was provided with area-specific information identified in one summary table. This presentation allows a side-by-side comparison of monitoring areas. The monitoring data for 2017 are presented as follows:

• Table C-1, 2017 Wetland Functional Monitoring Area Summary

• Table C-2, 2017 Prairie Functional Monitoring Area Summary

• Table C-3, 2017 Forest Herbaceous Functional Monitoring Area Summary

• Table C-4, 2017 Forest Woody Functional Monitoring Area Summary Species richness data are used to calculate the percent native species, average coefficient of conservatism (CC), and Floristic Quality Assessment Index (FQAI) for each restoration area. The latest Ohio FQAI database (Gara 2013) is used to determine nativity status and CC values. Relative frequency of native species is calculated by dividing the number of quadrats in which a species was observed by the total number of quadrats surveyed. Cover class estimates were also obtained to evaluate the extent of vegetation establishment across restored areas. Results presented in Tables C-1 through C-4 indicated that several plants could not be identified to species. Nativity and CC value designations for these plants are made on a case-by-case basis. For example, there are a wide variety of CC values for native Carex species, so these plants would need to be identified to species level in order for a CC value to be assigned. In comparison, Vitis (grape vines) are often identified only to genus. The Ohio FQAI database assigns a CC of 3 for each of the three likely Vitis species in southwest Ohio; therefore, for the purposes of FQAI and nativity calculations, Vitis species in Table C-3 is considered native and assigned a CC of 3. For those plants that are identified to genus, but assumed to be a particular species based on distribution and site knowledge, the species is noted in parentheses on Table C-1 through C-4. This approach is applied conservatively so that there is no possibility of artificially inflating the calculations. If the plant is identified to genus level but there is uncertainty regarding CC values, the plant is not included in the calculations, and NDA (no determination available) is indicated on the table. Unknown species are counted as nonnative but are not included in calculating average CC values. A component of the functional monitoring process is to evaluate trends over time and compare communities to baseline conditions and reference sites. Table C-5 provides a multiyear FQAI comparison for all areas surveyed in 2017. Comparisons of wetland functional monitoring, prairie functional monitoring, and forest functional monitoring are presented in Tables C-6, C-7, and C-8, respectively. Areas designated from previous Site Environmental Reports for long-term comparisons in 2017 included two areas available for wetlands (Borrow Area and Wetland Mitigation Phase I), one area for prairies (Wetland Mitigation Phase I), and one for forest communities (Southern Waste Units). Tables C-6 through C-8 show the community-specific baseline and reference site comparisons. These tables summarize the species lists from all sub-areas surveyed within a monitored restoration area (Tables C-1 through C-4) and compare them to baseline and reference sites that were characterized in 2002 (DOE 2002).


C.2.1 Wetland Functional Monitoring In 2013, Ohio EPA published a more streamlined approach for wetland evaluation called the Vegetation Index of Biotic Integrity–Floristic Quality (VIBI-FQ) (Gara 2013). This index can be used in place of traditional Vegetation Index of Biotic Integrity (VIBI) to evaluate wetland quality. The revised methodology uses a 0–100 score by combining two separate 0–50 scoring metrics. The traditional VIBI methodology used 10 separate 0–10 scores to develop a 0–100 score. Ohio EPA demonstrated that there was a strong correlation between traditional VIBI and VIBI-FQ scoring (Gara 2013). The VIBI-FQ method has been used at the Fernald Preserve since 2015 to evaluate site wetlands. Wetland functional monitoring results for the Borrow Area, Former Silos Area, and Wetland Mitigation Phase I are summarized in Table C-1. All basins met NRRP goals, with over 50% native species calculated for all basins. The Former Silos Area (FSAW1), which was a Natural Resource Trustee project constructed in 2012 and 2013, scored particularly well, with the highest average CC, FQAI and VIBI-VQ among all basins surveyed. This basin consists of a meandering swale between two ponds. Field observations confirm that the constructed swale is a diverse emergent wetland. The fixed grid that encompassed the swale also included adjacent upland prairie community (Figure C-2A). These upland plants increased overall species richness and average CC values. Several notable wetland species were observed in 2017. The carnivorous, floating aquatic species, common bladderwort (Utricularia vulgaris) was observed in 8 of the 13 basins surveyed (Table C-1). This species was only observed in WM1W1 and WM1W2 in 2012 (DOE 2013). It is not a component of any wetland seed mix onsite, so it has established and spread independently. Dispersal is primarily accomplished via stem fragments (Beal 1898), and its expansion into new wetlands suggests that waterfowl are distributing fragments of the plant from watershed to watershed. Riddell’s goldenrod (Solidago riddellii) was recorded in the FSAW1 basin. This is a new voucher specimen for the site and is considered a high quality native wetland plant. Several new species for the site were also observed in WM1W1, including queen of the prairie (Filipendula rubra) and water parsnip (Sium suave). These obligate wetland species may have originated from donor soil that was supplied by Ohio EPA during the initial construction of the wetlands. It may take a number of years for plants to establish, as many variables factor into seed germination and growth. The erosion repairs that took place at the drainages into and out of WM1W1 will help to stabilize the basin hydrology. Section 5.1.1 of the Site Environmental Report provides additional detail regarding this project. In a comparison of restoration areas over time (Table C-5), the Borrow Area and Wetland Mitigation Phase I wetlands show sustained establishment of native wetland communities. The 2017 FQAI scores were higher in 9 of 12 basins. The multiyear comparison of consolidated species lists (Table C-6) also shows improvement, with higher FQAI scores and similar average CC values in both areas compared to 2012. The results in Table C-6 demonstrate continued improvement over baseline conditions, and favorable comparison to the open water reference site.


The presence of invasive species, such as reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) and giant reed (Phragmites australis) in several basins (Table C-1) indicates that continued vegetation management is needed. These species spread rhizotomously and can create monoculture stands if not addressed. C.2.2 Prairie Functional Monitoring Prairie results are summarized in Tables C-2, C-5, and C-7. As with the wetland communities discussed above, all areas surveyed are meeting the goals established in the NRRP. Native vegetation is established across all surveyed project areas. Native species establishment was more than 50% in all areas except SWUPR1 (Table C-2). The FQAI comparison on Table C-5 shows that scores have increased in five of the six prairie community areas when comparing the previous available monitoring results for which multiyear data are available. The consolidated comparison of the Wetland Mitigation Phase I prairies shows much improvement over previous years in all parameters, and continued improvement over the grazed pasture baseline condition (Table C-7). Table C-2 lists several invasive species that were recorded, such as Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), crown vetch (Coronilla varia), and teasel (Dipsacus sp.). These findings indicate that continued vegetation management via prescribed burn, selective mowing, and spot herbicide application is required. These species may overtake project areas if left alone. C.2.3 Forest Functional Monitoring Tables C-3 and C-4 provide a summary of 2017 forest herbaceous and woody vegetation functional monitoring findings, respectively. Native species goals for herbaceous vegetation were met in all areas, with the exception of percent relative frequency in SWURF1 (Table C-3). A high concentration of wild teasel (Dipsacus fullonum) impacted the relative frequency calculation. Native species goals were met for woody vegetation, except for relative density in PREFO1 and PRESF1 (Table C-4). A high density of Amur honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii) is present in both of these areas. Field personnel focus on woody invasives control as part of ongoing management of restored areas. Portions of these areas were addressed in 2015 and 2016. Continued control is planned to increase the relative frequency of native species in site forested communities. A comparison of herbaceous FQAI scores over time indicates that the FQAI score increased in six of the eight areas surveyed (Table C-5). The consolidated multiyear comparison of the Southern Waste Units (Table C-8) indicates that forest establishment is sustained. There was a reduction in average CC and FQAI from 2014, but percent native species increased. Note that the multiyear comparison on Table C-8 is a combined calculation of herbaceous and woody vegetation. As stated above, continued invasives control is needed. This is a focus of restored area management at the Fernald Preserve.

C.3.0 Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Pursuant to the Fernald Preserve Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Report (DOE 2012), limited wetland monitoring continued in 2017. Activities included amphibian surveys to calculate


Amphibian Index of Biotic Integrity (AIBI) and hydrologic monitoring using shallow wells (piezometers). C.3.1 Amphibian Surveys Amphibian monitoring was conducted in spring 2017 for selected basins within the mitigation wetlands (Figure C-1). Basins include those monitored pursuant to the Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Plan (DOE 2009), as well as several new basins constructed in the Paddys Run West and North Woodlot Enhancement Natural Resource Trustee project areas. Table C-9 lists the basins monitored and amphibian species observed. Table C-10 compares AIBI scores for each basin since 2011. Results presented in these tables indicate that mitigated wetlands established in the northern portions of the site continue to maintain overall quality and function. Findings in 2017 were similar to those recorded in previous years with ambystomatid salamanders observed in wetlands located adjacent to established forest communities (North Pine Plantation Enhancement, Wetland Mitigation Phase I, and Wetland Mitigation Phase II). Ambystomatid salamanders are also becoming established in the Paddys Run West Natural Resource Trustee project (Table C-9). The presence of ambystomatid salamanders is a key indicator of mitigation wetland success (Micacchion 2011). The proximity of restored wetlands to existing amphibian breeding ponds can greatly impact where ambystomatids select for a breeding site (Gara and Micacchion 2010). This has proven true at the Fernald Preserve over several years of amphibian monitoring. The presence of ambystomatids in any number indicates that mitigation efforts are providing adequate ecological services for sensitive indicator species. Very few cricket frogs (Acris crepitans) were observed in 2017 (Table C-9). This sitewide species decline has been observed for several years. Cricket frogs are pioneer species, and as created wetlands mature, it is expected that populations would decline. The lack of cricket frogs in the Former Production Area is the reason for lower AIBI scores in this area (Table C-10). C.3.2 Hydrologic Monitoring Hydrologic monitoring consists of daily water level measurements from shallow wells (i.e., piezometers) that were installed in 2009 and 2012. Figure C-1 shows the locations of piezometers within site wetlands. Figures C-3A through C-3K provide hydrographs for each basin monitored in 2017. Table C-11 presents results for each piezometer by year. Hydrologic monitoring has occurred at the Fernald Preserve for 8 years. The overall pattern of water levels in most basins is similar across the years, with saturated conditions observed through the winter and spring, followed by drier conditions in the summer and fall. These findings are also similar to those at other emergent wetlands in Ohio. The influence of surface water is evident, as spikes in water elevations are observed in most basins (Mack et al. 2004) following precipitation events in summer months. Data are collected from transducers that are positioned inside the piezometers. Transducers collect data at approximately 90 centimeters (cm) below ground surface. Data are uploaded from transducers at the most on a monthly basis, and usually only several times a year. Therefore, if a transducer fails there is the potential to miss periods of time for data collection. Significant data gaps can be observed on the hydrographs from year to year. Gaps are noted in Table C-11.


Table C-11 compares results to the performance standards established in the Fernald Preserve Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Plan (DOE 2009). Standards include the percent of time water is present in the root zone, the mean depth of water, and the flashiness index. The standard associated with saturation of the root zone is based on a root zone of 30 cm below ground surface where water is present a minimum of 53% of the time throughout the year. The mean depth to water must be less than 29.4 cm. The flashiness index is a measurement of how fast water elevations rise or fall and is calculated by taking the absolute value of the annual average difference between water elevations on consecutive days. For wetlands to meet the flashiness standard, the flashiness index must be less than 2.0. In general, water levels and durations were higher in 2017 than previous years. This is likely due to above-average annual precipitation, with 46.9 inches of precipitation recorded in 2017. This is higher than the 41.4-inch average precipitation for the site. Water levels in FPAW9 continue to be higher than in previous years due to beaver activity (Figure C-3C). The hydrograph for basin WM1W6 continues to indicate that water levels have returned to normal when compared to 2014 data within this basin (Figure C-3G). In 2014, lower water levels in the first half of the year were attributed to water loss due to headwall damage from burrowing crayfish. Repairs to the WM1W6 outfall were completed in July 2017. Field observations confirmed that water elevations in WM1W6 were higher following the repairs. Figure C-3G indicates higher water levels were present when the basin recharged in November 2017. The WM1W7 transducer failed to collect a complete data set again in 2017 (Figure C-3H). A transducer in this basin failed in 2015 and 2016 and was replaced twice. This third transducer failed in 2017 and a new transducer was installed in late 2017. Results from the three piezometers installed in the vicinity of the 2012 Paddys Run Tributary restoration project improved in 2017, but still have not met performance standards (Table C-11). Field observations and amphibian monitoring results showed that water levels were maintained in the main vernal pool basin for most of the year. Hydrologic monitoring will continue in this area. Conditions in PRTW2 improved in 2017, suggesting that, in addition to increased precipitation, the changes in hydrology due to the Paddys Run West restoration project may be positively influencing the basin. This project was completed in summer 2015 and involved expansion of wetland communities across the project area. PRTW1 has not improved since installation in 2012; PRTW3 shows a slight improvement since installation. A wetland has established in these areas, and field observations indicate that the PRTW1 piezometer may have been installed too far from the basin to properly measure wetland hydrology. Installing a new piezometer in PRTW1 at a new location remains an option. Wetland hydrologic data have been collected from mitigation wetlands since 2010. Basins have been eliminated from the monitoring program once results demonstrated that performance standards are met over 5 years. Monitoring was discontinued in 13 basins in 2014 (DOE 2015), and in an additional 2 basins in 2015 (DOE 2016). No wetland basins were eliminated in 2016. A review of the 2017 results shows that while not all performance standards are met across remaining basins, the annual patterns of saturation are consistent with similar natural wetlands. Saturated conditions are observed through the winter and spring, followed by drier conditions in the summer and fall. These findings are also similar to those at other emergent impoundment and depressional wetlands in Ohio (Mack et al. 2004). Hydrographs presented in Figures C-3A through C-3K demonstrate these patterns from year to year.


These results and field observations show that water elevations have stabilized and are providing adequate conditions to maintain a wetland community. This conclusion is reinforced by the results of wetland vegetation and amphibian monitoring discussed above. For example, five of the seven Wetland Mitigation Phase I basins are still included in the hydrologic monitoring program. However, the multiyear vegetation comparison in Table C-6 shows that a sustained quality wetland community is present, with all vegetation parameters comparing favorably to previous years and baseline conditions. Likewise, ambystomatid salamanders were observed in two of the three basins surveyed in 2017 (Table C-9). This totality of evidence leads to the conclusion that water elevations are successful in maintaining a functional wetland community. Therefore, DOE plans to discontinue hydrologic monitoring for the remaining wetland mitigation areas at the end of 2018. Because monitoring results were not as expected, monitoring will continue in the Paddys Run Tributary wetlands that were constructed in 2012. DOE will evaluate the location of piezometers within these wetlands.

