ecological site restoration risk analysis · ecological site restoration risk analysis ... natural...

35
ECOLOGICAL SITE RESTORATION RISK ANALYSIS: A STEWARDSHIP AND LAND USE PLANNING TOOL FOR PUBLIC LANDS PART 1: USERS GUIDE APRIL 2009 PREPARED FOR: SRD Public Lands, Land Use and Rangeland Management Branches Edmonton, Alberta PREPARED BY: Gramineae Services Ltd. Lundbreck, Alberta IN ASSOCIATION WITH: LandWise Inc. Lethbridge, Alberta Foothills Fescue Foothills Parkland Montane Subalpine Loamy (Lo) Thin Breaks (TB) Limy (Li) Lotic Shrub (Ltc S) Lotic Herbaceous (Ltc H) Loamy (Lo) Thin Breaks (TB) Limy (Li) Lotic Shrub (Ltc S) Lotic Herbaceous (Ltc H)

Upload: hadan

Post on 10-Apr-2019

229 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: ECOLOGICAL SITE RESTORATION RISK ANALYSIS · Ecological Site Restoration Risk Analysis ... Natural Regions and the Subregions within are currently being revised as new data is acquired,

ECOLOGICAL SITE RESTORATION RISK ANALYSIS: A STEWARDSHIP AND LAND USE PLANNING TOOL FOR PUBLIC LANDS

PART 1: USER’S GUIDE

APRIL 2009

PREPARED FOR:

SRD Public Lands, Land Use and Rangeland Management Branches Edmonton, Alberta

PREPARED BY:

Gramineae Services Ltd. Lundbreck, Alberta

IN ASSOCIATION WITH:

LandWise Inc. Lethbridge, Alberta

Foothills Fescue

Foothills ParklandMontane Subalpine

Loamy (Lo)

Thin Breaks (TB)

Limy (Li)

Lotic Shrub (Ltc S)

Lotic Herbaceous (Ltc H)

Loamy (Lo)

Thin Breaks (TB)

Limy (Li)

Lotic Shrub (Ltc S)

Lotic Herbaceous (Ltc H)

Page 2: ECOLOGICAL SITE RESTORATION RISK ANALYSIS · Ecological Site Restoration Risk Analysis ... Natural Regions and the Subregions within are currently being revised as new data is acquired,
Page 3: ECOLOGICAL SITE RESTORATION RISK ANALYSIS · Ecological Site Restoration Risk Analysis ... Natural Regions and the Subregions within are currently being revised as new data is acquired,

ECOLOGICAL SITE RESTORATION RISK ANALYSIS PART 1

APRIL 2009 i

Table of Contents 1 PURPOSE AND DOCUMENT OVERVIEW .................................................................................................5 2 SUPPORTING TOOLS.....................................................................................................................................9

2.1 Mapping Tools ................................................................................................................ 9 2.2 Ecological Site Descriptions ........................................................................................... 9 2.3 Supporting Information Sources ................................................................................... 10

3 DEFINITIONS OF TERMS AND ASSUMPTIONS ....................................................................................11 3.1 Definition of Terms Pertaining to ESRRA ................................................................... 11

3.1.1 General Terms .....................................................................................................................................11 3.1.2 Degree of Soil Disturbance..................................................................................................................12 3.1.3 Revegetation Strategy ..........................................................................................................................12 3.1.4 Restoration Risk Rating .......................................................................................................................13

3.2 Assumptions.................................................................................................................. 13 3.2.1 Basic Principles ...................................................................................................................................13 3.2.2 Overarching Assumptions....................................................................................................................14

4 HOW TO APPLY ESRRA..............................................................................................................................15 4.1 Determine the Scope of the Project .............................................................................. 15 4.2 Determine the Mapping Tool........................................................................................ 15 4.3 Determine the Natural Subregion ................................................................................. 15 4.4 Linkage with Range Plant Community Guides ............................................................ 15 4.5 Knowledge Gaps & Restoration Issues by Subregion .................................................. 16

5 REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................................17 APPENDIX A – SUSTAINABLE RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT VEGETATION INVENTORIES.............19 APPENDIX B – WHEN RESTORING GRASSLAND – DRIER IS BETTER! ..................................................31

