cumulative environme management association...

$: CUMULATIVE ENVIRONME MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION (CEMA)library.cemaonline.ca/ckan/dataset/4cabf21f-80ba-47db-8dde-71fc3bb... · Reclamation Working Group CEMA ii u:\for christine\rwg 2014-0017\final$

CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION (CEMA)

Report Disclaimer This report was commissioned by the Cumulative Environmental Management Association (CEMA). This report has been completed in accordance with the Working Group’s terms of reference. The Working Group has closed this project and considers this report final. The Working Group does not fully endorse all of the contents of this report, nor does the report necessarily represent the views or opinions of CEMA or the CEMA Members. The conclusions and recommendations contained within this report are those of the consultant, and have neither been accepted nor rejected by the Working Group. Until such time as CEMA issues correspondence confirming acceptance, rejection, or non-consensus regarding the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report, they should be regarded as information only.

For more information please contact CEMA at 780-799-3947.

***All information contained within this report is owned and copyrighted by the Cumulative Environmental Management Association. As a user, you are granted a limited license to display or print the information provided for personal, non-commercial use only, provided the information is not modified and all copyright and other proprietary notices are retained. None of the information may be otherwise reproduced, republished or re-disseminated in any manner or form without the prior written permission of an authorized representative of the Cumulative Environmental Management Association.***

Cumulative Environmental Management Association Suite 214, 9914 Morrison Street

Fort McMurray, AB T9H 4A4 Phone: 780-799-3947

Facsimile: 780-714-3081 E-Mail: [email protected]

Website: www.cemaonline.ca

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.cemaonline.ca/

p:\20148132\00_reveg_manual\environmental_sciences\07.02_reports\final report\mem_cema sci summary template_mp.docx

Summary of Scientific Report for Reclamation Working Group / Terrestrial Sub-Group

CEMA Working Group/Task Group: Reclamation Working Group / Terrestrial Sub-GroupCEMA Contract Number: 2014-0017Principal Investigators/Consultants: Summit Environmental Consultants Inc. and Integral Ecology Group Ltd.Project Description: In preparation for the 3rd edition of the “Guidelines for Reclamation to Forest Vegetation in theAthabasca Oils Sands Region” (or Revegetation Manual), the TSG and stakeholders identify key components required forfurther improvement.Project Deliverables:

Preparations for Revision of the Revegetation Manual, Background Summary Document Preparations for Revision of the Revegetation Manual, Summary of Work Session 1 Preparations for Revision of the Revegetation Manual, Summary of Work Session 2 Preparations for Revision of the Revegetation Manual, Draft Report Preparations for Revision of the Revegetation Manual, Final Report

Project Timeline: August 21, 2014 to March 13, 2015Project Status: CompleteHighlights/Milestones/Key Findings: This document provides a summary of the work that has been completed toidentify and prioritize information gaps to be addressed during development of the 3rd edition of the Revegetation Manual.Two work sessions and an on-line survey were held to engage industrial, aboriginal, regulatory, consultants and otherstakeholders in the oil sands region, to understand how these groups use the guidelines currently, and to receive inputregarding possible enhancements. Key topics discussed included:

Characteristic species information Reclamation classification End land use objectives and development targets Guidelines for monitoring Biodiversity planning Purpose of the Revegetation Manual Structure of the Revegetation Manual Traditional Knowledge consideration Risk assessment

Key findings are presented in this report and a high-level work plan was prepared estimating timelines and resourcesrequired to make the final changes recommended for the Revegetation Manual. Key findings, reviewed and approved byTSG and RWG, are categorized as:

1. included in the next revision, and2. omitted from the next revision.

MEMO

Date: March 10, 2015 File: 2014-8132.000.003

To: Kim Dacyk, Reclamation Working Group, CEMA

From: Stephanie Murphy, B.Sc., R.P.Bio., Summit

Project: Preparations for the Revision of the RevegetationManual

Subject: CEMA Scientific Summary Template

Memo To: Kim Dacyk, Reclamation Working Group, CEMAMarch 10, 2015- 2 -

P:\20148132\00_Reveg_Manual\Environmental_Sciences\07.02_Reports\Final Report\mem_CEMA Sci Summary Template_mp.docx

Those that are included are further segregated by the amount of work required for inclusion. Reasons are provided forthose recommended changes that will be omitted from the next revision.

FINAL REPORT

Reclamation Working Group CEMA Preparations for Revision of the Revegetation Manual

April 2015

FINAL REPORT

i

Table o f Conten ts

SECTION PAGE NO. Table o f Conten ts i

Lis t o f Tab les ii

Lis t o f Figures iii

1 In troduction 1

2 Backg round 1

2.1 Summary of Work Session 1 1

2.2 Fluid Survey 3

2.3 Summary of Work Session 2 5

3 Fina l Decis ion Proces s es 7

3.1 Category 1 Issues: To be included, Significant Work Required 7

3.2 Category 1 Issues: To be included, Minor Work Required 11

3.3 Category 2 Issues: Omitted from this Revision 14

3.4 Other Issues or Actions 15

4 High-Level Work Plan 16

5 Ad ditiona l Overview Comments 20

Referen ces

Reclamation Working Group CEMA

ii u:\for christine\rwg 2014-0017\final report_reveg manual revisions_20150327.docx

