Applied Reclamation Research at the NAIT Boreal Research

Applied Reclamation Research at the NAIT Boreal
Applied
Research
Research Institute: an overview
of Reclamation
the Institute
andat case
the NAIT Boreal Research
studyy examination of ongoing
g Institute:
g research p
projects
j the
I tit t an overview
i
off th
Institute and case study
examination
Amanda Schoonmaker,
PhD of ongoing research
November
8 2013
8,
F
Forest
t Reclamation
R l
ti Research
R projects
h Coordinator
CNovember,
di t
NAIT Boreal Research Institute
January 27, 2014
Structure of todays
y discussion
• Overview of the NAIT Boreal Research
Institute: who we are and what we do
• Research and technology transfer
Program: overview
• Peatland Restoration Program: overview
and case study
• Forest Reclamation Program: overview
and case study
NAIT Boreal Research Institute (NBRI)
Peace River, Alberta
NBRI structure and research
programs
•
NBRI is overseen by the institute directordirector Hugh Seaton
•
Three core research programs
• Peatland restoration
• Program lead- Dr. Bin Xu
• Forest reclamation
• Program
g
lead- Dr. Amanda Schoonmaker
• Plant and seed delivery
• Program lead- under recruitment
•
Research and Technology transfer
• Program lead- Dr. Jean-Marie Sobze
•
Boreal forest ed
education
cation
• Program lead- Beverly Osbourne
NAIT Faculty & Students
Program support and partnering
organizations
Oil and Gas Industry• Shell Canada
• PennWest Exploration
• Murphy Oil Corp
• Bonavista Energy
• PTAC
Environmental Consulting and Oilfield
S
Services
i
• Paragon
• NorthShore Environmental
• Nikal Environmental Solutions
• Chickadee Reclamation Services
• Northsite Construction
• Wildrose Consulting
• Incremental Forest Technologies
Forest Industry
• Manning Diversified Forest Products
• Daishowa-Marubeni International
Research Organizations
• University of Laval
• University of Calgary
• University of Alberta
• Alberta
Alb t IInnovates-Technology
t T h l
F
Futures
t
Government
• Alberta Environment and Sustainable
Resource Development
• Alberta Innovates Bio Solutions
• National Science and Engineering
Research Council (NSERC)
• Canadian Foundation for Innovation
Knowledge Transfer
Peatland restoration
Research program objectives
–T
To provide
id O&G companies
i and
d practitioners
titi
with
ith
practical, cost effective solutions for restoring
disturbed peatlands
p
– To provide critical research for developing peatland
management guidelines and policies
– Educate
Ed
t and
d train
t i HQP th
through
h summer iinternships,
t
hi
seminars, and workshops
Peatland restoration
•
Successful reclamation/restoration of
disturbed peatlands should aim for
the:
– Reintegration of hydrology
– Reconstruction of appropriate soil
profile/condition
R
Reestablishment
t bli h
t off sustainable
t i bl
– peatland
vegetation
•
Ultimate goal is the restoration of
PEAT ACCUMULATION FUNCTION
Bin Xu
Bin Xu
Inversion Pad (IPAD): A case study
of Peatland Restoration
•
Based on North American Peatland Restoration Method (Line Rochefort,
Laval University)
– Developed in Eastern Canada, harvested peatlands
– Combination of soil amendment
amendment, donor materials transfer,
transfer tree planting
planting,
and monitoring
Inversion Pad
Borrow pit
Pad
ad removal
e o a
and site
p p
preparation
Pad removal treatments
• Clay
Cl inversion:
i
i
•
•
•
•
clay pad removed.
peat (40-50 cm typically) until underlying clay reached
clay
l pad
d material
t i l packed
k d (10
(10-30
30 cm)) tto iincrease elevation.
l
ti
Peat replaced and packed to target elevation.
• Mixed-clay inversion
•
•
•
•
pad
d removed
d with
ith exception
ti
off b
bottom
tt
10
10-20
20 cm
hole created (~2 x 4 meters)
Adjacent pad material flipped into hole and underlying peat
also used to fill hole
hole.
This creates a new ‘hole’ to fill.
• Peat inversion
•
Same as in Clay inversion approach except that no clay
material was re-packed.