List of Figures FIGURE 1 – NATURAL REGION CONTEXT MAP .............................................................................................7

Page 4: ECOLOGICAL SITE RESTORATION RISK ANALYSIS · Ecological Site Restoration Risk Analysis ... Natural Regions and the Subregions within are currently being revised as new data is acquired,

ECOLOGICAL SITE RESTORATION RISK ANALYSIS PART 1

APRIL 2009 ii

Abbreviations

AGRASID........................................ Agricultural Region of Alberta Soil Inventory Database AOA...............................................................................................Area Operating Agreement AVI ............................................................................................ Alberta Vegetation Inventory EFR.............................................................................................. Environmental Field Report ESRRA .................................................................. Ecological Site Restoration Risk Analysis GLIMPS............................Geographic Land Information Management and Planning System GVI ........................................................................................ Grassland Vegetation Inventory PLVI ......................................................................... Primary Land and Vegetation Inventory SRD......................................................................Alberta Sustainable Resource Development

Page 5: ECOLOGICAL SITE RESTORATION RISK ANALYSIS · Ecological Site Restoration Risk Analysis ... Natural Regions and the Subregions within are currently being revised as new data is acquired,

ECOLOGICAL SITE RESTORATION RISK ANALYSIS PART 1

APRIL 2009 iii

Acknowledgements

We wish to acknowledge the vision and leadership that Gerry Ehlert provided to the consultants and SRD staff during the development of the Ecological Site Restoration Risk Analysis. In his tenure with the SRD Range Resource Management Program, Gerry has been responsible for many important stewardship initiatives. We would also like to thank Barry Adams, Mike Alexander, Darrin Britton, Angela Burkinshaw, John Carscallen, Barry Cole, Lorne Cole, Craig DeMaere, Lynn Fitzpatrick, Dennis Milner, Kevin Redden, Brian Allan and Bill Thresher, for their participation in the workshops that are the framework of the risk assessment. Their combined science based knowledge and practical field experience is a powerful resource. We would also like to acknowledge Donna Kubian for providing assistance in the documentation of the workshop proceedings and formatting the data base. Marilyn Neville Gramineae Services Ltd. Ron McNeil LandWise Inc. Sustainable Resource Development Mission Statement: “Sustainable Resource Development encourages balanced and responsible use of Alberta’s natural resources through the application of leading practices in management, science and stewardship”

Page 6: ECOLOGICAL SITE RESTORATION RISK ANALYSIS · Ecological Site Restoration Risk Analysis ... Natural Regions and the Subregions within are currently being revised as new data is acquired,

ECOLOGICAL SITE RESTORATION RISK ANALYSIS PART 1

APRIL 2009 iv

Page 7: ECOLOGICAL SITE RESTORATION RISK ANALYSIS · Ecological Site Restoration Risk Analysis ... Natural Regions and the Subregions within are currently being revised as new data is acquired,

ECOLOGICAL SITE RESTORATION RISK ANALYSIS PART 1

APRIL 2009 5

1 Purpose and Document Overview The purpose of the Ecological Site Restoration Risk Analysis (ESRRA) is to provide Sustainable Resource Development (SRD) with an analytical tool to predict the ecological site restoration risk associated with industrial development on public land. An ecological site is defined as: “a distinctive kind of land with specific physical characteristics that differs from other kinds of land in its ability to produce a distinctive kind and amount of vegetation”, (Task Group on Unity and Concepts 1995). Ecological site descriptions provide useful information for predicting restoration risk. Information on soils, parent materials, moisture and nutrient regime, landform and native plant community are embedded in ecological site descriptions. Practical application of this information when planning industrial development can limit future liability associated with sites that cannot meet the reclamation criteria at abandonment. ESRRA targets ecological sites with low, moderate and high restoration risk based on the suite of biophysical characteristics embedded in the site description. Avoidance is also flagged for sites not suited to industrial disturbance (groundwater concerns, lotic and lentic riparian sites, specific landforms). Avoidance is also recommended for rough fescue grasslands where restoration of the native plant community following industrial disturbance has not been successfully demonstrated or documented. Designed to be used with the suite of ecological land management and stewardship tools developed by the Department, ESRRA can assist:

• SRD and development proponents early in the consultation and planning stage to minimize the development footprint, increase the restoration potential and reduce the cumulative effects;

• SRD when reviewing Area Operating Agreements (AOA), Environmental Field Reports (EFR) and determining operating conditions for proposed dispositions;

• SRD in the reclamation certification process; • SRD when conducting audits on existing dispositions that have applied for

reclamation certification, and • Large scale land management projects such as the Land Use Framework.