Lis t o f Tab les

PAGE NO. Table 2-1 Key top ics iden tified fo r d is cus s ion during Work Ses s ion 1 2 Table 2-2 Highes t-p rio rity lis t o f is s ues fo r con s idera tion 3 Table 2-3 Lower-prio rity lis t o f is s u es fo r con s idera tion 5 Table 4-1 High-leve l work p lan , tim eline and es timated re s o urces 17

List of Figures

iii

Lis t o f Figures

PAGE NO. Figure 3-1 Example o f revis ed revegeta tion dec is io n s equence 10

FINAL REPORT

1

1 In troduc tion The Terrestrial Sub-Group (TSG) of the Cumulative Environmental Management Association’s (CEMA’s) Reclamation Working Group regularly updates the Guidelines for Reclamation to Forest Vegetation in the Athabasca Oils Sands Region (AENV 2010). These guidelines, informally referred to as “the Revegetation Manual,” constitute a tool that mine-reclamation planners, practitioners, contractors, and other stakeholders use to reclaim disturbed oil sand areas to upland forest vegetation, and/or to evaluate the success of this reclamation. In preparation for developing the 3rd edition of the Revegetation Manual, the TSG will identify key components required for further improvement. The overall goal of this project is to assist stakeholders in identifying and prioritizing information gaps to be addressed during development of the 3rd edition of the Revegetation Manual. The project hadthree objectives:

1. Understand how reclamation planners and practitioners are using the Revegetation Manual; 2. Receive input from reclamation planners, practitioners, contractors and stakeholders on suggested

improvements to the Revegetation Manual; and 3. Scope the outstanding work that needs to be conducted before the Revegetation Manual rewrite

commences. This document provides a summary of the work that has been completed to achieve these objectives. Two work sessions were held, and a summary of each is provided below. A detailed scope of the work required prior to commencing the Revegetation Manual rewrite in 2017 is provided in Section 3. A high-level work plan is provided in Section 4, and this includes tasks, timelines and resources required to conduct the work.

2 Background 2.1 SUMMARY OF WORK SESSION 1

The first step in meeting the TSG objectives was a workshop, referred to as “Work Session 1,” which was held on October 15, 2014 in Edmonton, Alberta, between 8.30am and 4.00pm. Work Session 1 was attended by users of the Revegetation Manual and other interested stakeholders to gather information on current use of the manual and possible areas for revision. A summary of outcomes from this work session was submitted to the TSG (Summit 2014a) and is provided below. Nineteenstakeholders attended Work Session 1, including fourproject team members (Melanie Piorecky and Kathy Porter of Summit, Justin Straker of Integral Ecology Group, and Mike Poscente of CEMA). No Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) representatives were in attendance; however, staff from Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (ESRD) attended.


2 u:\for christine\rwg 2014-0017\final report_reveg manual revisions_20150327.docx

Justin Straker opened discussions with a background summary of the Revegetation Manual and third-party reviews and related CEMA projects that have been completed since its second publication. This was followed by the presentations from threeguest speakers representing industry, consulting, and CEMA. The guest speakers and their presentation titles are listed below, and summaries of the presentations are provided in Summit (2014a). Guest presentations during Work Session 1:

Lelaynia Cox of Suncor Energy: “Use of the Revegetation Manual for Reclamation Planning”; Glen Semenchuk, Director of CEMA: “Aboriginal Engagement”; and Ann Smreciu of Wild Rose Consulting: “Native Plants in the Oil Sands of Alberta.”

Next, facilitator Kathy Porter led a group discussion to identify key topics of interest. A total of 14 key topics for discussion were compiled, seven of which were discussed by small breakout groups (Table 2-1).

Table 2-1 Key top ics iden tified fo r d is cus s ion during Work Ses s ion 1

Key Topic Discussed in Break-out Groups

Characteristic species Yes

Reclamation classification Yes

Seral stage guidance

End land use objectives and development targets Yes

Use of new technology and models to inform decisions

Individual plant profiles and propagation

Guidelines for monitoring Yes

Biodiversity planning Yes

Purpose of the Revegetation Manual Yes

Traditional Knowledge considerations Yes

Transferable to in situ SAGD sites

Validate State-and-Transition models with growth and yield

How stakeholders wish to be involved going forward

Final Report Preparations for Revision of the Revegetation Manual

3

Key Topic Discussed in Break-out Groups

Risk assessment Yes

Prior to the end of the work session, each attendee highlighted one major issue that they considered was lacking in the current edition of the manual. In total, 25 issues were highlighted in six categories:

1. Overall manual content and focus; 2. End land use; 3. Spatial relationships; 4. Specific technical revegetation content; 5. Monitoring; and 6. Format and presentation.

2.2 FLUID SURVEY

A follow-up online survey, hosted by Fluid Surveys,1

Table 2-2 Highes t-p rio ritylis t o f is s ues fo r con s idera tion

was posted and notifications of request to complete the survey were emailed to all participants and to invitees who had been unable to attend. The 25highlighted issues formed the basis of the survey,and respondents were asked to rank each issue on a 5 point scalein terms of its importance (i.e. from 1 indicating “not important” to 5 indicating “imperative”). Respondents were also asked to identify issues in an open-ended “comments” format at the end of the survey. A total of 18 people accessed the survey; 15 completed itand three provided incomplete responses. The surveys generated 22 high-ranking issues to consider: 14 that survey respondents had selected as high-priority issues for the rewrite, and an additional eight that were generated from the open-ended comments at the end of the survey. A summary of these results was submitted to the TSG (Summit 2014b). Tables 2-2 and 2-3 prioritize the 25 highlighted issues based on the number of “votes” received in the 15 surveys that were completed. These lists were used to drive discussions during Work Session 2, and to aid the decision-making process.