C.4.0 Implementation Monitoring Implementation monitoring in 2017 consisted of an herbaceous plant survey and a woody vegetation survival survey in the North Woodlot Enhancement Natural Resource Trustee restoration project area (Figure C-1). Table C-12 provides the herbaceous summary data for this area. Herbaceous surveys were divided into two areas: an upland restored forest community (NWERF2) and a wetland area (NWEW1). Both areas are located within the disturbed graded portion of the project area. Implementation monitoring in other parts of the project area was limited to woody vegetation survival, because existing herbaceous vegetation was not disturbed outside of the graded area. Pursuant to the NRRP, seeded areas are evaluated for two criteria: percentage of native species and total cover. Implementation monitoring goals include at least 50% native vegetation establishment and 90% total cover by the end of the first growing season following seeding. Seeded areas are evaluated via random sampling. Five 1 m2 quadrats are randomly distributed and surveyed. Field personnel estimate the total cover and list all species present within each quadrat. Total cover is estimated by assigning cover class categories for each quadrat. A cover class of 1 indicates that only one or two individual plants are present. A cover class of 10 represents 95–99% vegetative cover. The data collected are used to determine total cover, percent native species composition, and relative frequency of native species, pursuant to the Fernald Preserve, Fernald Ohio, Ecological Monitoring Methods Plan and Procedures (DOE 2015). For woody vegetation, all planted trees and shrubs are evaluated for survival at the end of the first growing season following installation. This involves an assignment of one of four categories: alive, resprouting, vital, and dead or unaccounted. Trees and shrubs are considered “alive” when their main stem and greater than 50% of the lateral stems are viable. “Resprouting” trees and shrubs have a dead main stem, with one or more new shoots growing from the stem or the root mass. A plant is categorized as “vital” when less than 50% of its lateral branches are alive. “Dead” trees have no signs of life at all. Trees that are “unaccounted” are considered dead. Only “alive” trees are counted as surviving. The woody vegetation goal is 80% survival following the first growing season.


Results of herbaceous monitoring show that the seeded areas met both relative frequency of native species and total cover goals, 50% and 90%, respectively. The percent native species was 63% in restored forest areas and 68% in the wetland area, and the relative frequency of native species was between 67% and 73%. Total cover was 92% for forest restoration areas and 69% for the wetland area. The lower total cover value appears to be due to the nature of the wetlands, where some areas were inundated with standing water, rather than a failure to establish vegetation. Follow-up observations show that vegetation has been well established across the project area. Woody vegetation plantings in the North Woodlot Enhancement project consisted of larger container-grown sapling trees, along with smaller seedling-size container trees and shrubs. Plants were divided into four different planting areas: three existing former agricultural field areas and the constructed wetland area. Overall survival of the sapling plantings was 89%. For the smaller trees and shrubs, it was difficult to determine survival because of the dense vegetation that was present within the old field planting areas. Only 11 of 956 trees and shrubs could be confirmed as dead. However, less than 300 saplings could be found. It is suspected that overall survival is over 80%, but further observation will be needed to verify that native trees and shrubs have been established. Field personnel noted several volunteer trees established within deer exclosure fencing. These areas will continue to be evaluated within the North Woodlot Enhancement planting areas during the 2018 growing season.

C.5.0 Site and On-Site Disposal Facility Inspections The Fernald Preserve Comprehensive Legacy Management and Institutional Controls Plan (DOE 2018) identifies the inspection process for the site and the On-Site Disposal Facility (OSDF). Inspections are conducted quarterly with participation from regulators. Inspections document evidence of unauthorized uses of the site, the effectiveness of institutional controls, and the need for repairs. Ecologically restored areas are evaluated for the presence of noxious weeds and erosion, the condition of vegetation, potentially contaminated debris, and signs of damage from nuisance animals. Section 5.0 of the Site Environmental Report provides a narrative summary of inspection results. Inspection reports are generated quarterly and are posted on the DOE Office of Legacy Management website, https://www.lm.doe.gov/fernald/Sites.aspx. Follow-up maintenance activities are conducted to address findings from site and OSDF inspections. For a number of findings, it is determined that no action or continued monitoring is required. A number of 2017 inspection findings remain to be addressed. DOE continues to resolve older findings even as new ones are generated during inspections. Updated information is presented in the quarterly inspection reports. C.5.1 Site Inspections Findings To more easily manage the site inspections, the site was divided into four quadrants: central, south, east, and west. The field walkdowns are conducted by quadrant. The 2017 site inspection findings, resolution detail, and date of resolution are presented by quadrant in Tables C-13 through C-16. The approximate location of each finding for which a location was identified


during the inspection is presented in Figures C-4A to C-4D. Similar to recent years, site inspection findings for 2017 consisted mainly of the presence of noxious weeds and invasive vegetation and deer exclosure fencing damaged by fallen trees and limbs. In 2017, the presence of individual tree cages that are no longer protecting vegetation was also a consistent finding. Minor erosion was observed in two locations in the central quadrant. Site signage, fencing, and access points are also inspected quarterly. All inspection findings are included in the quarterly inspection reports. Debris (e.g., asphalt, tile, and concrete) continues to be identified, primarily in the Former Production Area and Former Waste Storage Area located in the central quadrant. The site radiological control technician performs a radiological scan of all debris identified. DOE is committed to providing summary numbers regarding debris findings. Table C-17 provides a comparison of debris quantities by year. In 2017, 574 pieces of debris were identified and removed. Three pieces of debris removed had fixed radiological contamination above background levels. Two were located in areas of the site that are not open to the public. One piece of concrete was found near the main access road, adjacent to the northern side of the storm water retention basin valve house. This debris was not discovered during a site inspection, but rather as a casual observation by field personnel. Debris is discovered through the site inspection process as well as during construction activities, site maintenance, and casual observation. It is often the case that when one piece of debris is observed during an inspection, additional debris is discovered nearby when returning to remove the debris. C.5.2 OSDF Inspection Findings OSDF inspections consist of a quarterly walkdown around the perimeter of the OSDF (Tables C-18 to C-20) and an annual walkdown of the vegetated cap (Table C-20). An additional walkdown was conducted following the prescribed vegetation burn on Cells 7 and 8. Findings from this walkdown are included in Table C-18. Erosion rills, animal burrows, noxious weeds, woody vegetation, settlement cracks, and other indications that there may be an issue with the proper functioning of the cap are identified and repaired. In 2017, there were no signs that the integrity of the cap had been compromised. As in previous years, findings consisted mainly of woody vegetation, noxious weeds, and animal burrows. Callery pear (Pyrus calleryana) and other woody vegetation continue to invade the OSDF cap. Field personnel physically remove or apply herbicide to woody vegetation because woody vegetation is not permitted on the OSDF cap. Tables C-18 through C-21 provide the 2017 OSDF findings, resolution detail, and date of resolution, and Figure C-4E identifies the approximate location of each listed finding. Very few findings were observed during the complete cap walkover in December. For the most part, individual trees were not flagged. Inspectors noted that woody vegetation was much reduced. This was attributed to spot herbicide application and the prescribed burns that occurred in 2016 and 2017. These activities seemed to help reduce the amount of woody vegetation across the OSDF.

C.6.0 Monitoring and Inspection Activities in 2018 Activities in 2018 will include a continuation of the area-specific management and monitoring approach. Management Area A, which includes the northern portion of the site, will be evaluated. Functional monitoring for 2018 will include wetlands, prairies, and forest


communities within these areas, and results will be presented in the Site Environmental Report for 2018. No herbaceous implementation monitoring is needed in 2018. DOE will conduct a field evaluation of the North Woodlot Enhancement restoration project to determine if additional tree and shrub plantings are needed. Wetland mitigation monitoring in the form of amphibian data collection and hydrological monitoring will also continue. Hydrologic monitoring will also continue in the Paddys Run Tributary wetlands. Piezometers may be relocated following an evaluation of field conditions in spring 2018. Quarterly site inspections will continue to be used to identify issues that need to be addressed through restored area maintenance. To better access remote areas of the site, the timing of field walk-downs is focused in the winter months. This allows for greater visibility and access in densely vegetated areas. Herbaceous monitoring of the OSDF cap, which is reported through quarterly inspection reports, will continue as well. Cell caps 4, 5 and 6 will be evaluated in 2018.

C.7.0 References Beal, W.J., 1898. Seed Dispersal, Ginn and Company. http://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/monos/seeddispersal1898.pdf. DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2002. 2002 Consolidated Monitoring Report for Restored Areas at the Fernald Closure Project, 20900-RP-0017 Revision B Draft, Office of Environmental Management, Fernald Area Office, Cincinnati, Ohio, April. DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2009. Fernald Preserve Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Plan, LMS/FER/S05034, Office of Legacy Management, Cincinnati, Ohio, October. DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2012. Fernald Preserve Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Report, LMS/FER/S08266, Office of Legacy Management, Cincinnati, Ohio, May. DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2013. Fernald Preserve 2012 Site Environmental Report, Doc. No. S09665, Office of Legacy Management, June. DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2015. Fernald Preserve, Fernald, Ohio, Ecological Monitoring Methods Plan and Procedures, LMS/FER/S06195, Office of Legacy Management, June. DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2016. Fernald Preserve 2015 Site Environmental Report, LMS/FER/S13591, Office of Legacy Management, Cincinnati, Ohio, May. DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2018. Fernald Preserve Comprehensive Legacy Management and Institutional Controls Plan, LMS/FER/S03496, Revision 11, Office of Legacy Management, January.


Gara, B., 2013. The Vegetation Index of Biotic Integrity “Floristic Quality” (VIBI-FQ), Ohio EPA Technical Report WET/2013-2, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Wetlands Ecology Group, Division of Surface Water, Columbus, Ohio. Gara, B.D. and M. Micacchion, 2010. Assessment of Wetland Mitigation Projects in Ohio, Ohio EPA Technical Report WET/2010-1B. Mack, J.J., M.S. Fennessey, M. Micacchion, and D. Porej, 2004. Standardized Monitoring Protocols, Data Analysis and Reporting Requirements for Mitigation Wetlands in Ohio, Version 1.0, Ohio EPA Technical Report (WET/2004-6), Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Wetlands Ecology Group, Division of Surface Water, Columbus, Ohio. Micacchion, M., 2011. Field Manual for the Amphibian Index of Biotic Integrity (AmphIBI) for Wetlands, Ohio EPA Technical Report WET/2011-1, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Wetlands Ecology Group, Division of Surface Water, Columbus, Ohio. State of Ohio, 2008. Consent Decree Resolving Ohio’s Natural Resource Damage Claim against DOE, State of Ohio v. United States Department of Energy, et al, Civil Action No. C-1-86-0217, Judge Spiegel.


Table C-1. 2017 Wetland Functional Monitoring Area Summary

Restoration Area Former

Silos Area

Basin BAPW2 BAPW3 BAPW4 BAPW7 BAPW9 FSAW1 WM1W1 WM1W2 WM1W3 WM1W4 WM1W5 WM1W6 WM1W7Total Species 61 57 37 47 45 112 72 75 59 62 60 42 60

Native Species 45 48 30 37 37 85 56 58 47 46 45 35 44Non-Native Species 16 9 7 10 8 27 16 17 12 16 15 7 16

Native Species (Percent) 74% 84% 81% 79% 82% 76% 78% 77% 80% 74% 75% 83% 73%Relative Cover of Native Species (Percent) 85% 85% 86% 96% 90% 84% 52% 76% 83% 67% 76% 60% 61%

Average Coefficient of Conservatism (CC), range between 0-10 2.2 2.1 2.3 2.1 2.2 2.6 2.1 2.0 2.3 1.9 2.0 2.2 1.9Floristic Quality Assessment Index 17.0 15.7 14.3 14.6 14.5 27.2 18.2 17.3 17.3 15.0 15.5 14.0 15.1

Vegetation Index of Biotic Integrity-Floristic Quality, range between 0-100 32 37 31 30 27 61 37 39 38 35 23 27 27

Species Common Name Type CCa Wetland Indicatorb BAPW2 BAPW3 BAPW4 BAPW7 BAPW9 FSAW1 WM1W1 WM1W2 WM1W3 WM1W4 WM1W5 WM1W6 WM1W7