ESSRA is a coarse filter for predicting restoration potential. It is based on undisturbed ecological site potential. It does not replace the need for onsite biophysical assessments (such as range health assessment) that could influence the restoration outcome. It does not predict the presence or absence of rare species, species at risk, rare plant communities or habitat suitability. ESRRA has been designed as a baseline framework for a “real time database” with the overarching assumption that it will require regular review and revision by SRD staff as soon as it becomes a practical industrial land use tool. It is expected that the database will be modified as the restoration knowledge base increases over time.

Page 8: ECOLOGICAL SITE RESTORATION RISK ANALYSIS · Ecological Site Restoration Risk Analysis ... Natural Regions and the Subregions within are currently being revised as new data is acquired,

ECOLOGICAL SITE RESTORATION RISK ANALYSIS PART 1

APRIL 2009 6

Page 9: ECOLOGICAL SITE RESTORATION RISK ANALYSIS · Ecological Site Restoration Risk Analysis ... Natural Regions and the Subregions within are currently being revised as new data is acquired,

ECOLOGICAL SITE RESTORATION RISK ANALYSIS PART 1

APRIL 2009 7

Figure 1 – Natural Region Context Map

Page 10: ECOLOGICAL SITE RESTORATION RISK ANALYSIS · Ecological Site Restoration Risk Analysis ... Natural Regions and the Subregions within are currently being revised as new data is acquired,

ECOLOGICAL SITE RESTORATION RISK ANALYSIS PART 1

APRIL 2009 8

Page 11: ECOLOGICAL SITE RESTORATION RISK ANALYSIS · Ecological Site Restoration Risk Analysis ... Natural Regions and the Subregions within are currently being revised as new data is acquired,

ECOLOGICAL SITE RESTORATION RISK ANALYSIS PART 1

APRIL 2009 9

2 Supporting Tools The ESRRA database is to be used with supporting mapping tools and ecological site descriptions developed by SRD

2.1 Mapping Tools ESRRA is to be used in conjunction with large scale air photo based, digital vegetation inventories developed by SRD. These inventories include:

• Grassland Vegetation Inventory (GVI); • Alberta Vegetation Inventory (AVI); and • Primary Land and Vegetation Inventory (PLVI).

Appendix A provides an explanation of the inventories prepared by Ron McNeil of LandWise Inc.

2.2 Ecological Site Descriptions The ecological site descriptions are organized by Natural Subregions of the Grassland, Parkland, Foothills and Rocky Mountain Natural Regions of Alberta. ESRRA does not include the Boreal Forest or Canadian Shield Natural Regions. As the boundaries of the Natural Regions and the Subregions within are currently being revised as new data is acquired, it is important that the most recent update of the Natural Regions and Subregions of Alberta map is used for reference as posted on the SRD website. Ecological site descriptions for each Natural Subregion have been prepared by the SRD Rangeland Resource Management Program. Key biophysical information linkage with ESRRA and SRD mapping tools is provided in the following Range Plant Community Guides:

• Range Plant Communities and Range Health Assessment Guidelines for the Dry Mixedgrass Natural Subregion of Alberta. First Approximation. (Adams et al, May 2005);

• Range Plant Communities and Range Health Assessment Guidelines for the Mixedgrass Natural Subregion of Alberta. First Approximation. (Adams et al, Updated April 2005);

• Range Plant Communities and Range Health Assessment Guidelines for the Foothills Fescue Natural Subregion of Alberta. Second Approximation. (Adams et al, Updated April 2005);

• Range Plant Communities and Range Health Assessment Guidelines for the Central Parkland Natural Subregion of Alberta. First Approximation. (Burkinshaw et al, Updated 2009);