Highlighted Issue Score out of 15 Participants

Incorporate considerations of vegetation dynamics and planning for vegetation changes over time

12

1www.fluidsurveys.com



Highlighted Issue Score out of 15 Participants

Incorporate guidance on linkages with other guideline documents (e.g. the Wetlands Manual) 11

Remove the link to the Land Capability Classification System (LCCS) and incorporate guidance on assessment of soil moisture and nutrient regimes to estimate edaphic position and site type/ ecosite/ ecosite phase

11

Incorporate guidance on linkages with wetland ecosystems 10

Incorporate considerations for "multiple-entry" revegetation, or multiple treatments on a site over time

10

Incorporate understanding of and guidance on hydrologic relationships between reclaimed sites, both upland and wetland

9

Include guidance on re-establishment of vegetation diversity at the landscape (i.e. inter-site and inter-lease) scale

9

Include guidance focused on reclamation of in situ versus surface-mining disturbances 8

Incorporate information on revegetation processes and "operational" activities, such as timing and sequence of revegetation activities, seed collection methods, seedling ordering, stock-type selection, and others

8

Incorporate an approach to and guidance on the role of traditional knowledge 8

Remove emphasis on distinction between commercial and non-commercial forests, and focus more on recreation of boreal upland ecosystems for a range of end land uses

8

Incorporate guidance on revegetation planning, implementation and assessment to successfully return the capacity for traditional land use

8

Incorporate a risk-based approach to revegetation planning, assessment, and adaptive management

8

Harmonize monitoring guidance with the Criteria and Indicators 8


5

Table 2-3 Lower-prio rity lis t o f is s u es fo r con s idera tion

Highlighted Issue Score out of 15

Consider the effects of reclamation vegetation-disturbance agents, such as insects and climate change

7

Incorporate a more user-friendly and visual structure, with colour diagrams, flow-charts, etc. 7

Incorporate approaches from CEMA's Reclamation Classification System 6

Incorporate guidance on and protocols for revegetation assessment 6

Write the manual as a plain-language field guide 6

Incorporate guidance from the document "Conceptualizing Water Movement in the Boreal Plain" (Devito et al. 2012)

5

Provide guidance at the level of ecosite phase in addition to site type and ecosite 4

Provide a section on the basic principles of reclamation (e.g. a "Reclamation 100" summary) 3

Incorporate additional information and fact sheets on individual plant species 3

Include guidance on re-establishment of upland grassland ecosystems 2

Include digital formatting and interactive guidance, such as a "Reveg. App" 2

2.3 SUMMARY OF WORK SESSION 2

A second workshop, “Work Session 2,” was held on December 2, 2014 (also in Edmonton) to review the findings of Work Session 1 and the survey with the TSG. Some, but not all of the same people from the TSG and Work Session 1 attended this workshop, which took place from 8.30am until 3.00pm. This work session had two objectives:

1. Identify and agree on gaps in the current edition of the Revegetation Manual, and on changes to be incorporated into the next iteration; and

2. Identify work plan components (e.g. research programs, data synthesis) required to address the identified gaps and changes, and allow development of a work description to accomplish desired revisions.

Justin Straker opened discussions with a summary of Work Session 1, its outcomes, and the results of the Fluid Survey. He reported that25 key topics of interest synthesized from Work Session 1had formed the basis for the online survey, and that the results had identified 22 high-ranking issues to consider (see survey details in Section 2.2).



Kathy Porter facilitated group dialogue where a number of criteria were identified to select which of the 22 high-priority issues should be included as revisions to the Revegetation Manual. All 22 issues were discussed by the group, and a consensus decision was made on each. These decisions were made relative to a set of specific criteria that the group identified during Work Session 2 with facilitation support from Kathy (see criteria details in Section 2.3.1). The Work Session 2 activities generated two categories of items/issues:

1. To be included: Thirteen issues that met a sufficient number of the selection criteria and will be included in the manual rewrite.

2. To be omitted: 4 issuesthat did not meet enough criteria and will not be included in the rewrite at this time.

The Category 1 issues were further divided into two separate lists:

those that met the criteria and require substantial additional work to be included in the rewrite within the revision timeframe (two years); and

those that meet most of the criteria and require (1) minor work for incorporation (i.e. changed writing or approach, but no new data collection or analysis), or (2) substantial additional work such that fully revised information cannot be completed in the available timeframe (i.e. they did not meet selection criterion #4: The item/issue a proven practice or capable of being implemented).

Regarding the latter in the Category 1subgroup (i.e. issues that require substantial work that extends beyond the revision time frame), it was decided that these issues will be addressed by modifying textthat is currently in the manual, not through any substantial new content. In the final portion of Work Session 2, the group was given an opportunity to raise any other issues/actions not previously mentioned, and to provide feedback on the consultation process as a whole. 2.3.1 Selec tion Crite ria

The group defined a set ofcriteria to assist in selecting which issues or items should be included in the planning for manual revisions. It was decided that candidate items should be included in the next revision if the met all or most of the eight established criteria:

1. The item/issue is within the TSG’smandateand objectives, and is not already being addressed by a different group.

2. The item/issue provides common guidance across surface-mine-reclamation scenarios2

2Revegetation-planning content in the manual should be generically applicable to in situ operations, and one participant noted that there could be a section in the revised manual on revegetation planning for in situ operations. Applicability to in situ operations for certification will depend on how the Government of Alberta approaches the certification process.

and is applicable across mining and in situ operations.