Acer rubrum RED MAPLE tree 2 FAC <0.1% 0.6% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1%Acer saccharinum SILVER MAPLE tree 3 FACW <0.1%Acer saccharum SUGAR MAPLE tree 5 FACU 0.3% <0.1%Agrimonia parviflora SMALL-FLOWERED AGRIMONY forb 2 FACW 0.2% <0.1% 0.2% 2.0%Alisma subcordatum SOUTHERN WATER-PLANTAIN forb 2 OBL 0.4% 0.4% 0.8% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.5% 0.6% 0.2% <0.1% <0.1% 1.8%Ambrosia artemisiifolia COMMON RAGWEED forb 0 FACU 0.1% <0.1% 0.4% 0.1% <0.1% <0.1%Amorpha fruticosa FALSE INDIGO forb 3 FACW 17.2% <0.1% <0.1%Andropogon gerardii BIG BLUESTEM grass 5 FAC 2.4% 9.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% 2.6% 0.1% 1.8% 0.1% 12.2%Apocynum cannabinum INDIAN HEMP forb 1 FAC <0.1% 0.1% 0.5% <0.1% 1.2% 4.4% 0.6%Asclepias incarnata SWAMP MILKWEED forb 4 OBL 0.4% <0.1% 0.4% 1.6% 3.1% 1.8% <0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 1.5% 0.1% 0.1%Asclepias syriaca COMMON MILKWEED forb 1 FACU 0.6% 5.2% 0.3%Aster novae-angliae NEW ENGLAND ASTER forb 2 FACW- <0.1% 0.2% <0.1%Aster pilosus AWL ASTER forb 1 UPL <0.1% 0.6% 0.1% <0.1% <0.1% 0.1% <0.1% 0.1%Aster species ASTER SPECIES forb NDA NDA 0.1%Baptisia lactea WHITE FALSE INDIGO forb 8 FACU 0.1%Bidens frondosa DEVIL'S BEGGAR'S-TICK forb 2 FACW 0.7% 0.1% 0.3% <0.1% 0.1%Bidens species TICKSEED SPECIES forb 2 NDA <0.1% 0.2% <0.1%Bouteloua curtipendula SIDE-OATS GRAMA GRASS grass 8 UPL 0.1% 0.1%Calystegia sepium HEDGE BINDWEED forb 1 FAC 0.1%Campsis radicans TRUMPET-CREEPER vine 1 FACU 0.1%Carex annectens YELLOW FOX SEDGE sedge 3 FACW 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1%Carex comosa BEARDED SEDGE sedge 2 OBL 3.9% 0.1% 0.1% 3.4% 3.1% 2.8% 1.3% 0.1% 3.1% 0.1% 0.7%Carex crinita var. crinita TASSELED SEDGE sedge 3 OBL 0.3% 1.2%Carex cristatella CRESTED SEDGE sedge 3 FACW 0.1%Carex frankii FRANK'S SEDGE sedge 2 OBL 0.1% 0.4% 0.5% 1.1% 0.1% 0.1% 1.1% 0.2%Carex hystericina PORCUPINE SEDGE sedge 5 OBL 0.2% 0.2% 0.6% 0.2% 0.3%Carex lurida BOTTLEBRUSH SEDGE sedge 3 OBL 0.8% 0.3% 0.3% 3.7% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 1.1%Carex normalis LARGE STRAW SEDGE sedge 4 FACW 0.1%Carex shortiana SHORT'S SEDGE sedge 2 FACW <0.1%Carex species SEDGE SPECIES sedge NDA NDA 0.6% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% <0.1% 0.1% 0.8% 0.1% 0.1%Carex vulpinoidea FOX SEDGE sedge 1 FACW 0.8% 0.5% 0.5% 1.6% 0.8% 0.1% 0.6% 0.1% 0.5%Carya species HICKORY SPECIES tree 5 NDA 0.1%Cephalanthus occidentalis BUTTONBUSH shrub 6 OBL 0.8% 0.8% 1.3% 1.0% 9.4% 0.8% 16.0% 0.7% 1.4%Ceratophyllum demersum COONTAIL forb 2 OBL 0.2% 14.8% 2.8% 0.7% 2.5%Chamaecrista fasciculata PARTRIDGE-PEA forb 3 FACU <0.1%Conyza canadensis HORSEWEED forb 0 UPL <0.1% <0.1% <0.1%Cornus amomum SILKY DOGWOOD shrub 2 FACW 0.1% 0.8%Cornus racemosa GRAY DOGWOOD shrub 1 FAC 0.8%Cornus species (Cornus racemosa) DOGWOOD SPECIES (Cornus racemosa) shrub 1 FAC 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2%Crataegus species HAWTHORN SPECIES sm tree NDA NDA 0.1%Cyperus esculentus YELLOW NUT-SEDGE sedge 0 FACW <0.1% 0.1%Cyperus species UMBRELLA-SEDGE SPECIES sedge NDA NDA 0.6% 0.2% <0.1% 0.5% 1.0% <0.1%Decodon verticillatus SWAMP LOOSESTRIFE forb 6 OBL 0.6% <0.1% 2.0%Desmodium canadense CANADA TICK-TREFOIL forb 4 FACU 0.5% 0.3%Desmodium canescens HOARY TICK-TREFOIL forb 4 UPL 0.2%Desmodium paniculatum SHOWY TICK-TREFOIL forb 3 FACU 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%Desmodium species (Desmodium canadense) TICK-TREFOIL SPECIES forb 4 NDA 0.2%Cyperaceae species SEDGE FAMILY SPECIES sedge NDA NDA 0.2%Eclipta prostrata YERBA-DE-TAJO forb 3 FACW <0.1% <0.1% <0.1%Eleocharis erythropoda RED-FOOTED SPIKE-RUSH sedge 4 OBL 7.9% 16.3% 1.1% 0.7% 1.0% 0.2% 0.5% 3.9% 0.3%Eleocharis obtusa BLUNT SPIKE-RUSH sedge 1 OBL 1.3% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%Elymus canadensis CANADA WILD RYE grass 6 FACU 0.1% 0.5% 0.8% 0.2% 0.8%Epilobium coloratum PURPLE-LEAVED WILLOW-HERB forb 1 OBL 2.8% 0.6% 0.1% 0.1% 0.6% <0.1% 0.7% 0.2% 5.1% 0.2% 0.4% 0.3%Equisetum hyemale SCOURING-RUSH fern 2 FACW 0.3%Erechtites hieracifolia PILEWORT forb 2 FACU <0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.5% 0.8% <0.1%Erigeron annuus DAISY FLEABANE forb 0 FACU <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1%Eryngium yuccifolium RATTLESNAKE-MASTER forb 7 FAC <0.1%Eupatorium altissimum TALL BONESET forb 0 UPL 0.1%Eupatorium perfoliatum COMMON BONESET forb 3 OBL 3.9% 1.7% 1.9% 0.1% 1.4% 0.1% 0.2%Eupatorium serotinum LATE-FLOWERING BONESET forb 2 FAC 1.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.7% 6.3% 0.9% 0.1% 0.5% 0.2%Euthamia graminifolia FLAT-TOPPED GOLDENROD forb 2 FACW <0.1% 0.1% 0.6% 0.3% 0.3% 0.1%Filipendula rubra QUEEN-OF-THE-PRAIRIE forb 8 OBL 0.1%Fraxinus pennsylvanica GREEN ASH tree 3 FACW <0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.7% 0.3% 0.5% 0.3% 0.9% 0.1% <0.1%Galium tinctorium SMALL THREE-LOBED BEDSTRAW forb 4 OBL <0.1% 0.1% 1.1% 0.4%Geum species AVENS SPECIES forb 2 OBL 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%Hackelia virginiana VIRGINIA STICKSEED forb 2 FACU <0.1% <0.1% <0.1%Helianthus grosseserratus SAWTOOTH SUNFLOWER forb 4 FACW 0.3%Helianthus species SUNFLOWER SPECIES forb NDA NDA 0.1%Heliopsis helianthoides SMOOTH OXEYE forb 5 FACU <0.1%Hibiscus moscheutos SWAMP ROSE-MALLOW forb 4 OBL 2.1%Hypericum mutilum SLENDER ST. JOHN'S-WORT forb 3 FACW 0.1%Ilex verticillata WINTERBERRY shrub 6 FACW 0.5%Iris versicolor NORTHERN BLUE FLAG forb 6 OBL 0.2% 1.1%Juglans nigra BLACK WALNUT tree 5 FACU 0.1% 0.2% 1.1%Juncus balticus BALTIC RUSH forb 6 FACW+ 0.3% 0.7% 0.5% 0.9% 0.6%Juncus dudleyi DUDLEY'S RUSH forb 3 FACW 0.2%Juncus effusus SOFT RUSH forb 1 OBL 0.2% 1.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.5% 1.3%Juncus interior INLAND RUSH forb 4 FAC 0.1% 2.5% 0.1% <0.1%Juncus species RUSH SPECIES forb NDA NDA 10.3%Juncus tenuis PATH RUSH forb 1 FAC 1.6% 0.3% 0.7% <0.1% 0.4%Juncus torreyi TORREY'S RUSH forb 3 FACW 5.3% 0.5% 2.5% 0.1% 0.9%Juniperus virginiana EASTERN RED CEDAR tree 3 FACU 0.1% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1% 0.4% 1.2% 1.5% <0.1%Leersia oryzoides RICE CUT GRASS grass 1 OBL 1.5% 1.6% 2.0% 0.7% 1.6% 1.2% 1.6% 0.1% 0.1% 0.9% <0.1% 0.1% 0.3%Lemna minor COMMON DUCKWEED forb 3 OBL 2.8% 0.8% 11.9% 17.4% 14.9% <0.1% 6.2% <0.1% 2.9%Lobelia cardinalis CARDINAL-FLOWER forb 5 OBL 0.1% 0.1% 2.4% 0.5% 0.2%Lobelia siphilitica GREAT BLUE LOBELIA forb 3 OBL 0.3% 0.4% <0.1% <0.1%Ludwigia palustris WATER-PURSLANE forb 3 OBL 0.2% 6.8% 1.6% 1.5% <0.1% 0.2% 0.4% 1.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.3%Lycopus americanus AMERICAN WATER-HOREHOUND forb 3 OBL 0.2% 0.2% 0.3% 0.2% 0.6% 0.7% 0.1% 0.6% 0.4%Mentha arvensis FIELD MINT forb 2 FACW 0.1% 0.4%Mimulus ringens COMMON MONKEY-FLOWER forb 4 OBL 0.3% <0.1% 0.8% 0.1%Monarda fistulosa WILD BERGAMOT forb 3 FACU 1.8% 0.3%Nymphaea odorata FRAGRANT WATER-LILY forb 6 OBL 17.0%Oenothera biennis COMMON EVENING-PRIMROSE forb 1 FACU 0.1% 0.2%Oxalis stricta COMMON YELLOW WOOD-SORREL forb 0 FACU <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1%Panicum capillare WITCH GRASS grass 1 FAC 0.3%Panicum virgatum SWITCH GRASS grass 4 FAC 11.8% 9.0% 19.2% 2.3% 2.1% 0.6% 0.1% 3.1% 0.2%

Relative Cover

Borrow Area Wetland Mitigation Phase 1


Table C-1 (continued). 2017 Wetland Functional Monitoring Area Summary

Restoration Area Former

Silos Area

Basin BAPW2 BAPW3 BAPW4 BAPW7 BAPW9 FSAW1 WM1W1 WM1W2 WM1W3 WM1W4 WM1W5 WM1W6 WM1W7Total Species 61 57 37 47 45 112 72 75 59 62 60 42 60

Native Species 45 48 30 37 37 85 56 58 47 46 45 35 44Non-Native Species 16 9 7 10 8 27 16 17 12 16 15 7 16

Native Species (Percent) 74% 84% 81% 79% 82% 76% 78% 77% 80% 74% 75% 83% 73%Relative Cover of Native Species (Percent) 85% 85% 86% 96% 90% 84% 52% 76% 83% 67% 76% 60% 61%

Average Coefficient of Conservatism (CC), range between 0-10 2.2 2.1 2.3 2.1 2.2 2.6 2.1 2.0 2.3 1.9 2.0 2.2 1.9Floristic Quality Assessment Index 17.0 15.7 14.3 14.6 14.5 27.2 18.2 17.3 17.3 15.0 15.5 14.0 15.1

Vegetation Index of Biotic Integrity-Floristic Quality, range between 0-100 32 37 31 30 27 61 37 39 38 35 23 27 27

Species Common Name Type CCa Wetland Indicatorb BAPW2 BAPW3 BAPW4 BAPW7 BAPW9 FSAW1 WM1W1 WM1W2 WM1W3 WM1W4 WM1W5 WM1W6 WM1W7