Page 12: ECOLOGICAL SITE RESTORATION RISK ANALYSIS · Ecological Site Restoration Risk Analysis ... Natural Regions and the Subregions within are currently being revised as new data is acquired,

ECOLOGICAL SITE RESTORATION RISK ANALYSIS PART 1

APRIL 2009 10

• Range Plant Communities and Range Health Assessment Guidelines for the Foothills Parkland Natural Subregion of Alberta. (Currently in preparation in 2009);

• Range Plant Community Types and Carry Capacity for the Montane Subregion of Alberta. Seventh Approximation. (Willoughby et al, 2008);

• Range Plant Community Types and Carry Capacity for the Subalpine Subregion of Alberta. Fourth Approximation. (Willoughby et al, 2007);

• Range Plant Community Types and Carry Capacity for the Lower Foothills Subregion of Alberta. Fourth Approximation. (Willoughby et al, 2005); and the

• Range Plant Community Types and Carry Capacity for the Upper Foothills Subregion of Alberta. Sixth Approximation. (Willoughby et al, 2007).

A current and important knowledge gap is the Northern Fescue Natural Subregion. This Natural Subregion has been included in ESRRA based on ecological site descriptions currently being developed.

2.3 Supporting Information Sources ESRRA is a coarse filtering tool that flags ecological site potential for restoration following industrial disturbance. Important tools to aid onsite, field based decisions include:

• Reclamation training programs offered through SRD, offered annually, provide important updates on reclamation/ restoration of industrial disturbances and includes lectures and field based training;

• Rangeland Health Assessment for Grassland, Forest and Tame Pasture Field Workbook (Adams et al. Revised 2009); a tool for estimating rangeland health and the ability of rangeland to support important ecological functions;

• Riparian Plant Communities of Southern Alberta; Detailed Site and Soil Characterization and Interpretations. (Prepared by LandWise Inc.);

• Natural Regions and Subregions of Alberta (Natural Regions Committee 2006); • Revegetation Strategies for Public Lands: A Gap Analysis. SRD Land

Management and Rangeland Management Branches 2007. Provides a literature review and gap analysis by Natural Subregion of reclamation and restoration issues on public lands;

• Petroleum Industry Activity in Native Prairie and Parkland Areas, Guidelines for Minimizing Surface Disturbance. (Native Plant Working Group, 2002);

• Agricultural Region of Alberta Soil Inventory Database (AGRASID); • Municipal soil surveys, where available, provide more detailed soils information; • Alberta Natural History Information Centre tracks information on rare species and

species at risk; • Alberta Native Plant Council, includes native plant material source list and

information papers on restoration issues; and • Alberta Invasive Plant Council, targets current information on weeds and invasive

non-native vegetation species.

Page 13: ECOLOGICAL SITE RESTORATION RISK ANALYSIS · Ecological Site Restoration Risk Analysis ... Natural Regions and the Subregions within are currently being revised as new data is acquired,

ECOLOGICAL SITE RESTORATION RISK ANALYSIS PART 1

APRIL 2009 11

3 Definitions of Terms and Assumptions

3.1 Definition of Terms Pertaining to ESRRA

3.1.1 General Terms Ecological Restoration is restoration of ecological health, function and site operability. (Reclamation Criteria Advisory Group, 2008). Ecological Range Site is defined as “a distinctive kind of land with specific physical characteristics that differs from other kinds of land in its ability to produce a distinctive kind and amount of vegetation”, (Rangeland Health Assessment for Grassland, Forest and Tame Pasture, Adams et al 2005). Reclamation is “the process of returning land it its former status or other productive uses. The main objectives of reclamation include stabilization of the terrain, assurance of public safety, and aesthetic improvement” (Rumsey Technical Advisory Committee). Restoration is “the process of returning a disturbed site to the ecosystem characteristics that existed prior to surface disturbance, usually based on the characteristics of an adjacent reference or control site” (Rumsey Technical Advisory Committee). Reference Plant Community is “The plant community that is an expression of site potential” (Range Plant Community Guides, Adams et al). Successional Pathways is described as “the predictable pathway of change in the plant community as it is subjected to different types and levels of disturbance over time” (Rangeland Health Assessment Field Workbook. SRD Rangeland Management Branch, Adams et al 2005). Ecological Status is “the degree of similarity between the present plant community and the reference plant community. Plant communities are modified when disturbance has altered them to non-native species (like smooth brome, timothy or Kentucky bluegrass) with a composition of greater than 70% non-native species” (Rangeland Health Assessment Field Workbook. SRD Rangeland Management Branch, Adams et al 2005).