7

3. The item/issue is developed enough to provide specific content with the 2-year revision timeframe, and does not require substantial new research or resolution of substantial uncertainties to complete content.

4. The item/issue a proven practice or capable of being implemented. 5. The item/issue leads towards achievement of meaningful outcomes. 6. The item/issue is integrated intothe conceptual framework of the Reclamation Working Group. 7. The item/issue is deemed by the TSG to be important to address. 8. The item/issue focuses on the needs of the manual’saudience and users.

3 Fina l Dec is ion Proces s es This section describes theTSG decision processes regarding issues to beincluded/updated in or omitted from the 3rd edition of the Revegetation Manual. Based on discussions during Work Session 2, some of the 22 originally identified high-priority issues (as described above in Section 2.3)were combined; therefore, the final list is fewer than 22 issues.

3.1 CATEGORY 1 ISSUES: TO BE INCLUDED, S IGNIFICANTWORK REQUIRED

Four issues to be included in the manual rewrite require additional research, and these issues are discussed below. Some context on the discussion of these issues during Work Session 2 is provided to justify their placement in this list.

1. The TSG agreed that all relevant Reclamation Working Group guidance documents should be reviewed to identify aspects of these other guidance documents that are relevant to the Revegetation Manual, and to evaluate if/how these aspects should be incorporated in the revised version. The group also agreed that this portion of the manual is intended to be a high-level synthesis rather than a series of very detailed sections; therefore, content would be prioritized for inclusion. An example discussed during the workshop was incorporating guidance on required survey timing based on the methodsoutlined in Alberta Regeneration Standards for the Mineable Oil Sands(AESRD 2013). Guidance documents to be reviewed would be selected based on existing approved documents at the time of the review, but currently include the following:

Incorporate guidance on linkage with other guidance documents

• Alberta Regeneration Standards for the Mineable Oil Sands; • Best Management Practices for Conservation of Reclamation Materials in the Mineable Oil Sands

Region of Alberta(AEW 2012); • Guidelines for Wetlands Establishment on Reclaimed Oil Sands Leases(CEMA 2014); • End Pit Lakes Guidance Document (CEMA 2012), and • Any new policies that come into force between now and the time of rewrite will be reviewed and

considered for inclusion in the Manual revision.



Incorporation of guidance from the Criteria and Indicators Framework for Oils Sands Mine Reclamation Certification(Poscente and Charette 2012) was also discussed, but it was decided that only completed documents formally accepted by the Government of Alberta would be reviewed. The list of guidance documents to be reviewed will need to be finalized at the time of review initiation. The anticipated start date for this work-program component is 2016.

2.

The TSG agreed that references to the “LCCS” (Land Capability Classification System; Alberta Environment 2006) should be removed from the next edition of the Revegetation Manual, but that content is still required on estimating soil moisture regime (SMR) and soil nutrient regime (SNR). The TSG has alternate methods of reclamation classification in development, but it is not anticipated that these methods will be completed in time for release of the next edition of the Revegetation Manual. Consequently, it was agreed that the 3rd edition of the manual should contain explicitacknowledgement of the transitional state of knowledge around these topic areas.

Remove the link to the LCCS and incorporate guidance on the assessment of soil moisture and nutrient regime

3

3.

The revised manual should indicate the need to estimate SMR and SNR using appropriate field methods – procedures currently under development for post-placement soil audits could be used for this process, but this inclusion would be subject to their development and further direction from the Alberta government. The TSG agreed that this component of the revision process could be started as soon as funding and capacity allows (i.e. in 2015 or 2016).

The current edition of the Revegetation Manual requires users in the initial steps of applying the guidelines to identify whether their goal is reclamation of commercial or non-commercial forest. The TSG agreed that this is no longer a useful distinction in the current regulatory and operational regime, and that the common goal is the return of locally common, boreal-forest upland ecosystems. These ecosystems may and likely will have the capability to simultaneously support a range of end land uses (e.g. an upland mixed-wood stand could provide capacity for commercial harvest at maturity, but could also provide a variety of wildlife habitat, support aboriginal traditional land use, and support recreational activities). Therefore, it was agreed that guidance in the revised manual will be focused on revegetation techniques to establish upland forest ecosystems, with secondary information and consideration provided in parallel streams for all primary potential end land uses (commercial forest, wildlife habitat, traditional use, and recreation). This would be rather than forcing a dichotomous decision early in the planning process between commercial forestry and other land uses. An example of decision flow using this approach is provided (Figure 3-1).

Remove the emphasis on distinction between commercial and non-commercial forests; return to multiple-use forest

3It was suggested that, as part of this explicit statement of current knowledge, the summary of research into the link between LCCS classes and forest productivity be succinctly re-stated in the manual.


9

Despite this direction, it was noted by TSG members that identification and estimation of commercial versus non-commercial forests is a requirement of both the Ecosite Area Summary Table of the Alberta Regeneration Standards for the Mineable Oil Sands (AESRD 2013), and of current operating approvals. Thus the revised Revegetation Manual will have to include acknowledgment of and guidance on these requirements if they are still in force at the time of manual development. Note that steps 6-9 in the decision flow (Figure 3-1) currently link directly to Objective 3 of the Criteria and Indicators Framework. The TSG recognizes that more guidance is likely required for non-commercial-forest end land uses. It may be possible to develop substantial new materials on establishment of traditional land uses, if that content can be developed through work programs in the next twoyears (see relevant discussion in Section 3.1.2 below). The initial decision flow corresponding to completion of this task could be completed anytime, but the timing of developing additional content on traditional land uses is contingent on completing other related projects. Considering this, this task would be completed in approximately Q3-4 of 2016.