Parthenocissus quinquefolia VIRGINIA CREEPER vine 2 FACU 5.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.8% <0.1% 0.2% <0.1% 0.1%Penthorum sedoides DITCH-STONECROP forb 2 OBL 0.1% 1.4%Phyla lanceolata FOG-FRUIT forb 3 OBL 0.4% 0.2%Physalis heterophylla CLAMMY GROUND-CHERRY forb 1 UPL <0.1%Physalis species GROUND-CHERRY SPECIES forb 1 NDA 0.1%Pilea pumila CLEARWEED forb 2 FACW <0.1%Platanus occidentalis SYCAMORE tree 7 FACW <0.1% 0.1%Polygonum amphibium WATER SMARTWEED forb 4 OBL 0.1% 3.4% 3.6%Polygonum hydropiperoides MILD WATER-PEPPER forb 6 OBL <0.1% 2.3% 0.2% 0.4% 7.2% 0.2%Polygonum lapathifolium DOCK-LEAVED SMARTWEED forb 1 FACW+ <0.1%Populus deltoides EASTERN COTTONWOOD tree 3 FAC 1.5% 0.1% 0.6% 0.6%Potamogeton nodosus LONG-LEAVED PONDWEED forb 3 OBL 11.5% 8.5% 8.0% 5.7% 1.1% 0.3% 2.9%Prunella vulgaris SELF-HEAL forb 0 FAC 0.3% 0.6% 0.1%Pycnanthemum tenuifolium NARROW-LEAVED MOUNTAIN-MINT forb 4 FAC <0.1% 0.3%Quercus bicolor SWAMP WHITE OAK tree 7 FACW 1.2%Ratibida pinnata GRAY-HEADED CONEFLOWER forb 5 UPL 0.3%Ribes americanum WILD BLACK CURRANT shrub 4 FACW 0.1% 1.4%Rosa palustris SWAMP ROSE shrub 5 OBL 0.1%Rosa setigera CLIMBING PRAIRIE ROSE shrub 4 FACU 0.6%Rubus allegheniensis COMMON BLACKBERRY shrub 1 FACU 0.1%Rubus occidentalis BLACK RASPBERRY shrub 1 UPL 0.1%Rubus species BERRY SPECIES shrub 1 NDA <0.1% 0.1%Rudbeckia hirta BLACK-EYED SUSAN forb 1 FACU 0.3% 0.1%Rudbeckia laciniata GREEN-HEADED CONEFLOWER forb 6 FACW 5.7% 0.4%Sagittaria latifolia COMMON ARROWHEAD forb 1 OBL 0.7%Salix exigua SANDBAR WILLOW shrub 1 OBL 2.0% 0.1% 0.2% 6.2% 23.0% 0.6%Salix nigra BLACK WILLOW tree 2 OBL 3.4% 0.9% 2.2% 10.1% 0.5% 0.4% 0.1% 0.2%Sambucus canadensis COMMON ELDERBERRY shrub 3 FACW- 0.3%Schizachyrium scoparium LITTLE BLUESTEM grass 5 FACU 0.1%Schoenoplectus pungens THREE-SQUARE sedge 5 OBL 14.5%Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani SOFT-STEMMED BULRUSH sedge 2 OBL 0.4% 10.8% 21.0% 0.6% 2.8% 5.9% 8.1% 18.5% 31.9% 4.4% 10.9% 2.5% 0.1%Scirpus atrovirens GREEN BULRUSH sedge 1 OBL 0.5% 1.7% 1.8% 1.1% 0.3% 2.1% 0.5% 0.9% 0.1% 0.6% 0.5%Scirpus cyperinus WOOL-GRASS sedge 1 OBL 2.4% 3.1% 1.1% 2.2% 0.2% 0.5%Senecio obovatus ROUND-LEAVED SQUAW-WEED forb 4 FACU- <0.1%Senna hebecarpa NORTHERN WILD SENNA forb 4 FACW <0.1% 0.6%Silphium laciniatum COMPASS PLANT forb 8 UPL <0.1%Silphium perfoliatum CUP-PLANT forb 6 FACW <0.1%Silphium terebinthinaceum PRAIRIE DOCK forb 8 FAC <0.1%Sisyrinchium angustifolium STOUT BLUE-EYED-GRASS forb 2 FAC 0.2%Sium suave WATER-PARSNIP forb 6 OBL 0.2%Solidago canadensis CANADA GOLDENROD forb 1 FACU 7.9% 2.8% 0.1% 0.5% 11.7% 25.3% 0.1% 0.9% 0.4% 1.4% 13.0% 0.1% 22.8%Solidago gigantea SMOOTH GOLDENROD forb 3 FACW <0.1% 0.1% 8.2% 1.0%Solidago riddellii RIDDELL'S GOLDENROD forb 8 OBL 0.1%Solidago species GOLDENROD SPECIES forb 1 NDA <0.1%Sorghastrum nutans INDIAN GRASS grass 5 FACU 0.1% 0.6%Sparganium eurycarpum GIANT BUR-REED forb 4 OBL 0.6% 26.8% 8.5% 0.8% 0.8% 2.4%Spartina pectinata PRAIRIE CORD GRASS grass 5 FACW 4.1% 14.8% 3.9% 25.7% 2.1% 21.3% 17.7%Symphoricarpos orbiculatus CORALBERRY shrub 3 FACU 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% <0.1%Toxicodendron radicans POISON-IVY vine 1 FAC 0.1% 0.4% 0.1% <0.1% 0.2% 0.3%Ulmus rubra SLIPPERY ELM tree 3 FAC 0.1% <0.1%Utricularia species (Utricularia vulgaris) BLADDERWORT SPECIES forb 6 OBL 0.1% <0.1% 7.9% 0.2%Utricularia vulgaris COMMON BLADDERWORT forb 6 OBL 3.9% 5.9% 0.5% 2.8%Verbena hastata BLUE VERVAIN forb 4 FACW <0.1% 0.1% <0.1% 0.7% 0.2% 0.1% <0.1%Verbena urticifolia WHITE VERVAIN forb 3 FAC 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1%Vernonia gigantea TALL IRONWEED forb 2 FAC 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 1.4% 1.4% <0.1% 0.5%Viburnum dentatum ARROW-WOOD shrub 2 FAC 3.6% 0.1%Vitis species GRAPEVINE SPECIES vine 3 NDA 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% <0.1% 0.1% 0.4% 0.1%Agrostis gigantea REDTOP grass 0 FACW 1.0% 0.7% 0.7% 0.5%Allium species GARLIC SPECIES forb 0 NDA <0.1%Allium vineale FIELD GARLIC forb 0 FACU <0.1%Amaranthus species AMARANTH SPECIES forb 0 NDA 0.1%Azolla caroliniana MOSQUITO-FERN fern 0 OBL 0.8%Bromus japonicus JAPANESE BROME grass 0 FACU- 0.1% 1.8% 0.6%Cirsium arvense CANADA THISTLE forb 0 FACU 0.1% 0.1% 8.1% 0.5% 0.1% 0.6% 0.1% 0.6% 1.2% 0.8%Cirsium vulgare BULL THISTLE forb 0 FACU 0.3% 0.1%Convolvulus arvensis FIELD BINDWEED forb 0 UPL 0.1% 0.1%Coronilla varia CROWN-VETCH forb 0 UPL 0.3% 0.1% 0.3% 0.7%Daucus carota QUEEN-ANNE'S-LACE forb 0 UPL <0.1% <0.1% 0.2% <0.1% 0.3% <0.1%Digitaria species CRAB GRASS SPECIES grass 0 ND 0.1%Dipsacus fullonum WILD TEASEL forb 0 FACU 0.2% 0.6% 0.3% 0.7% 0.5% 0.2% 2.6% 0.7% <0.1% 0.5%Dipsacus laciniatus CUT-LEAVED TEASEL forb 0 UPL 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 3.1% 1.6% 4.6% 0.1% 0.4% 1.7% 17.2% 1.1%Duchesnea indica INDIAN-STRAWBERRY forb 0 FACU- 0.6%Echinochloa crusgalli BARNYARD GRASS grass 0 FACU 0.1% <0.1% 0.2%Euphorbia species SPURGE SPECIES forb 0 NDA <0.1%Festuca pratensis MEADOW FESCUE grass 0 FACU 1.3% 1.7%Galium species BEDSTRAW SPECIES forb 0 NDA 0.3%Glechoma hederacea GROUND IVY forb 0 FACU 0.1%Hydrocotyle ranunculoides BUTTERCUP-PENNYWORT forb 0 OBL 0.1% <0.1% 9.3% 0.4%Lactuca species LETTUCE SPECIES forb 0 NDA <0.1%Lonicera japonica JAPANESE HONEYSUCKLE vine 0 FACU <0.1% 0.5%Lonicera maackii AMUR HONEYSUCKLE shrub 0 UPL <0.1% <0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% 2.6% 4.8%Medicago lupulina BLACK MEDICK forb 0 FACU 0.3%Melilotus secies SWEET-CLOVER SPECIES forb 0 FACU- 0.4% <0.1%Morus alba WHITE MULBERRY tree 0 FAC <0.1% 0.7%Phalaris arundinacea REED CANARY GRASS grass 0 FACW <0.1%Phleum pratense TIMOTHY grass 0 FACU <0.1%Phragmites australis GIANT REED grass 0 OBL 1.0% 0.2% 0.1%Plantago lanceolata ENGLISH PLANTAIN forb 0 FACU 0.1%Plantago major COMMON PLANTAIN forb 0 FAC <0.1% <0.1%Poa species BLUEGRASS SPECIES grass 0 NDA 4.1% 0.1% 0.3% 0.3% 0.6% 1.0% 0.2% 5.5% 0.3% 0.5% 0.8%Polygonum convolvulus BLACK BINDWEED vine 0 FACU <0.1%Polygonum persicaria LADY'S THUMB forb 0 FACW 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 1.0%Polygonum species SMARTWEED SPECIES forb 0 NDA 0.3% 0.4% <0.1%Pyrus calleryana CALLERY PEAR sm tree 0 UPL <0.1% 0.1% <0.1% 0.4% 0.1% <0.1%Pyrus species PEAR OR CRABAPPLE SPECIES sm tree 0 UPL 0.4%Rosa multiflora MULTIFLORA ROSE shrub 0 FACU 1.0% 0.5% <0.1% 0.1%Rosa species ROSE SPECIES shrub 0 NDA 0.6%Rumex crispus CURLY DOCK forb 0 FAC <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1%Rumex species DOCK SPECIES forb 0 NDA 0.1%Schoenoplectus mucronatus RICEFIELD BULRUSH sedge 0 OBL <0.1% 0.2% 0.5%Setaria species FOXTAIL GRASS grass 0 NDA 1.1%Silene species (Silene latifolia) CAMPION SPECIES forb 0 NDA 0.1%Silene vulgaris BLADDER CAMPION forb 0 UPL 0.1%Solanum carolinense HORSE NETTLE forb 0 FACU <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1%Sorghum halepense JOHNSON GRASS grass 0 FACU 0.2% 0.3%Trifolium hybridum ALSIKE CLOVER forb 0 FACU 0.5% 0.1% 0.2%Trifolium pratense RED CLOVER forb 0 FACU <0.1% <0.1%Trifolium repens WHITE CLOVER forb 0 FACU 0.2% 0.1% 0.1%Typha x glauca HYBRID CAT-TAIL forb 0 OBL 10.4% 13.5% 8.7% 0.9% 3.3% 32.9% 16.6% 13.4% 23.7% 15.9% 20.7% 24.6%Ulmus species (Ulmus pumila) ELM SPECIES ND 0 NDA <0.1% <0.1%Verbascum blattaria MOTH MULLEIN forb 0 FACU 0.1%Verbascum thapsus COMMON MULLEIN forb 0 UPL <0.1%Xanthium strumarium COMMON COCKLEBUR forb 0 FAC <0.1% 0.1% <0.1% 0.1% <0.1%unknown forb species UNKNOWN FORB forb NDA NDA <0.1% 2.5%unknown grass species UNKNOWN GRASS grass NDA NDA 0.6% 0.1%unknown aquatic unknown aquatic forb NDA NDA 5.1%Highlighted species are non-nativeaNDA = No determination available; species are not included in the average CC calculation.bOBL = obligate , FAC = facultative , UPL = upland, FACU = facultative-upland, FACW = facultative-wet, + = wetter, - = drier

Relative Cover

Borrow Area Wetland Mitigation Phase 1


Table C-2. 2017 Prairie Functional Monitoring Area Summary

Restoration Area Former Silos

AreaSouthern

Waste Units

Wetland Mitigation

Phase 1

Community Type Restored

PrairieRestored

PrairieRestored

PrairieMonitoring Subarea BAPBA1 BAPBA2 BAPPR1 FSAPR1 NDAA14 NDABAW SWUPR1 WM1PR1

Total Species 50 49 34 72 49 43 39 57Native Species 33 29 18 52 28 27 19 40

Non-Native Species 17 20 16 20 21 16 20 17Native Species (Percent) 66% 59% 53% 72% 57% 63% 49% 70%

Relative Frequency of Native Species (Percent) 73% 55% 69% 62% 53% 73% 54% 59%Average Coefficient of Conservatism (CC), range between 0-10 2.0 1.6 1.2 1.9 1.5 1.9 1.4 2.0

Floristic Quality Assessment Index 13.8 11.0 6.7 16.3 10.7 12.3 8.7 14.8Average Total Cover (Percent) 95% 95% 96% 96% 95% 91% 95% 97%

Scientific Name Common Name Type CCa BAPBA1 BAPBA2 BAPPR1 FSAPR1 NDAA14 NDABAW SWUPR1 WM1PR1Achillea millefolium YARROW forb 1 1%Agrimonia parviflora SMALL-FLOWERED AGRIMONY forb 2 1%Alisma subcordatum SOUTHERN WATER-PLANTAIN forb 2 1% 1%Ambrosia artemisiifolia COMMON RAGWEED forb 0 1% 4% 1% 6% 7% 1% 1%Andropogon gerardii BIG BLUESTEM grass 5 6% 2% 8% 3% 4% 7% 4% 3%Apocynum cannabinum INDIAN HEMP forb 1 1% 2% 1%Asclepias incarnata SWAMP MILKWEED forb 4 2% 2% 1%Asclepias syriaca COMMON MILKWEED forb 1 4% 10% 1% 1%Aster pilosus AWL ASTER forb 1 1% 4% 1% 1% 5% 2%Aster species ASTER SPECIES forb NDA 2%Baptisia lactea WHITE FALSE INDIGO forb 8 1%Bidens species TICKSEED SPECIES forb 2 2%Bouteloua curtipendula SIDE-OATS GRAMA GRASS grass 8 2% 1% 1% 1%Calystegia sepium HEDGE BINDWEED forb 1 1% 1% 1%Carex annectens YELLOW FOX SEDGE sedge 3 1%Carex blanda COMMON WOOD SEDGE sedge 1 1% 1%Carex comosa BEARDED SEDGE sedge 2 1%Carex cristatella CRESTED SEDGE sedge 3 1% 1% 1%Carex frankii FRANK'S SEDGE sedge 2 1% 1% 1%Carex hystericina PORCUPINE SEDGE sedge 5 1%Carex leavenworthii LEAVENWORTH'S SEDGE sedge 3 1%Carex lurida BOTTLEBRUSH SEDGE sedge 3 2%Carex normalis LARGE STRAW SEDGE sedge 4 1%Carex shortiana SHORT'S SEDGE sedge 2 2%Carex species SEDGE SPECIES sedge NDA 3% 4% 1% 2% 1% 7% 4% 4%Carex vulpinoidea FOX SEDGE sedge 1 2% 1% 1% 1% 1%Chamaecrista fasciculata PARTRIDGE-PEA forb 3 1% 1%Cirsium discolor FIELD THISTLE forb 4 2%Conyza canadensis HORSEWEED forb 0 1%Cornus amomum SILKY DOGWOOD shrub 2 1%Cornus species (Cornus racemosa) DOGWOOD SPECIES shrub 1 1%Cyperus species UMBRELLA-SEDGE SPECIES sedge NDA 1% 1% 1%Desmodium canadense CANADA TICK-TREFOIL forb 4 1%Desmodium paniculatum SHOWY TICK-TREFOIL forb 3 1%Echinacea purpurea PURPLE CONEFLOWER forb 6 1% 1% 2%Eleocharis erythropoda RED-FOOTED SPIKE-RUSH sedge 4 1% 1%Eleocharis species SPIKE-RUSH SPECIES sedge NDA 1%Elymus canadensis CANADA WILD RYE grass 6 3% 2% 1% 1%Epilobium coloratum PURPLE-LEAVED WILLOW-HERB forb 1 2% 1%Erechtites hieracifolia PILEWORT forb 2 1% 1%Erigeron annuus DAISY FLEABANE forb 0 3% 5% 1% 1% 1%Erigeron species FLEABANE SPECIES forb NDA 1% 3% 4%Erigeron strigosus ROUGH FLEABANE forb 1 1% 2% 1%Eryngium yuccifolium RATTLESNAKE-MASTER forb 7 1% 1%Eupatorium perfoliatum COMMON BONESET forb 3 1%Eupatorium serotinum LATE-FLOWERING BONESET forb 2 2% 1% 1% 1%Eupatorium species SNAKEROOT forb NDA 1%Euphorbia nutans EYEBANE forb 0 2%Euphorbia species SPURGE SPECIES forb NDA 1%Fraxinus pennsylvanica GREEN ASH tree 3 1% 1% 1% 1%Geum species AVENS SPECIES forb 2 2%Helianthus species SUNFLOWER SPECIES forb NDA 1%Heliopsis helianthoides SMOOTH OXEYE forb 5 1%Juncus anthelatus BRANCHED RUSH forb 4 1% 1%Juncus balticus BALTIC RUSH forb 6 1%Juncus dudleyi DUDLEY'S RUSH forb 3 1% 2%Juncus interior INLAND RUSH forb 4 1%Juncus species RUSH SPECIES forb NDA 1%Juncus tenuis PATH RUSH forb 1 2% 3%Juncus torreyi TORREY'S RUSH forb 3 1% 3%Juniperus virginiana EASTERN RED CEDAR tree 3 1% 1%Leersia oryzoides RICE CUT GRASS grass 1 2% 1%Lobelia cardinalis CARDINAL-FLOWER forb 5 1%Lobelia inflata INDIAN-TOBACCO forb 1 1%Lobelia siphilitica GREAT BLUE LOBELIA forb 3 1%Ludwigia palustris WATER-PURSLANE forb 3 2% 1% 2% 3%Lycopus americanus AMERICAN WATER-HOREHOUND forb 3 1% 1% 1%Mimulus ringens COMMON MONKEY-FLOWER forb 4 1% 1% 1%Monarda fistulosa WILD BERGAMOT forb 3 2% 1% 2% 5%Oxalis stricta COMMON YELLOW WOOD-SORREL forb 0 10% 1% 3%Panicum capillare WITCH GRASS grass 1 1% 2% 1% 1%Panicum virgatum SWITCH GRASS grass 4 10% 1% 2% 2% 6% 7% 5% 2%Parthenocissus quinquefolia VIRGINIA CREEPER vine 2 4% 1% 4% 1% 1% 3% 3%Penstemon digitalis FOXGLOVE BEARD-TONGUE forb 2 1%Penthorum sedoides DITCH-STONECROP forb 2 1%Physalis species GROUND-CHERRY SPECIES forb 1 1%Phytolacca americana POKEWEED forb 1 1%Platanus occidentalis SYCAMORE tree 7 1%Populus deltoides EASTERN COTTONWOOD tree 3 1%Prunus serotina BLACK CHERRY tree 3 1%Pycnanthemum tenuifolium NARROW-LEAVED MOUNTAIN-MINT forb 4 1%Quercus imbricaria SHINGLE OAK tree 5 1%Ratibida pinnata GRAY-HEADED CONEFLOWER forb 5 3% 7% 2% 3% 3%Rosa palustris SWAMP ROSE shrub 5 1%Rubus allegheniensis COMMON BLACKBERRY shrub 1 1% 3% 1%