Page 14: ECOLOGICAL SITE RESTORATION RISK ANALYSIS · Ecological Site Restoration Risk Analysis ... Natural Regions and the Subregions within are currently being revised as new data is acquired,

ECOLOGICAL SITE RESTORATION RISK ANALYSIS PART 1

APRIL 2009 12

3.1.2 Degree of Soil Disturbance Minimal disturbance includes all development activity with minimal disturbance to the surface soils. It is important to know the actual degree of disturbance (length and width), the soil moisture conditions and the timing of disturbance. Petroleum Industry Activity in Native Prairie and Parkland Areas Guidelines for Minimizing Surface Disturbance (Native Prairie Working Group 2002) applies to this type of disturbance in native grasslands. Examples include: small diameter no-strip pipelines, seismic shot holes, and minimal disturbance wellsites where soil disturbance is confined to the cellar only. Significant disturbance includes all development activities requiring topsoil salvage and grading of subsurface soils; i.e. large diameter pipelines, stripped and graded wellsites, batteries, compressor stations, plant sites, all weather roads, gravel burrow pits, mines and wind energy projects.

3.1.3 Revegetation Strategy Describes the strategy recommended by SRD Public Lands based on current knowledge of existing research, trial sites and accepted revegetation practices. Avoidance is the recommended strategy for all riparian lotic and lentic sites and for native plant communities such as the rough fescue grasslands where currently there is no documented proof that the rough fescue component of the plant community can be restored. Natural Recovery is recommended for the long term re-establishment of diverse native ecosystems (e.g. prairie and forest) by native plant materials present in the native seed bank and by natural encroachment of native plant materials adjacent to the disturbance. The size of soil disturbance, the presence of non-native invasive species and the erosion potential are site specific factors that influence restoration potential. Assisted Natural Recovery includes the use of short lived non-invasive revegetation species that provide initial cover to control erosion and assist the process of natural recovery. Assisted natural recovery could include the use of wild harvested plant material (native hay, native seed (grasses and forbs), and the roll back and spread back of woody plant material to provide micro-sites for native species encroachment. Native Seed Mixes are recommended for disturbances where the potential for invasion by non-native species such as crested wheatgrass, timothy, smooth brome and/or Kentucky bluegrass is recognized as a factor that will influence site restoration potential. Native seed mixes are also required on a project specific basis for the revegetation of large disturbances where the potential for natural recovery is low. Examples include large diameter pipeline projects and transportation corridors where substantial soil salvage and grading of the subsurface soils is required.

Page 15: ECOLOGICAL SITE RESTORATION RISK ANALYSIS · Ecological Site Restoration Risk Analysis ... Natural Regions and the Subregions within are currently being revised as new data is acquired,

ECOLOGICAL SITE RESTORATION RISK ANALYSIS PART 1

APRIL 2009 13

3.1.4 Restoration Risk Rating The restoration risk rating was determined based on review of the ecological site description, the reference plant community and consideration of the known biophysical factors that influence restoration potential. A collaborative approach was used in a workshop setting attended by experienced SRD Land Use Specialists and Rangeland Agrologists. Using this approach, practical knowledge of the land base and the issues associated with industrial development was captured and incorporated into ESRRA. The restoration risk ratings are: Low: no significant limiting factors. Moderate: one limiting factor. High: two or more limiting factors.

3.2 Assumptions

3.2.1 Basic Principles The first principle is avoidance of native grassland and shrub land plant communities. Use existing anthropogenic industrial and agricultural disturbances where possible. Minimize disturbance footprint, reduce fragmentation and disturbance to habitat features to reduce cumulative effects. The aridity factor, “When Restoring Grasslands, Drier is Better”, an article written by Barry Adams SRD Provincial Rangeland Specialist-Grasslands has been included as Appendix B. Restoration success has been achieved if key indicator species of the Reference Plant Community have re-established and are sustainable following surface soil disturbance.