10

Figure 3-1Example o f revis ed revegeta tion dec is io n s equence


11

4. There was substantial discussion around monitoring content in the Revegetation Manual revision and potential links to the Criteria and Indicators Framework. The outcome of this discussion was that TSG agreed that the revised manual should contain three primary pieces of content regarding monitoring and indicators:

Adjustments to the Indicators and Monitoring section (Section 5) of the Revegetation Manual

a. An explicit acknowledgement of the role of the existing Effectiveness-Monitoring Program (EMP) and its stated goal of providing information to support assumption testing and content revision in the Revegetation Manual. For example, a statement could be included such as, “The Effectiveness-Monitoring Program is designed to assess reclamation outcomes, and information generated by this program will be used to adjust guidance in the Revegetation Manual, such as ranges of suggested planting densities.”

b. Some generic guidance around operational monitoring for adaptive management. Although the EMP is designed to assess broad reclamation outcomes, operators should implement adaptive-management monitoring (the six effective management steps in the Adaptive Management Framework) to assess reclamation results on individual reclamation polygons and support possible adjustment/remedial actions if required. This section could linkto the survey timing windows in the Regeneration Standardsdocument (AESRD 2013), but could also suggest interim purposive surveys to collect specific information at the operator’s discretion.

c. A summary of current knowledge around characteristic species, including content from the current manual and subsequent analyses conducted by the TSG to assess this content.This evaluation could also include testing of thresholds using data from the EMP/long-term reclamation plots, and additional data analysis for threshold derivation and refinement from new reference plots.The TSG needs to guide/determine the path forward to revise this section.

Items a and b are not time-dependent, and can be incorporated into general content drafting for the manual revision. If item c includes evaluation of EMP plot data, then this work could occur towards the end of 2016. 3.2 CATEGORY 1 ISSUES:TO BE INCLUDED, MINOR WORK REQUIRED

This section discusses issues that will be included in the manual revision primarily as short and relatively generic sections (i.e. no substantial inclusion of new, detailed content), and do not require discrete identified work programs separate from the general content writing and editing task.Note that many of these items may be considered high priorities for further development by the TSG. Their inclusion in this list is not intended to indicate lack of importance or lack of need for further research in these areas; rather, the intent is to reiterate the TSG’s overall decision regarding these issues. The decision was that content additions to the revised manual in these areas would be relatively minor, and that these additions do not require identification and scoping of work programs.



1. Rejected for substantial additional work based on criterion #3.The TSG acknowledges that this issue is very important, but the task of resolving uncertainty and synthesizing knowledge in a useful way was deemed too large to allow inclusion in the next revision. The TSG agreed, however, that it would be useful to include some textacknowledging the importance of these linkages and the need for related research. Development of this textshould include consideration of relevant sections of the Wetlands Guidelines and ofConceptualizing Water Movement in the Boreal Plains(Devito et al. 2012).

Incorporate guidance on linkages with wetland ecosystems

2.

Rejected for substantial additional work based on criterion #3.The TSG agreed that some discussion should be included regardingthe fact that site revegetation in reclamation is a process that occurs over time and that may include multiple management events, rather than something that is intended to be the outcome of a single planting program. Revegetation must include evaluation of outcomes and adaptive management where required, and should not be treated as a prescriptive “plant-what-the-manual-tells-you-and-you-are-done” event.Example statements would be: “Additional or secondary entry (multiple entries) into reclamation stands may be required to establish target species at target densities. The decision to undertake additional revegetation actions should be based on field observations and/or monitoring resultsof initial revegetation actions.”New content should also acknowledge that target densities of trees and shrubs can be achieved through multiple planting programs or ingress by design or as part of a site revegetation plan, rather than reaching target densities based on an initial planting program. This allows operators to conduct an initial planting, evaluate initial results, and plan secondary planting as an adaptive-management approach based on observed results. The brief content for inclusion could include discussion on monitoring density over time, especially with respect to the Regeneration Standards for commercial-forest end land uses (AESRD 2013). The TSG also suggested that it would be good to include text that conveys the need for ongoing research and monitoring regardingsuccessional dynamics on reclaimed sites, and that explicitly addresses the role of vegetation succession in reclamation and current thinking/knowledge on this topic (e.g., Gelhorn and Downing, 2005; current work by Brad Pinno). The Revegetation Manual assumes that initial floristics is the process by which plants establish on reclaimed lands, but the revegetation process may require multiple revegetation entries to keep stands on these assumed initial-floristics trajectories. Another suggestion was that some of this content could be written to directly address the critiques in Newton (2009) and The Forestry Corp. (2009) reviews of the 2nd edition.

Incorporate consideration of vegetation dynamics, planning for vegetation over time, and “multiple-entry revegetation”

3. Rejected for substantial additional work based on criterion #3.The TSG agreed that it would be good to include some text that emphasizes the importance and objective of re-establishing vegetation diversity at the landscape scale. However, it was suggested that the document should make clear that one goal of stand-level revegetation planning is re-establishment of species diversity, and that this stand-level diversity will propagate through to the landscape scale. Another factor that leads to landscape-level biodiversity is aggregation of individual reclamation polygons that are reclaimed at different dates using different techniques.Example statements could include “This document is written explicitly for stand-level planning, but we recognize that the aggregate of stand-level planning is landscape-level reclamation, and this aggregate result should be considered in revegetation planning. In many ways this already occurs

Incorporate guidance on re-establishment of vegetation diversity at the landscape scale


13

becauseof diversity in individual polygon reclamation timing and techniques, and because of diversity established at the stand level. We recognize that there is further work to be done to understand biodiversity re-establishment at the landscape, lease, and inter-lease scale.”