Site conditions: June 2012
Transfer of plant materials from
d
donor
sites
it
Types
y
of donor materials used
•
•
•
•
•
No moss / bare peat
No moss / with mulch
S h
Sphagnum
d i t d
dominated
Polytrichum dominated
Brown mosses
Monitoring
g activities
• El
Elevation:
ti
D t
Determine
i mostt efficient
ffi i t pad
d
removal technique
• Chemistry: Substrate and water profile
y
gy Describe hydrological
y
g
• Hydrology:
conditions and water flows
• Plant communities: Structure and
dynamic on restored site
• Peat accumulation: Carbon exchange
Vegetation results
Mean number of species
Vegetation trial
Bare peat
Straw only
Sphagnum
P l i h
Polytrichum
Brown moss
Natural peatland
Pad removal trial
Brown
mosses
Sphagnum
Vascular
Clay inversion
0 ±0
0 ±0
4 ±2
Mixed clay inversion
0 ±0
0 ±0
3 ±1
Peat inversion
1 ±1
0 ±0
5 ±2
Clay inversion
2 ±1
0 ±0
4 ±2
Mixed clay inversion
4 ±1
0 ±1
8 ±2
Peat inversion
3 ±1
0 ±0
6 ±2
Clayy inversion
4 ±1
2 ±1
7 ±2
Mixed clay inversion
5 ±1
2 ±1
9 ±3
Peat inversion
4 ±1
1 ±1
8 ±2
Clay inversion
4 ±1
2 ±1
7 ±3
Mixed clay inversion
4 ±1
2 ±1
7 ±1
Peat inversion
4 ±2
2 ±1
5 ±2
Clay inversion
3 ±2
1 ±1
5 ±1
Peat inversion
4 ±3
1 ±1
6 ±2
Natural peatland
3 ±2
1 ±0
7 ±1
Vegetation results
Mean number of species
Vegetation trial
Bare peat
Straw only
Sphagnum
P l i h
Polytrichum
Brown moss
Natural peatland
Pad removal trial
Brown
mosses
Sphagnum
Vascular
Clay inversion
0 ±0
0 ±0
4 ±2
Mixed clay inversion
0 ±0
0 ±0
3 ±1
Peat inversion
1 ±1
0 ±0
5 ±2
Clay inversion
2 ±1
0 ±0
4 ±2
Mixed clay inversion
4 ±1
0 ±1
8 ±2
Peat inversion
3 ±1
0 ±0
6 ±2
Clayy inversion
4 ±1
2 ±1
7 ±2
Mixed clay inversion
5 ±1
2 ±1
9 ±3
Peat inversion
4 ±1
1 ±1
8 ±2
Clay inversion
4 ±1
2 ±1
7 ±3
Mixed clay inversion
4 ±1
2 ±1
7 ±1
Peat inversion
4 ±2
2 ±1
5 ±2
Clay inversion
3 ±2
1 ±1
5 ±1
Peat inversion
4 ±3
1 ±1
6 ±2
Natural peatland
3 ±2
1 ±0
7 ±1
Vegetation results
Mean number of species
Vegetation trial
Bare peat
Pad removal trial
Brown
mosses
Sphagnum
Vascular
Clay inversion
0 ±0
0 ±0
4 ±2
Mixed clay inversion
0 ±0
0 ±0
3 ±1
Peat inversion
1 ±1
0 ±0
5 ±2
Clay inversion
2 ±1
0 ±0
4 ±2
Straw only
Mixed clay inversion
4 ±1
0 ±1
8 ±2
•49 vascular species
identified
in
2013.
Peat inversion
3 ±1
0 ±0
6 ±2
Clayy inversioncoverage
4 ± 1 is about
2 ±1
7 ±2
Average
vegetation
30%
30%.
•Average
Sphagnum
Mixed clay inversion
5 ±1
2 ±1
9 ±3
P l i h
Polytrichum
Brown moss
Natural peatland
Peat inversion
4 ±1
1 ±1
8 ±2
Clay inversion
4 ±1
2 ±1
7 ±3
Mixed clay inversion
4 ±1
2 ±1
7 ±1
Peat inversion
4 ±2
2 ±1
5 ±2
Clay inversion
3 ±2
1 ±1
5 ±1
Peat inversion
4 ±3
1 ±1
6 ±2
Natural peatland
3 ±2
1 ±0
7 ±1
IPAD case study:
y summary
y
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
In general, the site elevation targets appear to be appropriately
integrating the hydrology of this site with the surrounding
peatland.
tl d
49 vascular species identified in 2013.