Page 16: ECOLOGICAL SITE RESTORATION RISK ANALYSIS · Ecological Site Restoration Risk Analysis ... Natural Regions and the Subregions within are currently being revised as new data is acquired,

ECOLOGICAL SITE RESTORATION RISK ANALYSIS PART 1

APRIL 2009 14

3.2.2 Overarching Assumptions

• The anticipated timeline for the disturbed site to indicate positive successional pathways is 5 to 10 years.

• The restoration risk assumes the adjacent native plant community is in healthy condition.

• The restoration risk rating is specific to the ecological site description and does not take into consideration cumulative effects within a multiple use landscape. However, it may be possible for the ESRRA database to be used as part of a regional cumulative effects assessment.

• Avoid disturbance to and/ or contamination of surface and ground water resources. This includes all Lotic and Lentic site types.

• Transitional to lentic and lotic: Sub-irrigated, overflow and saline lowlands require special attention due to proximity to groundwater or seasonal surface water flow. Avoid all ecological site types indicating groundwater seepage.

• Soil fertility factor and the potential for invasion by non-native invasive species. Deep, nutrient rich topsoils are more susceptible to invasion than thin soils with low fertility. Special measures will need to be employed to control non-native species invasion.

• Limiting factors by landscape characteristics: includes Badlands/ Bedrock, Choppy Sandhills and Thin Breaks site types. These site types present construction constraints, and safety concerns that limit restoration potential.

• Limiting factors by soil features (e.g. soil series) and soil texture and/or soil chemistry: includes Limy, Blowouts, Sands, Gravel and Shallow to Gravel. Physical characteristics limit restoration potential.

• Normal best management practices apply for Loamy, Sandy and Clayey soils. • Limiting factors defined by key indicator species of the Reference Plant

Community: i.e. life form (bunch grass, or sod forming etc.) ability to reliably set seed, ability to reproduce vegetatively, seedling viability, ability to compete with non-native invasive species are all factors affecting restoration potential.

• Soil degradation, including wind and water erosion, salinization, and the potential for groundwater contamination are factors limiting restoration potential.

Page 17: ECOLOGICAL SITE RESTORATION RISK ANALYSIS · Ecological Site Restoration Risk Analysis ... Natural Regions and the Subregions within are currently being revised as new data is acquired,

ECOLOGICAL SITE RESTORATION RISK ANALYSIS PART 1

APRIL 2009 15

4 How to Apply ESRRA

4.1 Determine the Scope of the Project Determine the scope of the proposed exploration and/ or development project from the development proponent. Obtain legal land descriptions of the area potentially impacted by the outcome of full development. Determine the degree of soil disturbance required for each development activity. If an audit is to be conducted, obtain all relevant information from Geographic Land Information Management and Planning System (GLIMPS).

4.2 Determine the Mapping Tool GVI is in the process of being completed for the Grassland and Parkland Natural Regions and the grassland portions of the Montane Natural Subregion. AVI is available for the Rocky Mountain and Foothills Natural Regions. PLVI can be used as a coarse filter in areas not covered by GVI or AVI. For additional information on mapping tools consult Appendix A. Mapping tools can be accessed through the SRD Ecological Integrity Resource Management System.

4.3 Determine the Natural Subregion As the boundaries of the Natural Subregions are currently being revised with the development of GVI, it is recommended that the user download the most current version of the Natural Regions and Subregions Map of Alberta. The map can be accessed online at: www.tpr.alberta.ca/parks/heritageinfocentre/doc/nsr

4.4 Linkage with Range Plant Community Guides Once the Natural Subregion or Subregions have been determined select the appropriate Range Plant Community Guide available online at: http://www3.gov.ab.ca/srd/land/m_rm_classification.html Using the mapping tool to determine the ecological sites proposed for development (or affected by development in the case of audits), select the appropriate ESRRA spreadsheet by Natural Subregion. Using the tables and keys provided in the Range Plant Community Guide select and review the appropriate ecological site descriptions. Link the ecological range site with the restoration risk assessment provided in ESRRA.