Relative Frequency

Borrow Area Non-Design Area

Restored Prairie Restored Prairie


Table C-2 (continued). 2017 Prairie Functional Monitoring Area Summary

Scientific Name Common Name Type CCa BAPBA1 BAPBA2 BAPPR1 FSAPR1 NDAA14 NDABAW SWUPR1 WM1PR1

Rudbeckia hirta BLACK-EYED SUSAN forb 1 1% 2% 2% 1%Rudbeckia laciniata GREEN-HEADED CONEFLOWER forb 6 1%Salix exigua SANDBAR WILLOW shrub 1 1% 1%Schizachyrium scoparium LITTLE BLUESTEM grass 5 1% 3%Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani SOFT-STEMMED BULRUSH sedge 2 1%Scirpus atrovirens GREEN BULRUSH sedge 1 1% 1%Scirpus pendulus DROOPING BULRUSH sedge 2 2% 2%Senecio obovatus ROUND-LEAVED SQUAW-WEED forb 4 1%Solidago canadensis CANADA GOLDENROD forb 1 11% 9% 13% 6% 7% 10% 12% 10%Solidago species GOLDENROD SPECIES forb 1 1%Sorghastrum nutans INDIAN GRASS grass 5 3% 4% 1% 5% 1% 1%Spartina pectinata PRAIRIE CORD GRASS grass 5 1% 1% 2%Symphoricarpos orbiculatus CORALBERRY shrub 3 3%Toxicodendron radicans POISON-IVY vine 1 1% 3%Tradescantia ohiensis OHIO SPIDERWORT forb 5 1%Ulmus rubra SLIPPERY ELM tree 3 1% 1% 1%Verbena urticifolia WHITE VERVAIN forb 3 2% 1%Vernonia gigantea TALL IRONWEED forb 2 2% 1% 1% 2%Vitis species GRAPEVINE SPECIES vine 3 1% 1%Agrostis gigantea REDTOP grass 0 3% 1% 2%Agrostis species BENT GRASS SPECIES grass 0 1%Allium vineale FIELD GARLIC forb 0 2% 1%Brassica species MUSTARD SPECIES forb 0 1%Bromus japonicus JAPANESE BROME grass 0 2% 2% 1% 4% 2% 4%Carduus nutans NODDING THISTLE forb 0 1%Cichorium intybus CHICORY forb 0 1% 1% 2%Cirsium arvense CANADA THISTLE forb 0 3% 6% 1% 4%Cirsium species THISTLE SPECIES forb 0 1%Cirsium vulgare BULL THISTLE forb 0 1%Coronilla varia CROWN-VETCH forb 0 1%Crataegus species HAWTHORN SPECIES sm tree 0 1%Dactylis glomerata ORCHARD GRASS grass 0 1%Daucus carota QUEEN-ANNE'S-LACE forb 0 1% 3% 4% 3% 7% 1% 7% 3%Dipsacus fullonum WILD TEASEL forb 0 4% 3% 3% 3% 11% 6%Dipsacus laciniatus CUT-LEAVED TEASEL forb 0 3% 1%Festuca pratensis MEADOW FESCUE grass 0 1% 1% 1% 1%Festuca species FESCUE SPECIES grass 0 1% 2% 1% 3%Glechoma hederacea GROUND IVY forb 0 2%Lactuca species LETTUCE SPECIES forb 0 1%Lespedeza cuneata CHINESE BUSH-CLOVER forb 0 1%Lolium multiflorum ITALIAN RYEGRASS grass 0 1%Lonicera japonica JAPANESE HONEYSUCKLE vine 0 1%Lonicera maackii AMUR HONEYSUCKLE shrub 0 1% 5%Medicago lupulina BLACK MEDICK forb 0 2% 1% 3% 2% 3% 4%Melilotus alba WHITE SWEET-CLOVER forb 0 1% 1% 1% 1%Melilotus officinalis YELLOW SWEET-CLOVER forb 0 6% 1% 3% 5% 3% 1%Phalaris arundinacea REED CANARY GRASS grass 0 2% 3%Plantago lanceolata ENGLISH PLANTAIN forb 0 2% 4% 1%Plantago major COMMON PLANTAIN forb 0 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%Poa species BLUEGRASS SPECIES grass 0 4% 6% 2% 2% 4% 2% 1% 7%Polygonum persicaria LADY'S THUMB forb 0 1% 2%Polygonum species SMARTWEED SPECIES forb 0 1%Pyrus calleryana CALLERY PEAR sm tree 0 1% 1% 2%Rosa multiflora MULTIFLORA ROSE shrub 0 1%Rumex crispus CURLY DOCK forb 0 1% 1%Rumex species DOCK SPECIES forb 0 1%Setaria species FOXTAIL GRASS grass 0 1% 2% 4% 1% 1%Solanum carolinense HORSE NETTLE forb 0 1%Sonchus species SOW-THISTLE SPECIES forb 0 1%Stellaria media COMMON CHICKWEED forb 0 1%Stellaria species CHICKWEED SPECIES forb 0 1% 1%Taraxacum officinale COMMON DANDELION forb 0 1% 1% 1% 1%Torilis arvensis FIELD HEDGE-PARSLEY forb 0 1% 1% 1%Torilis japonica JAPANESE HEDGE-PARSLEY forb 0 1%Trifolium hybridum ALSIKE CLOVER forb 0 3% 2% 1%Trifolium pratense RED CLOVER forb 0 2% 3% 4% 3%Trifolium repens WHITE CLOVER forb 0 5% 1% 1%Trifolium species CLOVER SPECIES forb 0 1% 2% 3%Typha x glauca HYBRID CAT-TAIL forb 0 1% 1% 1%Veronica species SPEEDWELL SPECIES forb 0 1%Unknown forb UNKNOWN FORB forb NDA 1% 1% 1% 1% 2%Unknown grass UNKNOWN GRASS grass NDA 1% 4% 1% 1% 2%Highlighted species are non-nativeaNDA = No determination available; species are not included in the average CC calculation.

Relative Frequency


Table C-3. 2017 Forest Herbaceous Functional Monitoring Area Summary

Restoration Area

Community Type Pine

PlantationSuccessional

ForestPREFO1 PREFO2 PREPP1 PRERF1 PRERF2 PRESF1 SWURF1 SWURF2

Total Species 50 59 44 53 56 52 40 34Native Species 37 43 22 31 29 34 22 19

Non-Native Species 13 16 22 22 27 18 18 15Native Species (Percent) 74% 73% 50% 58% 52% 65% 55% 56%

Relative Frequency of Native Species (Percent) 71% 69% 54% 64% 50% 63% 49% 56%Average Coefficient of Conservatism (CC), range between 0-10 2.4 2.2 1.0 1.3 1.6 2.2 1.7 2.2

Floristic Quality Assessment Index 17.2 16.6 6.5 9.5 11.9 15.9 10.5 13.0Average Total Cover (Percent) 51% 52% 46% 85% 94% 54% 88% 88%

Scientific Name Common Name Type CCa PREFO1 PREFO2 PREPP1 PRERF1 PRERF2 PRESF1 SWURF1 SWURF2Acer negundo BOX ELDER tree 3 4% 4% 4% 2% 3%Acer rubrum RED MAPLE tree 2 1%Acer saccharum SUGAR MAPLE tree 5 4% 1%Acer species MAPLE SPECIES tree 2 1%Achillea millefolium YARROW forb 1 1%Aesculus glabra OHIO BUCKEYE tree 6 2%Ambrosia artemisiifolia COMMON RAGWEED forb 0 1% 3% 1%Amphicarpaea bracteata HOG-PEANUT forb 4 1%Andropogon gerardii BIG BLUESTEM grass 5 4% 1% 5% 11%Asarum canadense WILD GINGER forb 6 2%Asclepias syriaca COMMON MILKWEED forb 1 1%Asimina triloba PAWPAW sm tree 6 1% 1%Asplenium platyneuron EBONY SPLEENWORT fern 3 1%Aster lateriflorus CALICO ASTER forb 2 1%Aster pilosus AWL ASTER forb 1 4% 1% 2%Aster species ASTER SPECIES forb NDA 1% 2%Bidens frondosa DEVIL'S BEGGAR'S-TICK forb 2 2% 1%Boehmeria cylindrica FALSE NETTLE forb 4 3% 3%Botrychium virginianum RATTLESNAKE FERN fern 4 3%Bouteloua curtipendula SIDE-OATS GRAMA GRASS grass 8 1% 5%Campsis radicans TRUMPET-CREEPER vine 1 1% 1%Cardamine concatenata CUT-LEAVED TOOTHWORT forb 3 1% 1%Cardamine pensylvanica PENNSYLVANIA BITTER CRESS forb 3 1%Carex jamesii JAMES' SEDGE sedge 6 1%Carex shortiana SHORT'S SEDGE sedge 2 1%Carex species SEDGE SPECIES sedge NDA 3% 4% 2% 3% 2% 4% 2% 3%Carya cordiformis BITTERNUT HICKORY tree 5 1%Carya species HICKORY SPECIES tree 5 2% 1%Cercis canadensis REDBUD sm tree 3 2%Claytonia virginica SPRING-BEAUTY forb 2 1%Conyza canadensis HORSEWEED forb 0 1% 1%Cornus florida FLOWERING DOGWOOD sm tree 5 1% 1%Cornus racemosa GRAY DOGWOOD shrub 1 1%Cornus species (Cornus racemosa) DOGWOOD SPECIES shrub 1 1%Cryptotaenia canadensis HONEWORT forb 3 1% 1% 2%Cyperus species UMBRELLA-SEDGE SPECIES sedge NDA 1%Cystopteris protrusa LOWLAND BLADDER FERN fern 5 1%Delphinium tricorne DWARF LARKSPUR forb 4 1%Echinacea purpurea PURPLE CONEFLOWER forb 6 2% 1%Eleocharis obtusa BLUNT SPIKE-RUSH sedge 1 1%Elymus canadensis CANADA WILD RYE grass 6 1% 1%Elymus species WILD RYE SPECIES grass 3 3% 1%Elymus virginicus VIRGINIA WILD RYE grass 3 2%Erechtites hieracifolia PILEWORT forb 2 1%Erigeron annuus DAISY FLEABANE forb 0 1% 2% 1% 1%Eryngium yuccifolium RATTLESNAKE-MASTER forb 7 1%Eupatorium altissimum TALL BONESET forb 0 1% 1%Eupatorium rugosum WHITE SNAKEROOT forb 3 4% 5% 2% 1% 5%Eupatorium species SNAKEROOT forb NDA 1%Festuca subverticillata NODDING FESCUE grass 5 1% 3%Fraxinus pennsylvanica GREEN ASH tree 3 5% 2% 1% 1% 1%Fraxinus quadrangulata BLUE ASH tree 7 1% 1% 1%Galium aparine CLEAVERS forb 0 1% 1% 1% 1% 3%Geum canadense WHITE AVENS forb 2 1% 1%Geum species AVENS SPECIES forb 2 2% 2% 3% 2% 3%Geum vernum SPRING AVENS forb 2 1%Hackelia virginiana VIRGINIA STICKSEED forb 2 2% 1% 1%Hydrangea arborescens WILD HYDRANGEA shrub 7 1%Hydrophyllum species WATERLEAF SPECIES forb 4 1%Impatiens capensis SPOTTED TOUCH-ME-NOT forb 2 3% 5% 2%Juncus dudleyi DUDLEY'S RUSH forb 3 1% 1% 1%Juncus interior INLAND RUSH forb 4 1%Juncus species RUSH SPECIES forb NDA 1%Juniperus virginiana EASTERN RED CEDAR tree 3 1%Leersia virginica WHITE GRASS grass 4 1% 2%Maianthemum racemosum FALSE SOLOMON'S-SEAL forb 4 1% 1%Mimulus ringens COMMON MONKEY-FLOWER forb 4 1%Monarda fistulosa WILD BERGAMOT forb 3 1% 3%Monarda punctata DOTTED HORSEMINT forb 7 1%Ophioglossum vulgatum SOUTHERN ADDER'S-TONGUE fern 6 1%Oxalis species WOOD-SORREL SPECIES forb 0 1%Oxalis stricta COMMON YELLOW WOOD-SORREL forb 0 2% 4% 4% 2% 2% 2%Panicum clandestinum DEER'S-TONGUE PANIC GRASS grass 2 1%Panicum virgatum SWITCH GRASS grass 4 1% 8% 1%Parthenocissus quinquefolia VIRGINIA CREEPER vine 2 4% 5% 5% 2% 4% 4%Phryma leptostachya LOPSEED forb 5 2% 1%Pilea pumila CLEARWEED forb 2 1% 2%Platanus occidentalis SYCAMORE tree 7 1% 1%Podophyllum peltatum MAYAPPLE forb 4 1% 2%Populus deltoides EASTERN COTTONWOOD tree 3 1%Prunus serotina BLACK CHERRY tree 3 2% 2% 2% 2%Quercus alba WHITE OAK tree 6 1%Quercus rubra RED OAK tree 6 1% 1%Ratibida pinnata GRAY-HEADED CONEFLOWER forb 5 1%Rubus allegheniensis COMMON BLACKBERRY shrub 1 1% 2% 2% 5%Rubus occidentalis BLACK RASPBERRY shrub 1 1%Rubus species BERRY SPECIES shrub 1 1% 2%Rudbeckia hirta BLACK-EYED SUSAN forb 1 1%Salix nigra BLACK WILLOW tree 2 1%Sanguinaria canadensis BLOODROOT forb 5 1%Sanicula gregaria CLUSTERED SNAKEROOT forb 3 10% 2% 2% 5% 1%Sanicula marilandica BLACK SNAKEROOT forb 3 4%Schizachyrium scoparium LITTLE BLUESTEM grass 5 3%Scirpus pendulus DROOPING BULRUSH sedge 2 1%Sedum ternatum WILD STONECROP forb 5 1%Senecio obovatus ROUND-LEAVED SQUAW-WEED forb 4 1% 1%Smilax hispida BRISTLY GREENBRIER vine 3 2% 1%Smilax species GREENBRIER SPECIES ND 3 1%Solidago canadensis CANADA GOLDENROD forb 1 1% 2% 3% 9% 9% 2% 10% 5%