Average vegetation coverage is about 30%
Natural peatlands had significantly higher vegetation cover than those
on the pad
Poor moss establishment ((cover)) on bare p
peat.
Establishment of Sphagnum moss is higher on the Sphagnum and
Polytrichum donor materials and is lower with brown moss materials.
Vascular plants are more abundant when there was neither vegetation
treatment nor mulch cover.
More monitoring is required in order to see the extent plant
community development over time as well as the long-term
long term
hydrological functioning of this site
Forest reclamation: Program goals
• Recommend best practices for restoration of
hydrologic function on small industrial sites.
• Recommend effective sequences
q
and combinations of
vegetation management treatments for preparing the
site and sustaining native vegetation on small
industrial sites
• Evaluate the suitability of boreal plant species for
reclamation.
• Evaluate the effectiveness of meeting
g ((and exceeding)
g)
the 2010 reclamation criteria through use of multiple
methods of soil adjustment and plant species
establishment.
Case study:
y reclaimed sump
• Soil reclamation activities completed in 2010
• Site was seeded with native grass mix in 2010
• Photo below taken May 2012
Case study:
y reclaimed sump
• Site was ripplowed in May 2012
• Photo below taken July 2012
Case study:
y reclaimed sump
• Photo below taken July 2013
Woody vegetation densities (stems ha-1)
Trees
Shrubs
Betula papyrifera
Pi
Picea
glauca
l
Populus balsamifera
Populus tremuloides
Alnus viridis
Cornus sericea
Ribes oxycanthoides
Ribes triste
Rosa acicularis
Rubus idaeus
Salix spp.
spp
Shepherdia canadensis
Vaccinium spp.
Mean
0
1133
4578
800
156
111
0
0
67
1400
311
44
44
Trees
mean SD
CI range
control 6511 3523 3363 to 9660
ripplow 2800 1394 2322 to 3278
control
SD
CI range
0
0 to 0
361
811 to
t 1456
3723
1250 to 7906
458
390 to 1210
343
0 to 462
226
0 to 313
0
0 to 0
0
0 to 0
200
0 to 245
2579
0 to 3705
401
0 to 670
133
0 to 164
88
0 to 123
Shrubs
mean SD CI range
2133 2924
0 to 4747
1356 1578
0 to 1897
Mean
6
856
1078
861
106
244
22
44
11
567
200
106
56
ripplow
SD
33
491
727
962
216
253
64
235
67
1175
351
251
176
CI range
0 to 17
687 to
t 1024
828 to 1327
531 to 1191
31 to 180
157 to 331
0 to 44
0 to 125
0 to 34
163 to 970
79 to 321
20 to 192
0 to 116
Total
mean SD
CI range
8644 3976 5091 to 12198
4156 2365 3344 to 4967
50
45
40
Whi spruce
White
Balsam poplar
Aspen
p
Height (ccm)
H
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
control
*error bars are 95% confidence intervals
pp
ripplow
Species richness
ripplow
control
total cover
grasses
desirable forbs
woody species
undesirable
d i bl forbs
f b
42
11
17
7
7
20
7
6
3
4
Percent Cover
control
Mean SD
39.3
9.4
26.4
8.9
3.8
4.4
1.3
1.5
83
8.3
14 0
14.0
CI range
31.6 to 46.9
19.1 to 33.6
0.2 to 7.3
0.1 to 2.5
0 0 to 19.7
0.0
19 7
Mean
32.3
15.7
8.7
1.3
70
7.0
ripplow
SD
CI range
12.1 28.1 to 36.4
9.6 12.4 to 19.0
10.7
5.1 to 12.4
2.8
0.3 to 2.2
80
8.0
4 3 to 9.8
4.3
98
Examination of non-native plants and
interactions with native plant establishment
CAUTION: The results presented in the next few slides
should be taken as exploratory at this point in time!
