Work plan for the Oak Ridge Reservation ecological monitoring and assessment program

Abstract

This plan describes an approach for developing an ecological monitoring and assessment program (EMAP) for the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE'S) Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR). Such a program is required to assess existing ecological risks, to predict changes in those ecological risks from proposed remedial actions, and to monitor the effectiveness of remedial actions in reducing ecological risks. Ecological risk assessments must be based on Reservation-level data for those widespread or wide-ranging plant and animal species (including s tate-and federally-listed threatened and endangered species) that occupy the entire ORR. In recognition of this need, Region W of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has specifically requested that DOE develop a Reservation-wide monitoring and assessment program. The approach described herein was developed in a series of meetings among DOE, EPA, and the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation who are the three parties to the Federal Facilities Agreement (FFA) that governs environmental restoration activities on the ORR. The current strategy distinguishes four types of potentially contaminated areas: (1) source operable units (OUs), which may contain waste disposal areas, (2) groundwater aquifers that are potentially contaminated by source OUs, (3) aquatic integrator OUs which are streams and associated floodplains that drain source OUs, and (4) the terrestrial integrator, which encompasses the Reservation. Samples of earthworms, vegetation, and small mammals will be collected from the same areas as were used for the background soil characterization project. Analyses of these samples will be deferred until FY 1996. In addition regular surveys of roadkilled animals will be made to obtain opportunistic samples of organisms that could not otherwise be sampled. Analyses of these samples will also be deferred to FY 1996.

Terrestrial habitat mapping of the Oak Ridge Reservation: 1996 Summary

“…The changes to and from water, an overall decrease of 1%, probably reflects either seasonal flow and, thus, floodplain changes, and some misregistration error. The barren lands were a class that was present during 1984, but Ashwood et al (1994) had apparently designated this category as bare-soil and combined it with agricultural land (Table 3). However, discrimination of this class was particularly good in 1994, probably because of low canopy cover, and the category was kept separate.…”

“…An analyst is then able to assign the clusters to uniform information categories (e.g., soils and forest), using previous knowledge of the site. The clustering algorithms used for the 1984 and 1994 images were a Minimum-Distance classifier called CLUSTR in ERDAS 7.5 (Ashwood et al 1994 ) and a Maximum-Likelihood classifier respectively.…”

“…Thus, thematic maps generated fiom satellite imagery can be directly compared using this classification system. Table 2 shows the Anderson-level LULC categories used to classify the 1994 TM image (Washington-Allen et al 1995), which were adapted from categories used to classify the 1984 image (Ashwood et al 1994). …”

“…An alternative category would be rangeland, but for purposes of comparison between images, pasture land was the most appropriate category. For the 1994 TM classified image the Anderson level-II subcategory of transitional areas was aggregated with the Anderson-level II category pasture land because this was the meaning conveyed by Ashwood et al (1994). The cloud and cloud cover classes were also aggregated into one class.…”

Terrestrial mapping of the Oak Ridge Reservation: Phase 1. Environmental Restoration Program

“…A change detection between the raw and classified 1984 (Chatfield and Graham unpublished data) and 1994 Landsat 5 TM images (both) would assess the magnitude of changes in land use and land cover, quantify their impact on landscape pattern, determine their effect on species' habitats and biodiversity, and facilitate the management of the ORR landscape and its incorporated ecosystems. As recommended by Ashwood et al (1994), landscape metrics should be used to measure the magnitude of spatio-temporal changes in landscape pattern, both among areas within the ORR, and between areas outside the reservation's immediate vicinity compared with the areas within. The latter case would provide a test of the observation that the ORR and other DOE facilities are unique areas for biodiversity compared with the highly urbanized areas that usually surround them (Patricia Parr pers.…”