Monitoring Subarea

Relative Frequency

Paddys Run East Southern Waste Units

Mature Forest Restored Forest Restored Forest


Table C-3 (continued). 2017 Forest Herbaceous Functional Monitoring Area Summary

Scientific Name Common Name Type CCa PREFO1 PREFO2 PREPP1 PRERF1 PRERF2 PRESF1 SWURF1 SWURF2Solidago rigida STIFF GOLDENROD forb 8 1% 3%Solidago species GOLDENROD SPECIES forb 1 1%Sorghastrum nutans INDIAN GRASS grass 5 1% 2% 7%Teucrium canadense AMERICAN GERMANDER forb 3 1%Toxicodendron radicans POISON-IVY vine 1 3% 5% 5% 4% 4% 2%Tradescantia ohiensis OHIO SPIDERWORT forb 5 1% 1%Ulmus rubra SLIPPERY ELM tree 3 1% 2%Verbena urticifolia WHITE VERVAIN forb 3 1%Verbesina alternifolia WINGSTEM forb 5 1% 2%Vernonia gigantea TALL IRONWEED forb 2 1% 1%Viburnum dentatum ARROW-WOOD shrub 2 1%Viola sororia COMMON BLUE VIOLET forb 1 1% 1% 1% 1%Viola species VIOLET SPECIES forb NDA 2% 2% 2%Vitis species GRAPEVINE SPECIES vine 3 1% 3% 2% 4%Agrostis gigantea REDTOP grass 0 1%Alliaria petiolata GARLIC MUSTARD forb 0 5% 5% 6% 1% 1% 5%Allium species (Allium vineale) GARLIC SPECIES forb 0 1% 2% 1%Allium vineale FIELD GARLIC forb 0 1% 2% 1%Barbarea vulgaris YELLOW ROCKET forb 0 1%Brassica species MUSTARD SPECIES forb 0 1%Bromus japonicus JAPANESE BROME grass 0 1% 1% 3% 1%Cardamine hirsuta HOARY BITTER CRESS forb 0 1% 2% 1% 1%Carduus nutans NODDING THISTLE forb 0 1%Celastrus orbiculatus ORIENTAL BITTERSWEET vine 0 1%Cerastium vulgatum COMMON CHICKWEED forb 0 1% 2% 2% 2%Cirsium arvense CANADA THISTLE forb 0 1%Conium maculatum POISON-HEMLOCK forb 0 1% 1% 1%Convolvulus arvensis FIELD BINDWEED forb 0 1% 1%Daucus carota QUEEN-ANNE'S-LACE forb 0 1% 1% 3% 5%Dipsacus fullonum WILD TEASEL forb 0 3% 7% 11% 10%Dipsacus laciniatus CUT-LEAVED TEASEL forb 0 1% 5%Duchesnea indica INDIAN-STRAWBERRY forb 0 1% 1%Euonymus species EUONYMUS SPECIES shrub 0 1% 1%Festuca pratensis MEADOW FESCUE grass 0 2% 2% 3%Galium species BEDSTRAW SPECIES forb 0 1% 1%Glechoma hederacea GROUND IVY forb 0 1% 4% 2% 2% 1% 2%Lactuca species LETTUCE SPECIES forb 0 2%Lamium purpuream PURPLE DEAD-NETTLE forb 0 1% 2% 3% 1%Lepidium campestre FIELD PEPPER-GRASS forb 0 2% 2%Lonicera japonica JAPANESE HONEYSUCKLE vine 0 1%Lonicera maackii AMUR HONEYSUCKLE shrub 0 10% 8% 5% 2% 5% 9% 1%Lysimachia nummularia MONEYWORT forb 0 2% 1%Medicago lupulina BLACK MEDICK forb 0 1% 3% 5%Melilotus alba WHITE SWEET-CLOVER forb 0 2% 1%Melilotus officinalis YELLOW SWEET-CLOVER forb 0 2% 2% 7%Phalaris arundinacea REED CANARY GRASS grass 0 1% 2%Plantago lanceolata ENGLISH PLANTAIN forb 0 2%Plantago major COMMON PLANTAIN forb 0 1% 1%Plantago species PLANTAIN SPECIES forb 0 1%Poa species BLUEGRASS SPECIES grass 0 1% 3% 6% 5% 1%Polygonum persicaria LADY'S THUMB forb 0 1% 1% 1%Polygonum species SMARTWEED SPECIES forb 0 2% 3% 1%Pyrus calleryana CALLERY PEAR sm tree 0 1% 1%Rosa multiflora MULTIFLORA ROSE shrub 0 1% 1% 2%Rumex species DOCK SPECIES forb 0 1%Solanum carolinense HORSE NETTLE forb 0 1%Sonchus arvensis FIELD SOW-THISTLE forb 0 1%Sorghum halepense JOHNSON GRASS grass 0 1%Stellaria media COMMON CHICKWEED forb 0 1% 1% 1% 1%Stellaria species CHICKWEED SPECIES forb 0 2%Taraxacum officinale COMMON DANDELION forb 0 1%Thlaspi arvense FIELD PENNY CRESS forb 0 3%Trifolium pratense RED CLOVER forb 0 1% 1% 1%Trifolium repens WHITE CLOVER forb 0 1%Trifolium species CLOVER SPECIES forb 0 1% 1% 5%Typha x glauca HYBRID CAT-TAIL forb 0 1%Urtica dioica var. dioica EUROPEAN STINGING NETTLE forb 0 1% 1%Urtica species STINGING NETTLE SPECIES forb 0 1% 2%Verbascum blattaria MOTH MULLEIN forb 0 1%Veronica arvensis CORN SPEEDWELL forb 0 1% 1%Veronica species SPEEDWELL SPECIES forb 0 1% 1%Unknown forb UNKNOWN FORB forb NDA 3% 2% 4% 2% 6% 3% 1%Unknown grass UNKNOWN GRASS grass NDA 3% 2% 4% 4% 5% 3% 2% 1%Unknown woody UNKNOWN WOODY woody NDA 1%Highlighted species are non-nativeaNDA = No determination available; species are not included in the average CC calculation.

Relative Frequency


Table C-4. 2017 Forest Woody Functional Monitoring Area Summary

Restoration Area Community Type

Total Species Native Species

Non-Native Species Native Species (Percent)

Relative Density of Native Species (Percent) Average Coefficient of Conservatism (CC), range between 0-10

Floristic Quality Assessment Index Average Diameter at Breast Height (DBH, cm)

Total Abundance

Species Common Name Type CCAverage

DBH (cm)Relative Density

Average DBH (cm)

Relative Density

Average DBH (cm)

Relative Density

Average DBH (cm)

Relative Density

Average DBH (cm)

Relative Density

Average DBH (cm)

Relative Density

Average DBH (cm)

Relative Density

Average DBH (cm)

Relative Density

Acer negundo BOX ELDER tree 3 21.7 6.2% 3.4 55.1% 2.9 21.8% 0.5 0.3% 15.5 3.9% 8.9 2.8%Acer rubrum RED MAPLE tree 2 1.8 0.3%Acer saccharinum SILVER MAPLE tree 3 7.5 0.4%Acer saccharum SUGAR MAPLE tree 5 23.9 2.3% 12.7 19.6% 3.8 0.3% 4.1 1.5% 15.7 3.9%Aesculus glabra OHIO BUCKEYE tree 6 4.2 13.3% 7.1 5.1% 7.6 0.4%Asimina triloba PAWPAW sm tree 6 0.8 8.4% 3.8 1.4%Carpinus caroliniana BLUE-BEECH sm tree 5 1.8 0.3% 5.1 0.4%Carya cordiformis BITTERNUT HICKORY tree 5 2.3 6.1% 3.1 5.6% 11.4 0.7%Carya laciniosa SHELLBARK HICKORY tree 7 5.1 1.3%Carya tomentosa MOCKERNUT HICKORY tree 6 3.1 12.3%Catalpa speciosa NORTHERN CATALPA tree 0 1.8 0.4%Celtis occidentalis HACKBERRY tree 4 23.2 2.3% 10.0 2.3% 11.4 0.7%Cercis canadensis REDBUD sm tree 3 2.1 1.2% 6.4 0.7%Cornus amomum SILKY DOGWOOD shrub 2 1.5 10.2%Cornus florida FLOWERING DOGWOOD sm tree 5 7.5 0.3%Cornus racemosa GRAY DOGWOOD shrub 1 2.2 2.2%Corylus americana AMERICAN HAZEL shrub 4 1.8 0.3%Crataegus crus-galli COCKSPUR sm tree 3 10.2 0.4%Euonymus atropurpureus BURNING-BUSH shrub 3 2.7 1.0%Fagus grandifolia AMERICAN BEECH tree 7 6.3 1.3%Fraxinus americana WHITE ASH tree 6 0.5 0.9% 1.1 0.6% 7.6 0.4% 4.6 6.7%Fraxinus pennsylvanica GREEN ASH tree 3 8.9 1.0% 0.5 0.5% 4.6 0.9% 1.7 4.3% 7.6 0.7% 5.1 10.7%Fraxinus quadrangulata BLUE ASH tree 7 0.5 0.5% 1.8 0.4%Gleditsia triacanthos HONEY LOCUST tree 4 2.7 1.4% 3.8 0.3% 7.5 0.4% 2.1 0.6%Gymnocladus dioicus KENTUCKY COFFEE-TREE tree 3 38.8 0.6% 12.5 0.3%Juglans nigra BLACK WALNUT tree 5 18.5 1.0% 32.1 4.2% 5.6 0.9% 5.0 3.1% 21.9 2.8% 2.5 1.3% 7.6 1.4%Juniperus virginiana EASTERN RED CEDAR tree 3 20.0 2.8% 5.4 1.5% 5.7 16.0% 4.4 33.3%Nyssa sylvatica BLACK-GUM tree 7 7.5 0.3%Parthenocissus quinquefolia VIRGINIA CREEPER vine 2 0.5 1.9% 0.5 0.9%Platanus occidentalis SYCAMORE tree 7 26.3 3.2% 9.3 4.9% 5.1 1.3% 6.6 6.9%Populus deltoides EASTERN COTTONWOOD tree 3 10.4 13.8% 63.2 0.7% 7.5 22.7% 4.6 8.3%Prunus americana AMERICAN PLUM sm tree 3 9.2 1.0% 7.5 0.3%Prunus serotina BLACK CHERRY tree 3 22.5 0.6% 5.5 1.5% 34.1 2.1%Quercus alba WHITE OAK tree 6 11.3 1.3% 7.5 0.3%Quercus bicolor SWAMP WHITE OAK tree 7 0.5 0.3% 6.8 4.2%Quercus imbricaria SHINGLE OAK tree 5 16.1 1.1%Quercus macrocarpa BUR OAK tree 6 4.3 0.9% 6.8 4.2%Quercus muehlenbergii CHINQUAPIN OAK tree 7 1.8 0.4%Quercus rubra RED OAK tree 6 76.8 0.3% 4.3 1.3% 4.6 1.9% 3.2 5.3% 2.5 5.6%Rhus aromatica var. aromatica FRAGRANT SUMAC shrub 3 3.8 0.6%Rhus glabra SMOOTH SUMAC shrub 2 1.4 1.5%Rhus typhina STAGHORN SUMAC shrub 2 5.6 0.9%Robinia pseudoacacia BLACK LOCUST tree 0 40.1 0.3% 15.9 8.4% 20.3 0.7%Rubus allegheniensis COMMON BLACKBERRY shrub 1 0.6 21.2% 0.5 29.8% 0.5 42.0%Rubus occidentalis BLACK RASPBERRY shrub 1 1.8 0.3%Salix exigua SANDBAR WILLOW shrub 1 5.8 9.3%Salix nigra BLACK WILLOW tree 2 7.5 0.4% 10.2 1.4%Sambucus canadensis COMMON ELDERBERRY shrub 3 2.9 2.2% 2.9 2.2%Tilia americana AMERICAN BASSWOOD tree 6 1.8 0.5% 1.8 0.3%Toxicodendron radicans POISON-IVY vine 1 1.9 1.3% 0.5 1.9% 2.1 1.5% 0.5 0.4% 1.3 0.9% 4.5 4.9%Ulmus americana AMERICAN ELM tree 2 22.1 2.3%Ulmus rubra SLIPPERY ELM tree 3 15.8 1.0% 7.5 0.4% 12.5 0.6% 11.0 1.1% 2.5 1.4%Ulmus species (Ulmus americana) ELM SPECIES tree 2 5.6 0.9%Viburnum dentatum ARROW-WOOD shrub 2 2.8 0.6% 2.8 0.9%Viburnum prunifolium BLACK-HAW shrub 4 2.5 1.3%Vitis species GRAPEVINE SPECIES vine 3 5.6 1.6% 1.6 1.4% 4.0 1.8% 2.3 1.8% 1.7 1.5% 8.9 2.1%Ailanthus altissima TREE-OF-HEAVEN tree 0 12.5 0.4%Lonicera maackii AMUR HONEYSUCKLE shrub 0 2.2 63.0% 1.2 39.7% 1.9 4.6% 2.8 0.9% 2.1 5.2% 4.9 70.2% 5.5 22.7% 4.9 23.6%Maclura pomifera OSAGE-ORANGE tree 0 13.5 1.1%Pinus nigra AUSTRIAN PINE tree 0 24.5 1.5%Pinus strobus WHITE PINE tree 0 34.5 7.7%Pyrus calleryana CALLERY PEAR sm tree 0 0.5 0.3% 5.1 1.3% 2.5 5.6%Quercus altissima SAWTOOTH OAK tree 0 12.5 1.8%Rosa multiflora MULTIFLORA ROSE shrub 0 0.5 0.5% 0.5 0.3% 5.1 1.4%Highlighted species are non-native