4. Rejected for substantial additional work based on criterion #3.As with item #1 in this section, the TSG agrees that this is a critical element of successful landscape-level reclamation, but there is too much uncertainty to be resolved in order to allow its inclusion in the 3rdedition of the Revegetation Manual. The inclusion will consist of text that conveys the importance of consideration of hydrologic linkages between reclaimed sites in reclamation planning, and the fact that further research is required to better understand these linkages. One possibility for high-level content inthis aspect of the revision would be to synthesize implications from the Carey-Petrone report to CEMA on water balances (Carey and Petrone 2014). This work is continuing as a Canada’s Oil Sand Innovative Alliance (COSIA) project in 2014-2018 (Syncrude and Suncor), and the funding companies could be asked for an update on progress to evaluate whether it has yielded any content for consideration for incorporation in the revised Revegetation Manual.

Incorporate guidance/understanding on hydrologic relationships between reclaimed sites

5.

Rejected based on criterion #1 and #3. The TSG acknowledged this as a very important issue for inclusion, but the ability to include substantial content is dependent on the work of other groups within CEMA, and such content may not be ready within 2 years. There are currentand planned Wildlife Task Group projectsfocused on providing traditional knowledge basedwildlife habitat guidance for the Revegetation Manual.The plan for this component is to update content to the extent possible based on progress of the traditional knowledge related projects. Communication and coordination between the TSG and the Wildlife Task Group, Integration Task Group, and RWG will be required to achieve this.

Incorporate an approach/guidance on the role of traditional knowledge in the manual, and on inclusion of information on re-establishment of vegetation for traditional land uses

6.

Rejected for substantial additional work based on criterion #3.Some generic content on risk-based planning and adaptive management should be included as a component of the six effective management steps in the Adaptive Management Framework(manual “Section 5”), and as part of the discussion on temporal dynamics of revegetation (see item #2 above in this section). Possibilities for evaluation and inclusion of high-level guidance here could include the recent Oil Sands Research and Information Network “reclamation and risk” report completed by Clive Welham (2014); and information on evapotranspiration and carbon balance between reclaimed and natural sites in Carey and Petrone’s report to CEMA on water, energy and carbon balance (2014). The in-progress report A Tool for Adaptation Decision-making in Oil Sands Reclamation Under Risk of Climate Change by Clive Welham (due to be completed in 2015) may further inform risk-management in the Manual.

Incorporate a risk-based approach to revegetation planning, assessment, and adaptive management

7. The TSG agreed that there should be some general content generated on processes and timing of revegetation activities, and that this should primarily target new reclamation professionals. The group agreed that this should be at the level of timeline information for propagation and delivery of container

Incorporate information on revegetation processes and operation activities



seedlings, rather than prescriptive information about, for example, use of certain stock types for certain species.

8.

The TSG agreed that flow charts and other visual presentation elements are useful ways to simplify and convey information, and that the revised manual should explore their increased use, particularly for operational content, as in item #7 directly above. The group alsoagreed that this visual content would be kept to a relatively modest level and would not include substantial new visual elements, such as those incorporated in the Wetlands Guidelines and the Conceptualizing Water Movementdocument.

Re-design the manual with flow charts for planning, establishment, and monitoring assessment

9. The TSG agreed that there should be brief content acknowledging the existence and characteristics of native grasslands on very xeric-xeric sites in the area, but that this content would not be substantially developed.

Include grassland reclamation strategies

3.3 CATEGORY 2 ISSUES: OMITTED FROM THIS REVISION

Category 2 issues are those that did not meet the selection criteria and will not be included in the manual rewrite at this time. This section presents the reasons why these issues were not selected for inclusion.

1. This is not being included because the scale, equipment, situations and objectives differ greatly. Guidance is needed, but not in the Revegetation Manual. Some revegetation information is applicable to planning for in situ reclamation, but the manual will not be written with a specific focus on in situ operations.

Incorporate guidance on in situ as well as surface-mining disturbances

2. This is not being included because there are too many elements to define. What qualifies as successful and unsuccessful? A meaningful outcome could not be determined, and the benefit of doing this was not evident to the TSG.

Include local case studies of successful and unsuccessful revegetation

3. This is not being included because reclamation on these materials is too new to provide useful information at this time.The revised manual could acknowledge the existence of new materials, such as atmospheric dried tailings, coke,and others.

Link revegetation guidance to new substrates, such as consolidated and dried tailings

4.

This is not being included because it is deemed too large a task for the available revision time.