June 2012
Example 1:
Chipmunk
borrow p
pit and
sump site
July 31 2012
November 2012: ripplowing
July 1 2013: smooth brome
(f
(foreground)
) and sweet clover
(background)
July 11 2013: sweet clover
Chipmunk borrow pit and sump site
borrow pit-control
Species
mean
SD
Populus balsamifera 1033
1113
Populus tremuloides
533
413
Picea gglauca
867
301
Rubus idaeus
467
432
Rosa acicularis
0
0
S li spp.
Salix
0
0
Total density
2900
1225
borrow pit-RP
mean
SD
733
928
411
295
522
308
989
1216
100
377
22
65
2778
2348
sump-RP
mean
SD
67
103
267
273
300
210
33
82
0
0
0
0
667
432
10000
Woodyy stem denssity (stems / ha)
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
R² = 0.06508
2000
1000
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
Sweet Clover (% cover)
30
35
40
10000
9000
woody stem densitty (stems /h
ha)
8000
7000
6000
5000
R² = 0.01799
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
d i bl grasses (%)
desirable
35
40
45
10000
9000
Woody sstem densitty (stems /h
ha)
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
R² = 0.12373
1000
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Undesirable grasses (%)
60
70
Chipmunk borrow pit and sump site
borrow-control
borrow-ripplow
sump-ripplow
mean
SD
mean
SD
mean
SD
total cover
33
16
42
18
47
27
desirable grasses
16
12
12
12
0
0
desirable forbs
woody vegetation
3
4
11
13
1
1
1
1
1
2
0
1
undesirable grasses
3
3
3
6
39
18
undesirable forbs
10
12
21
14
19
9
80
desirable grasses
Dessirable forrb cover (%
%)
70
undesirable grasses
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
20
40
60
80
grass cover (%)
100
120
Example 2: exploration/delineation well
• Site work completed
p
winter 2011/2012
• Photos from Aug 2012
July
y 2013
woodyy stem den
nsity (stem
ms / ha)
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
R² = 0.31092
0
0
10
20
30
Alsike clover (% cover)
40
50
45
Desirable forrb cover (%
D
%)
40
Grass and desirab
G
ble forb species richness
8
35
30
25
20
R² = 0.18195
15
10
7
5
6
0
5
0
10
4
3
2
1
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Alsike clover (% cover)
60
70
20
30
40
50
Alsike clover (% cover)
60
70
Mean
Abies balsamea
Alnus tenufolia
f
Betula papyrifera
Cornus sericea
Picea glauca
Populus balsamifera
Populus tremuloides
Ribes oxyacanthoides
Ribes triste
Rosa acicularis
Rubus idaeus
Rubus pubescens
Salix spp.
Shepherdia canadensis
Symphoricarpos albus
Vaccinium myrtilloides
Vib
Viburnum
edule
d l
total shrub*
total tree
total woody*
Farm DW1
SD
CI range
333
644
489
89
173
422
437
203
156
2956
467
2377
133
22
265
67
644
1222
1867
410
815
917
192
301
132
0
to
to
to
to
475
988
845
254
0 to 536
1018 to 4893
0 to 349
0 to 77
310 to 978
558 to 1887
1119 to 2614
Mean
Farm DW2
SD
CI range
Farm DW
Planting target
733
578
1667
44
200
412
703
1175
88
224
397
4
709
0
18
to
to
to
to
to
1069
1151
2624
116
382
360
500
1360
1000
1400
25422
1179
8159
439
18770
to
to
2361
32074
133
133
222
200
224
338
0
0
0
to
to
to
296
316
498
250
95
45
130
2822
2289
5111
1595
1349
2583
1522
1189
3005
to
to
to
4123
3389
7217
880
2860
3740
*these
these totals do not include raspberries (Rubus idaeus)
Forest reclamation summary
y
• Results presented are short-term (2 growing
seasons).
• Sequencing
S
i off vegetation
i management and
d
re-vegetation treatments may have significant
impact on future success of reclaimed site
site.
• Some non-native (though not considered
weeds) plants appear to have negative
influence on establishment of desirable
vegetation.
The END
THANK YOU for
THANK-YOU
f listening
li t i
Questions??

Download Report