Pine Plantation Successional Forest

45

PREFO1 PREFO2 PREPP1 PRERF1 PRERF2 PRESF1 SWURF1

4.845

13103

77%69%3.5

12.55.7

15.714.3285

12102

83%76%3.8

13.0

SWURF1 SWURF2

2.9324

21192

90%29%3.4

15.65.8225

29263

90%94%3.4

18.6

PREFO1 PREFO2 PREPP1 PRERF1 PRERF2 PRESF1

Monitoring Subarea Mature Forest Restored Forest

325

27243

89%97%3.0

308 214

17143

82%86%2.7

11.27.1

Restored ForestSouthern Waste UnitsPaddys Run East

3.414.120.1

60%3.8

16.06.5

SWURF217161

94%37%

18162

89%


Table C-5. Herbaceous Floristic Quality Assessment Index Comparison

Restoration Area

Community Type

Monitoring Subarea

Monitoring Year

Three-Year Rotation Three-Year Rotation Management Area Approach

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2017

Borrow Area

Prairie BAPBA1 BAPBA2 BAPPR1

5.9 9.6

7.7 6.2

13.8 11.0

6.7

Wetland

BAPW2 BAPW3 BAPW4 BAPW7 BAPW9

15.9 12.8 11.7 12.4 14.9

17.3 9.8

12.3 13.7 14.0

17.0 15.7 14.3 14.6 14.5

Former Silos Area

Prairie FSAPR1 11.2 9.1 16.3

Wetland FSAW1 27.2 Non-

Design Area

Prairie NDAA14 NDABAW 8.0

10.8 8.4 16.2 10.7

12.3

Paddys Run East

Forest

PREFO1 PREFO2 PREPP1 PRERF1 PRERF2 PRESF1

10.0 17.1 14.3 10.5 8.5

12.5

14.3 9.9 6.0 8.8 6.3

17.0

17.2 16.6 6.5 9.5

11.9 15.9

Southern Waste Units

Forest SWURF1 SWURF2 10.1

12.9 11.9 12.3

10.5 13.0

Prairie SWUPR1 8.7

Wetland Mitigation

Phase I

Prairie WM1PR1 9.0 6.3 14.8

Wetland

WM1W1 WM1W2 WM1W3 WM1W4 WM1W5 WM1W6 WM1W7

13.6 17.6 12.1 15.3 12.6 15.5 12.2

13.8 16.1 12.8 15.9 10.3 15.2 12.9

18.2 17.3 17.3 15.0 15.5 14.0 15.1

Shading indicates the monitoring subarea was not yet established.

Table C-6. Wetland Functional Monitoring Comparison

Parameter Borrow Area Wetland Mitigation Phase I Baseline Reference

2009 2012 2017 2003 2009 2012 2017 Open Water

Open Water

Total Species 101 102 112 62 141 155 164 33 61

Native Species 75 77 82 49 99 111 120 16 55

Native Species (Percent) 74% 75% 73% 79% 70% 72% 73% 48% 90%

Average Coefficient of Conservatism 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.1 2.1 1.1 3.5

Floristic Quality Assessment Index 19.9 20.9 21.9 17.4 27.8 25.5 27.2 6.4 27.3

Hydrophytic Species (Percent) 50% 57% 52% 64% 50% 50% 52% 24% 51%


Table C-7. Prairie Functional Monitoring Comparison

Parameter Wetland Mitigation Phase I Baseline Reference

2004 2010 2013 2017 Grazed Pasture

Upland Prairie

Total Species 64 25 35 57 38 88 Native Species 31 14 16 40 15 81 Native Species (Percent) 48% 56% 46% 70% 39% 92% Average Coefficient of Conservatism 1.3 1.8 1.1 2.0 0.4 3.3 Floristic Quality Assessment Index 10.6 9.0 6.3 14.8 2.6 30.6

Table C-8. Southern Waste Unit Forest Functional Monitoring Comparison

Parameter 2005 2011 2014 2017 Upland Forest

Complex Total Species 82 82 76 70 62 Native Species 61 55 52 44 58 Native Species (Percent) 74% 67% 68% 73% 94% Average Coefficient of Conservatism 3.0 2.6 2.5 2.2 3.9 Floristic Quality Assessment Index 26.7 23.1 22.0 18.8 30.5

U.S. D

epartment of Energy

Fernald Preserve 2017 Site Environm

ental Report

May 2018

D

oc. No. S17983

Page C-23

Table C-9. 2017 Amphibian Monitoring Summary, Species and Number of Individuals

Basin N

orth

ern

Cric

ket F

rog

(Acr

is c

repi

tans

)

Jeffe

rson

Sal

aman

der

(Am

byst

oma

jeffe

rson

ianu

m )

Stre

amsi

de S

alam

ande

r (A

mby

stom

a ba

rbou

ri )

Spot

ted

Sala

man

der

(Am

byst

oma

mac

ulat

um)

Mar

bled

Sal

aman

der

(Am

byst

oma

opac

um )

Sala

man

der S

peci

es

(Am

byst

omid

spe

cies

)

Am

eric

an T

oad

(Ana

xyru

s am

eric

anus

)

Gra

y Tr

ee F

rog

(Hyl

a ve

rsic

olor

)

Am

eric

an B

ull F

rog

(Lith

obat

es c

ates

beia

na )

Gre

en F

rog

(Lith

obat

es c

lam

itans

)

Nor

ther

n Le

opar

d Fr

og

(Lith

obat

es p

ipie

ns )

Frog

Spe

cies

(L

ithob

ates

spe

cies

)

Sprin

g Pe

eper

(P

seud

acris

cru

cife

r )

Borrow Area

BAPW2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 27 0

BAPW4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 BAPW7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 5 1

Former Production Area

FPAW2 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 4 50 10

FPAW7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 3 10 0

FPAW9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 PREW6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 2 0 1 11 4

North Pine Plantation Enhancement

NPPW4 0 1 4 1 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 55 1 NPPW5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 52 0

North Woodlot Enhancement Natural Resources Trustee Project

NWEW1 0 0 0 0 0 0 752 1 1 1 0 30 0

Paddys Run West Natural Resources Trustee Project

PRTW1 0 0 0 1 0 0 25 0 4 0 0 95 0 PRWW1 1 0 0 0 1 0 150 0 1 0 2 135 5

Wetland Mitigation Phase I

WM1W1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 0

WM1W4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 WM1W7 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 18 0

Wetland Mitigation Phase II

WM2W1 2 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 3 0

WM2W2 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 WM2W3 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 1 0 1 2 0

Totals: 4 1 23 2 1 20 961 12 30 10 12 504 21


Table C-10. Amphibian Index of Biotic Integrity Comparison

Restoration Area Basin Amphibian Index of Biotic Integrity Score

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Borrow Area BAPW2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 BAPW4 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 BAWP7 13 0 0 0 0 0 0


FPAW2 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 FPAW7 10 30 30 7 3 0 0 FPAW9 10 24 24 3 3 0 0 PREW6 13 3 0 0 0 3 3

North Pine Plantation Enhancement NPPW4 23 6 6 6 3 16 24 NPPW5 0 13 13 13 0 0 0

North Woodlot Enhancement Natural Resources Trustee Project NWEW1 0

Paddys Run West Natural Resource Trustee Project

PRTW1 3 27 20 16 PRWW1 0 6

Wetland Mitigation Phase I WM1W1 3 0 0 3 0 0 6 WM1W4 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 WM1W7 0 3 3 20 9 10 16

Wetland Mitigation Phase II WM2W1 3 20 13 16 3 0 16 WM2W2 6 10 10 10 6 0 7 WM2W3 12 6 6 10 9 13 28

Shading indicates monitoring not conducted prior to construction of the basin.

U.S. D

epartment of Energy


ental Report

May 2018

D

oc. No. S17983

Page C-25

Table C-11. Wetland Mitigation Hydrologic Monitoring Results

Restoration Project Area Basin Parameter Performance

Standard 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017


FPAW2 Water in Root Zone (Percent) >53% 67% 74% 61% 61% 60% 61% 48% 59%

Mean Depth of Water (cm) <29.4 32.2 22.9 32.8 37.8 40.0 31.7 45.1 35.7 Flashiness Index <2 0.04 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.03

FPAW9 Water in Root Zone (Percent) >53% 30% 80% 61% 36% 52% 76% 96% 97%

Mean depth of water (cm) <29.4 53.5 24.4 36.3 53.3 35.8 28.6 17.5 16.3 Flashiness Index <2 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.07 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.01

Wetland Mitigation Phase I

WM1W1 Water in Root Zone (Percent) >53% 33% 48% 41% 62% 67% 64% 49% 65%


WM1W3 Water in Root Zone (Percent) >53% 57% 69% 39% 34% 31% 39% 33% 24%


WM1W5 Water in Root Zone (Percent) >53% 28% 66% 43% 38% 53% NDa 34% 61%

Mean depth of water (cm) <29.4 49.9 25.7 41.0 44.3 37.7 NDa 43.5 31.9 Flashiness Index <2 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.05 NDa 0.04 0.05

WM1W6 Water in Root Zone (Percent) >53% 60% 39% 66% 78% 4% NDa 44% 46%

Mean Depth of Water (cm) <29.4 31.8 54.2 33.2 29.8 50.2 NDa 35.2 37.6 Flashiness Index <2 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.03 NDa 0.02 0.03

WM1W7 Water in Root Zone (Percent) >53% 61% 66% 59% 64% 62% NDb NDa NDa

Mean depth of water (cm) <29.4 37.7 20.0 38.4 30.7 23.2 NDb NDa NDa Flashiness Index <2 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.04 NDb NDa NDa

Borrow Area BAPW2 Water in Root Zone (Percent) >53% 5% 62% NDb 56% 52% 53% 46% 44%

Mean depth of water (cm) <29.4 65.6 17.2 NDb 40.0 43.4 17.8 45.4 45.7 Flashiness Index <2 0.06 0.05 NDb 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.03 0.05

Paddys Run

PRTW1 Water in Root Zone (Percent) >53% 21% 18% 30% NDa 24%

Mean Depth of Water (cm) <29.4 68.9 68.7 58.5 NDa 61.8 Flashiness Index <2 0.07 0.08 0.06 NDa 0.04

PRTW2 Water in Root Zone (Percent) >53% 40% 37% 48% 25% 50%

Mean Depth of Water (cm) <29.4 52.6 55.0 47.5 63.6 45.1 Flashiness Index <2 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.03

PRTW3 Water in Root Zone (Percent) >53% 39% NDb 46% 39% 46%

Mean Depth of Water (cm) <29.4 55.1 NDb 44.1 46.5 47.0 Flashiness Index <2 0.05 NDb 0.05 0.06 0.05

Shading indicates the performance standard has been met. a ND = not determined, partial data collected due to transducer failure. b ND = not determined, no data collected due to transducer failure.


Table C-12. North Woodlot Enhancement Natural Resource Trustee Project Implementation Monitoring Data Summary

Restoration Area NWERF2 NWEW1Total Species 30 40

Native Species 19 27Non-Native Species 11 13

Native Species (Percent) 63% 68%Relative Frequency of Native Species (Percent) 67% 73%

Average Coefficient of Conservatism (CC), range between 0-10 1.2 1.4Floristic Quality Assessment Index 6.7 8.6

Average Total Cover (Percent) 92% 69%

Species Common Name Type CCa NWERF2 NWEW1Agrimonia parviflora SMALL-FLOWERED AGRIMONY forb 2 2%Ambrosia artemisiifolia COMMON RAGWEED forb 0 7% 5%Aster pilosus AWL ASTER forb 1 2%Carex grayi GRAY'S SEDGE sedge 5 1%Carex species SEDGE SPECIES sedge NDA 1%Cephalanthus occidentalis BUTTONBUSH shrub 6 1%Conyza canadensis HORSEWEED forb 0 4% 4%Cornus species (Cornus racemosa) DOGWOOD SPECIES tree 1 2%Cyperus species UMBRELLA-SEDGE SPECIES sedge NDA 4% 5%Elymus canadensis CANADA WILD RYE grass 6 4% 4%Erigeron species FLEABANE SPECIES forb NDA 7% 4%Eupatorium serotinum LATE-FLOWERING BONESET forb 2 3%Euthamia graminifolia FLAT-TOPPED GOLDENROD forb 2 2% 4%Fraxinus pennsylvanica GREEN ASH tree 3 2%Juncus tenuis PATH RUSH forb 1 4% 5%Lobelia inflata INDIAN-TOBACCO forb 1 4% 4%Ludwigia palustris WATER-PURSLANE forb 3 7% 5%Oenothera biennis COMMON EVENING-PRIMROSE forb 1 1%Oxalis stricta COMMON YELLOW WOOD-SORREL forb 0 4% 4%Panicum clandestinum DEER'S-TONGUE PANIC GRASS grass 2 3%Panicum species PANIC GRASS SPECIES grass NDA 3%Platanus occidentalis SYCAMORE tree 7 2% 1%Populus deltoides EASTERN COTTONWOOD tree 3 3%Prunella vulgaris SELF-HEAL forb 0 1%Rubus species BERRY SPECIES ND 1 4% 3%Rudbeckia hirta BLACK-EYED SUSAN forb 1 3%Sagittaria latifolia COMMON ARROWHEAD forb 1 1%Salix nigra BLACK WILLOW tree 2 1%Solidago canadensis CANADA GOLDENROD forb 1 5% 3%Toxicodendron radicans POISON-IVY vine 1 2% 1%Vernonia gigantea TALL IRONWEED forb 2 2%Vitis species GRAPEVINE SPECIES vine 3 1%Agrostis gigantea REDTOP grass 0 3%Allium vineale FIELD GARLIC forb 0 1%Brassica species MUSTARD SPECIES forb 0 1%Convolvulus arvensis FIELD BINDWEED forb 0 2%Daucus carota QUEEN-ANNE'S-LACE forb 0 2% 3%Digitaria species CRAB GRASS SPECIES grass 0 2% 1%Dipsacus fullonum WILD TEASEL forb 0 1%Ipomoea species MORNING-GLORY SPECIES forb 0 1%Melilotus secies SWEET-CLOVER SPECIES forb 0 7% 4%Plantago major COMMON PLANTAIN forb 0 3%Plantago species PLANTAIN SPECIES forb 0 2%Poa species BLUEGRASS SPECIES grass 0 2%Polygonum persicaria LADY'S THUMB forb 0 2% 1%Setaria faberi GIANT FOXTAIL GRASS grass 0 1%Setaria species FOXTAIL GRASS grass 0 4%Stellaria media COMMON CHICKWEED forb 0 3%Trifolium hybridum ALSIKE CLOVER forb 0 7% 4%Unknown forb UNKNOWN FORB forb NDA 2%Unknown grass UNKNOWN GRASS grass NDA 2%Highlighted species are non-nativeaNDA = No determination available; species are not included in the average CC calculation.