Define reclamation units as functions of solar radiation, topographical position, and substrate


15

3.4 OTHER ISSUES OR ACTIONS

Finally, fiveadditional issues/actions not previously covered by the key topics of interest were either raised during Work Session 2 or are subsequently identified as necessary to the revision process:

1. Retaining a content editor and writer to coordinate the process of the Revegetation Manual rewrite and to assist the TSG members in producing a revised document;

2. Retaining a formatting editor to produce a final document; 3. Developing and deploying a communication plan for stakeholder engagement; and 4. Interpreting the results of the Effectiveness Monitoring Program (EMP) for consideration of

implications to the manual rewrite. 5. The Manual should be updated to include guidance for revegetation of Boreal Highlands (BH) and

Athabasca Plains (AP)subregions. Issue #4 of this list was partially discussed above (see item #4c in Section 3.1). It involves analysis (including trends analysis) and interpretation of the four years of data (2012-2016) that were and will becollected through the EMP and its associated Adaptive-Management Framework to assess implications for revision of the Revegetation Manual. This task would be initiated in late 2016, once the data for that year have been collected and entered, and immediately prior to initializing the major content editing of the Revegetation Manual revision. Issue #5 of this list was discussed during the TSG conference call where this draft report was reviewed by members. The Manual is already being applied to BM by some users as stand types line up well with the current prescriptions and ecosite phases for the Central Mixedwoodsubregion. It was agreed that the Revegetation Manual should also include guidance for revegetation of AP and BH subregions, potentially by the addition of planting prescription tables that apply to these natural subregions. This update is considered to fall under Category 1, as some additional work is required prior to inclusion. It was agreed thatthe first step of this process would include review of data and approaches from the Geographic Dynamics Corp.’s Plant Resource Summary report (2003)and GyulaGulyas’ reports produced in support of development of the 2010 Manual’s overstory planting tables (CEMA project 2008-0038)



4 High-Leve l Work Plan Items that requirespecific work programs and corresponding resources4

are identified in Table 4-1.This work plan is subject to further review by RWG for project acceptance, finalization of timelines and cost estimates. All items discussed in Section 3.2 are assumed to be included in the general task of content editing and writing. It is possible that some of these items will require expertise outside the experience of the writer, but it is assumed that these needs could be addressed through small subcontracts, and that these subcontracts could be covered by the resources identified below. As requested, we have assumed that all tasks will be completed under contract to appropriate service providers who are working closely with the TSG, but some may be completed by TSG membership if capacity allows. All tasks are independent of each other.

4Resource requirements are based on high-level estimates of required effort and meetings, and an estimated range of rates for contractors. For budgeting purposes, the TSG may wish to add a 10-15% contingency to these estimates.

17

Table 4-1 High-leve l work p lan , tim eline and es timated re s o urces

Tasks Timeline Estimated Resources Comments

Issues to be included in the manual revision and that do not require substantial additional work for the 3rd edition (includes communication, co-ordination, content editing and writing)

Revision coordination, content editing and writing

Q1 2016 – Q3 2017

$125K Assumes quarterly meetings with the TSG or task group in 2016 and 2017, for a total of 7 days of meetings. Cost is based on an average range of possible rates and includes some level of involvement by TSG members.

Format and final editing

Q3 2017 ~$25K The TSG or Reclamation Working Group may have more recent or detailed experience with costs for these tasks based on recent guidance documents completed.

Communication Plan Q1 2016 ~$18K Assumes two facilitated meetings, one early in the process and one half way though, to ensure open communication and ensure tasks are kept on track. Costs are based on two facilitated meetings, including expenses and a Fluid Survey, plus 10% for logistics/organization.

Is s ues to be inc lud ed in the revis ion and tha t requ ire add itiona l work

Incorporate guidance on linkage with other guidance documents

2016 $40K Assumes review of four to five guidance documents and 40 hours to generate content based on this review. Assumes that the task would require an in-person meeting with the TSG to present content, and subsequent revision

18


based on TSG comments.

Incorporate guidance on soil moisture and nutrient regime

2015-2016 $25K The cost assumes need to attend a TSG meeting to present approach.

Adjust content to focus on forest re-establishment for multiple land uses

2016 $75K There is uncertainty about whether information on traditional land uses and knowledge will be generated in time for consideration and inclusion. The cost estimate assumes that substantial content is available, and that some meetings will be required for evaluation and review of this content.

Adjustments to indicators and monitoring sections

2016-2017 $25K Assumes a meeting will be required to work through characteristic-species thresholds with the TSG, generate content, and adjust based on TSG comments. This work is estimated separately from the line item below on data analysis and interpretation.

Effectiveness-Monitoring Program data analysis and interpretation

2016-2017 $125K Cost estimate reflects uncertainty regardingservice providers and the degree to which TSG will describe/constrain requested analyses.

Coordination with TK initiatives being carried out by the Wildlife Task Group and Reclamation Working Group.

2015-2016 $0k to TSG Approximately $200k is being invested by CEMA through the WTG and RWG on two different TK projects, that will informative to the revegetation manual. As program manager, Mike Poscente will collaborate with the TSG to incorporate this information into the re-writing of the revegetation

19


manual.

Incorporate new planting tables applicable to the Boreal Highlands (BH) and Athabasca Plains (AP) subregions

2015-2017 $100K The Plant Resource Summary (GDC, 2003) on which understory guidance in the 2010 Manual is based was for the Central Mixedwood (CM) subregion only, so new guidance would have to be developed for the BH and AP subregions. The cost estimate reflects the high range in detail of approaches that could be used to address this task: at the lower end of the spectrum, the CM overstory and understory planting densities could be used, with species compositions taken directly from the Field Guide to Ecosites of Northern Alberta (Beckingham and Archibald, 1996). At the higher end of the cost spectrum, available plot data could be compiled and analyzed to determine appropriate overstory and understory species densities and composition.

Total: 2015-2017 $558K Note: until the full scope is complete there is uncertainty in cost.