Relative Frequency


Table C-13. Central Quadrant Site Inspection Findings, January 2017

Map Number Inspection Finding Finding Resolution or Path Forward Date

Resolved 1 Erosion To be addressed TBD

2 Concrete Free releaseda and disposed 1/18/2017


4 Asphalt Free releaseda and disposed 1/18/2017









13 Cable Free releaseda and disposed 1/18/2017

14 Old hay bales No Action NA

15 Tree cages To be addressed TBD


17 Teasel Herbicide applied 6/7/2017

18 Tile Free releaseda and disposed 1/18/2017


20 Damaged coir matting To be addressed TBD


22 Tree cages and metal posts To be addressed TBD

23 Thistle Herbicide applied 10/17/2017

24 Thistle Herbicide applied 10/12/2017

25 Teasel and thistle Herbicide applied 10/12/2017




29 Black matting pieces Matting removed and disposed 1/19/2017

30 Large bare area To be addressed TBD

31 Erosion To be addressed TBD




35 Black matting Matting removed and disposed 1/18/2017


37 Fountain grass Seed heads cut and disposed 1/19/2017


39 Trash Trash removed and disposed 1/19/2017


41 Tree cages Tree cages removed 11/15/2017

Table C-13 (continued). Central Quadrant Site Inspection Findings, January 2017



Resolved 42 Coir matting Matting removed and disposed 1/18/2017

43 Tree cage To be addressed TBD

44 Tree cages Tree cages removed 11/15/2017

45 Piece of rubber tire Free releaseda and disposed 1/18/2017

46 Plastic Plastic removed and disposed 1/19/2017

47 Metal post To be addressed TBD

48 Teasel and possible poison hemlock Herbicide applied 10/16/2017

49 Heavy teasel Herbicide applied 10/11/2017


51 Metal posts To be addressed TBD

52 Teasel Herbicide applied 10/13/2017 Note: a Per 10 CFR 835, Occupational Radiation Protection Abbreviations: NA = not applicable TBD = to be determined


Table C-14. South Quadrant Site Inspection Findings, February 2017


Resolved 1 Asphalt Free releaseda and disposed 4/19/2017


3 Tear in deer fence Deer fence repaired 2/13/2017

4 Tree cages and metal posts Tree cages and metal posts removed 4/13/2017

5 Deer fence poles Deer fence poles removed 7/6/2017

6 Tear in deer fence Deer fence repaired 2/13/2017

7 Aluminum sheet and concrete Free releaseda and disposed 3/21/2017

8 Brick and grill cover Items not located 3/21/2017


10 Railroad tie and concrete Free releaseda and disposed 9/18/2017

11 Plywood Plywood removed and disposed 2/13/2017

12 Exposed concrete and erosion To be addressed TBD

13 Open gate Deer fence repaired 2/13/2017

14 Broken survey marker To be addressed TBD

15 Sandbags Sandbags removed and disposed 4/4/2017

16 Rebar Free releaseda and disposed 4/19/2017

17 Tear in Deer fence Deer fence repaired 4/4/2017







24 Concrete Free releaseda and disposed 4/19/2017 Note: a Per 10 CFR 835, Occupational Radiation Protection Abbreviation: TBD = to be determined


Table C-15. East Quadrant Site Inspection Findings, March 2017


Resolved 1 Concrete To be addressed TBD 2 Tree cages To be addressed TBD 3 Collapsed deer fence To be addressed TBD 4 Tear in deer fence To be addressed TBD 5 Tear in deer fence To be addressed TBD 6 Tree cages To be addressed TBD 7 Ohio EPA research rebar Unable to locate NA 8 Resprouting pear trees Woody vegetation cut 6/16/2017 9 Water level 1 foot lower in basin To be addressed TBD

Abbreviation: NA = not applicable TBD = to be determined

Table C-16. West Quadrant Site Inspection Findings, December 2017


Resolved 1 Survey marker To be addressed TBD

2 Tear in deer fence To be addressed TBD

3 Two tears and deer fence collapsed To be addressed TBD

4 Post is unattached To be addressed TBD

5 Tear in deer fence To be addressed TBD


7 Ruts Ruts repaired 12/21/2017

8 Tree tubes To be addressed TBD

9 Concrete To be addressed TBD

10 Fallen post and signs To be addressed TBD



13 Collapsed deer fencing To be addressed TBD

14 Metal posts To be addressed TBD

15 Tree cages To be addressed TBD Abbreviation: TBD= to be determined


Table C-17. Annual Debris Quantities

Year Free-Releasea,b Debris Count

Contaminateda Debris Count

Percent Contaminated

2007 - 108 - 2008 - 128 - 2009 - 36 - 2010 - 21 - 2011 204 4 2.0% 2012 1,480 12 0.8% 2013 391 8 2.0% 2014 814 8 1.0% 2015 453 13 2.9% 2016 261 9 3.4% 2017 574 3 0.5%

a Per 10 CFR 835, Occupational Radiation Protection. b DOE began recording free-release debris counts in 2011.


Table C-18. OSDF Inspection Findings including Post-Burn Inspection Findings, March 2017


Resolved Quarterly Inspection of Cell Caps 1 through 8 (March 2, 2017)

1 Cedar Herbicide applied 6/26/2017





Post Prescribed Burn Inspection of Cell Caps 7 and 8 (March 29, 2017)a

1 Glazed tile and concrete Free releasedb and disposed 4/11/2017

2 Rocks To be addressed TBD

3 Matting To be addressed TBD

4 Animal burrow To be addressed TBD


6 Brick Free releasedb and disposed 4/11/2017

7 Asphalt Free releasedb and disposed 4/11/2017



10 Bricks (2) Free releasedb and disposed 4/11/2017




14 Animal burrow To be addressed TBD

15 Animal burrow Animal burrow filled 6/27/2017


17 Teasel Herbicide applied 5/22/2017 Notes: a Vegetation on the cell cap was burned on March 9, 2017. b Per 10 CFR 835, “Occupational Radiation Protection” Abbreviation: TBD = to be determined

Table C-19. OSDF Inspection Findings, June 2017


Resolved 1 Fallen radiological control sign fence Sign replaced 6/26/2017


3 Two groundhog burrows Filled burrows 6/15/2017



6 Groundhog burrows Filled burrow 6/15/2017 Abbreviation: TBD = to be determined


Table C-20. OSDF Inspection Findings, September 2017


Resolved 1 Concrete Free releaseda and disposed 10/3/2017

2 Cedar tree Herbicide applied 9/14/2017

3 Dogwood Herbicide applied 9/14/2017


5 Hole under fence To be addressed TBD

6 Honeysuckle Herbicide applied 9/15/2017

7 Honeysuckle and dogwood Herbicide applied 9/15/2017

8 Willow and dogwood Herbicide applied 9/15/2017

9 Honeysuckle and ironwood Herbicide applied 9/15/2017

10 Ironwood Herbicide applied 9/18/2017


12 Hackberry, dogwood, honeysuckle, pear, cherry Herbicide applied 9/18/2017

13 Hackberry, honeysuckle Herbicide applied 9/20/2017

14 Canada thistle and honeysuckle Herbicide applied 9/20/2017


16 Willows Herbicide applied 9/21/2017



19 Dogwood, honeysuckle, and cedar Herbicide applied 9/22/2017


21 Willow and honeysuckle Herbicide applied 9/22/2017


23 Numerous pear trees Herbicide applied 9/15/2017

24 Pear tree Herbicide applied 9/15/2017



27 Phragmites Herbicide applied 9/14/2017

28 Cottonwoods and willow Herbicide applied 9/14/2017


30 Ash tree Herbicide applied 9/15/2017

31 Willow and honeysuckle Herbicide applied 9/15/2017

32 Ash tree and willows Herbicide applied 9/18/2017

33 Phragmites Herbicide applied 9/22/2017

34 Grapevine Herbicide applied 9/15/2017

35 Grapevine Herbicide applied 9/18/2017

36 Grapevine and honeysuckle Herbicide applied 9/20/2017

Table 20 (continued). OSDF Inspection Findings, September 2017



Resolved

37 Grapevine, hackberry, and small woody vegetation Herbicide applied 9/21/2017




41 Virginia creeper Herbicide applied 9/21/2017 Note: a Per 10 CFR 835, Occupational Radiation Protection Abbreviation: NA = not applicable

Table C-21. OSDF Inspection Findings, December 2017

Map Number Inspection Finding Finding Resolution or Path

Forward Date

Resolved 1 Animal burrow To be addressed TBD 2 Honeysuckle To be addressed TBD 3 Concrete Free releaseda and disposed 12/19/2017

4 Bent fence post No action required NA

5 Sign post To be addressed TBD 6 Sign post To be addressed TBD

Note: a Per 10 CFR 835, Occupational Radiation Protection Abbreviation: TBD = to be determined


Figure C-1. 2017 Ecological Monitoring Activities


Figure C-2A. 2017 Ecological Monitoring Survey Areas—Northwest Site Quadrant


Figure C-2B. 2017 Ecological Monitoring Survey Areas—Northeast Site Quadrant


Figure C-2C. 2017 Ecological Monitoring Survey Areas—Southwest Site Quadrant


Figure C-2D. 2017 Ecological Monitoring Survey Areas—Southeast Site Quadrant

U.S. D

epartment of Energy


ental Report

May 2018

D

oc. No. S17983

Page C-41

Figure C-3A. Wetland Area BAPW2 Hydrograph

-100

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Jan

Feb

Mar Ap

r

May Jun Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov De

c

Wat

er D

epth

(cm

)

Date

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017Root Zone 30 cm

Fernald Preserve 2017 Site Environmental R

eport

U.S. D

epartment of Energy

Doc. N

o. S17983

May 2018

Page C-42

Figure C-3B. Wetland Area FPAW2 Hydrograph

-100

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Jan

Feb

Mar Ap

r

May Jun Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov De

c

Wat

er D

epth

(cm

)

Date

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017Root Zone 30 cmRoot Zone 30 cmRoot Zone 30 cm

U.S. D

epartment of Energy


ental Report

May 2018

D

oc. No. S17983

Page C-43

Figure C-3C. Wetland Area FPAW9 Hydrograph

-100

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1 32 63 94 125

156

187

218

249

280

311

342

Wat

er D

epth

(cm

)

Date

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017Root Zone 30 cmRoot Zone 30 cm


eport

U.S. D

epartment of Energy

Doc. N

o. S17983

May 2018

Page C-44

Figure C-3D. Wetland Area WM1W1 Hydrograph

-100

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Jan

Feb

Mar Ap

r

May Jun Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov De

c

Wat

er D

epth

(cm

)

Date

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016


U.S. D

epartment of Energy


ental Report

May 2018

D

oc. No. S17983

Page C-45

Figure C-3E. Wetland Area WM1W3 Hydrograph

-100

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Jan

Feb

Mar Ap

r

May Jun Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov De

c

Wat

er D

epth

(cm

)

Date

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Root Zone 30 cm


eport

U.S. D

epartment of Energy

Doc. N

o. S17983

May 2018

Page C-46

Figure C-3F. Wetland Area WM1W5 Hydrograph

-100

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Jan

Feb

Mar Ap

r

May Jun Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov De

c

Wat

er D

epth

(cm

)

Date

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016


U.S. D

epartment of Energy


ental Report

May 2018

D

oc. No. S17983

Page C-47

Figure C-3G. Wetland Area WM1W6 Hydrograph

-100

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Jan

Feb

Mar Ap

r

May Jun Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov De

c

Wat

er D

epth

(cm

)

Date

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017Root Zone 30 cm


eport

U.S. D

epartment of Energy

Doc. N

o. S17983

May 2018

Page C-48

Figure C-3H. Wetland Area WM1W7 Hydrograph

-100

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Jan

Feb

Mar Ap

r

May Jun Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov De

c

Wat

er D

epth

(cm

)

Date

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017Root Zone 30 cm

U.S. D

epartment of Energy


ental Report

May 2018

D

oc. No. S17983

Page C-49

Figure C-3I. Wetland Area PRTW1 Hydrograph

-100

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Jan

Feb

Mar Ap

r

May Jun Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov De

c

Wat

er D

epth

(cm

)

Date

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017Root Zone 30 cm


eport

U.S. D

epartment of Energy

Doc. N

o. S17983

May 2018

Page C-50

Figure C-3J. Wetland Area PRTW2 Hydrograph

-100

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Jan

Feb

Mar Ap

r

May Jun Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov De

c

Wat

er D

epth

(cm

)

Date

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017Root Zone 30 cm

U.S. D

epartment of Energy


ental Report

May 2018

D

oc. No. S17983

Page C-51

Figure C-3K. Wetland Area PRTW3 Hydrograph

-100

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Jan

Feb

Mar Ap

r

May Jun Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov De

c

Wat

er D

epth

(cm

)

Date

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017Root Zone 30 cm


Figure C-4A. Central Quadrant Site Inspection Findings, January 2017


Figure C-4B. South Quadrant Site Inspection Findings, February 2017


Figure C-4C. East Quadrant Site Inspection Findings, March 2017


Figure C-4D. West Quadrant Site Inspection Findings, December 2017


Figure C-4E. 2017 OSDF Inspection Findings

appendix c ecological restoration - energy.gov · dbh diameter at breast height . doe u.s....

Documents