5 Additiona l Overview Comments During the course of Work Session 2, some additional comments were noted that do not fit the presentation of information above. These comments are noted here for consideration by the TSG:

• The desire for TSG membership to lead the Revegetation Manual revision process was raised a number of times. Throughout this document, we have assumed a high level of direction and involvement by TSG members as work progresses and, in some cases, this has raised cost estimates due to the need for meeting attendance by service providers. To facilitate this process and to increase the likelihood of on-time delivery of the desired product, the TSG should consider formation of a Revegetation Manual Task Group. Such a group would consist of membership with the time, interest and expertise to work closely with service providers to generate new content and oversee work-program components, or to directly generate new content where possible.

• Given the positive reaction of members to discussion of the six steps of the adaptive-management loop, the TSG could consider structuring the new manual explicitly around this loop, with a section or sections on revegetation planning, a section or sections on revegetation implementation, and a section or sections on revegetation assessment. This suggestion is not meant to modify any of the content discussed above, only to offer a possible structure for organization and presentation of the revised manual.

• It is worth emphasizing that, overall, the TSG expressed the desire for a smaller and more succinct manual, if possible. Obviously, this desire needs to be balanced with direction discussed above, such as incorporating content from the LCCS. However, it should be acknowledged as an overall objective and guiding principle during the revision process.

FINAL REPORT

-1

References

Alberta Environment (AENV), 2010. Guidelines for Reclamation to Forest Vegetation in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region, 2nd Edition. Prepared by the Terrestrial Subgroup of the Reclamation Working Group of the Cumulative Environmental Management Association, Fort McMurray, AB. December 2009. Alberta Environment (AENV). 2006. Land capability classification system for forest ecosystems in the oil sands, 3rd ed. Prepared for Alberta Environment by the Cumulative Environmental Management Association. Edmonton, AB. Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (AESRD). 2013. Alberta regeneration standards for the mineable oil sands. Government of Alberta, Department of Environment and Sustainable Resource Development, Edmonton, Alberta. 71 pp. Alberta Environment and Water (AEW). 2012. Best management practices for conservation of reclamation materials in the mineable oil sands region of Alberta. Prepared by MacKenzie, D. for the Terrestrial Subgroup, Best Management Practices Task Group of the Reclamation Working Group of the Cumulative Environmental Management Association, Ft. McMurray, AB. March 9, 2011. Beckingham, J.D. and J. H. Archibald. 1996. Field Guide to Ecosites of Northern Alberta. Canadian Forest Service pp 336. Carey, S., and R. Petrone. 2014. Water, energy and carbon balance research: recovery trajectories for oil sands reclamation and disturbed watersheds in the western boreal forest. Final project report to CEMA, 24 November 2014. Cumulative Environmental Management Association. 2014. Guidelines for wetlands establishment on reclaimed oil sands leases. Ft. McMurray, AB. Cumulative Environmental Management Association. 2012. End pit lakes guidance document. Ft. McMurray, AB. Devito, K., Medoza, C., Qualizza, C. 2012. Conceptualizing water movement in the boreal plains. Implications for watershed reconstruction. Synthesis report prepared for the Canadian Oil Sands Network for Research and Development, Environmental and Reclamation Research Group. 164 pp. Gelhorn, L., Downing, D. 2005. Natural juvenile stand understory characterization. Prepared for the Cumulative Environmental Management Association, Reclamation Working Group, Soil/Vegetation Subgroup (SVSG), Fort McMurray, AB. CEMA contract 2005-2007.


-2 u:\for christine\rwg 2014-0017\final report_reveg manual revisions_20150327.docx

Geographic Dynamics Corp. 2003. Natural ecosite and plant resource summary for the Athabasca Oil Sands Region. Prepared for the Cumulative Environmental Management Association, Reclamation Working Group, Soil/Vegetation Subgroup (SVSG), Fort McMurray, AB. CEMA contract 2003-006. Newton, M. 2009. Oregon State University College of Forestry, Review of Critique by The Forestry Corp. of Guidelines for Reclamation of Forest Vegetation in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region, Completed for the Cumulative Environmental Management Association. The Forestry Corp. 2009. Guidelines for Reclamation to Forest Vegetation in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region – 2nd Edition, A Technical Review, Completed for the Cumulative Environmental Management Association (CEMA). Poscente, M., and T. Charette, Charette Pell Poscente (CPP) Environmental Corp. 2012. Criteria and IndicatorsFramework for Oil Sands Mine Reclamation Certification, Cumulative Environmental ManagementAssociation, Fort McMurray, AB. Contract Number 2009-0009. Summit Environmental Consultants Inc. (Summit). 2014a. Preparations for Revision of the Revegetation Manual, Summary of Work Session 1, submitted to the Reclamation Working Group, Cumulative Environmental ManagementAssociation, Fort McMurray, AB. Summit Environmental Consultants Inc. (Summit). 2014b. Preparations for Revision of the Revegetation Manual, Fluid Survey Summary, memo submitted to the Reclamation Working Group, Cumulative Environmental ManagementAssociation, Fort McMurray, AB. Welham, C. 2014. Risk and uncertainty in oil sands upland reclamation: best management practices within the context of climate change. Oil Sands Research and Information Network, University of Alberta, School of Energy and the Environment, Edmonton, AB. OSRIN Report No. TR-61. 26 pp. Welham, C. A Tool for Adaptation Decision-making in Oil Sands Reclamation Under Risk of Climate Change. Prepared for Cumulative Environmental Management Association (CEMA), Fort McMurray, AB. IN PROGRESS

cumulative environme management association...

Documents