Page 18: ECOLOGICAL SITE RESTORATION RISK ANALYSIS · Ecological Site Restoration Risk Analysis ... Natural Regions and the Subregions within are currently being revised as new data is acquired,

ECOLOGICAL SITE RESTORATION RISK ANALYSIS PART 1

APRIL 2009 16

4.5 Knowledge Gaps & Restoration Issues by Subregion Revegetation Strategies for Public Lands: A Gap Analysis (SRD Land Management and Rangeland Management Branches, 2007) provides a literature review pertaining to the revegetation and restoration of native plant communities and a gap analysis of restoration issues by Natural Subregion. The user is encouraged to consult this document when using ESRRA. Digital PDF copies are available from the SRD Rangeland Management Branch, Science and Research Section. As ongoing research in the field of restoration continues and knowledge gaps are filled, the ESRRA database will be updated. Public lands staff are encouraged to forward comments for changes to the database. Comments should be forwarded to the section head of the SRD Range Resource Management Program.

Page 19: ECOLOGICAL SITE RESTORATION RISK ANALYSIS · Ecological Site Restoration Risk Analysis ... Natural Regions and the Subregions within are currently being revised as new data is acquired,

ECOLOGICAL SITE RESTORATION RISK ANALYSIS PART 1

APRIL 2009 17

5 References Adams, B.W., L. Poulin-Klein, D Moisey and R.L.McNeil. 2005. Rangeland Plant

Communities and Range Health Assessment Guidelines for the Dry Mixedgrass Natural Subregion of Alberta. Rangeland Management Branch, Public Lands Division, Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Lethbridge, Pub. No. T/040 106 pages.

Adams, B.W., L. Poulin-Klein, D Moisey and R.L.McNeil. 2004, Updated April 2005. Rangeland Plant Communities and Range Health Assessment Guidelines for the Mixedgrass Natural Subregion of Alberta. Rangeland Management Branch, Public Lands and Forests Division, Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Lethbridge, Pub. No. T/03940 101 pages.

Adams, B.W., R.Ehlert, D Moisey and R.L.McNeil. 2003, Updated April 2005. Rangeland Plant Communities and Range Health Assessment Guidelines for the Foothills Fescue Natural Subregion of Alberta. Rangeland Management Branch, Public Lands and Forests Division, Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Lethbridge, Pub. No. T/038 85 pages.

Adams, B.W., G.Ehlert,C.Stone,M.Alexander,D.Lawrence,M.Willoughby,D. Moisey, C. Hincz and A. Burkeinshaw. Range Health Assessment for Grassland, Forest and Tame Pasture. Public Lands and Forest Division, Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. Pub. No. T/044.

Burkinshaw, A.M., M. Willoughby, H. Loonen and K. France. Range Plant Communities and Range Healkth Assessment Guidelines for the Central Parkland Subregion of Alberta. Rangeland Management Branch, Public Lands and Forest Division, Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Red Deer, Pub. No. T/125.

Lawrence, D., C.Lane, M.Willoughby, C.Hincz, D. Moisey and C.Stone. 2005 Range Plant Community Types and Carrying Capacity for the Lower Foothills Subregion of Alberta. Fourth Approximation. Rangeland Management Branch Public Lands and Forests, Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Edmonton Pub. No. T/083.

Willoughby, M. G. 2007. Range Plant Communities and Carrying Capacity for the Upper Foothills Subregion of Alberta. Sixth Approximation. Sustainable Resource Development, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Edmonton Pub. No. T/138.

Willoughby M.G. Alexander, B.W. Adams. 2008. Range Plant Community Types and Carrying Capacity for the Montane Subregion. Seventh Approximation, Sustainable Resource Development, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Edmonton Pub. No. T/136.

Willoughby M.G., M. Alexander 2007 Range Plant Communities and Carrying Capacity for the Subalpine Subregion. Fourth Approximation. Sustainable Resource Development, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Edmonton. Pub No. T/140.

Thompson, W.H. and P.L. Hansen. 2002 Classification and Management of Riparian and Wetland Sites of the Alberta Grassland Natural Region and Adjacent Subregions. Bitterroot Restoration Inc. Prepared for the Alberta Riparian Habitat Management Program-Cows and Fish, Lethbridge, Alberta. 416 pages.

Page 20: ECOLOGICAL SITE RESTORATION RISK ANALYSIS · Ecological Site Restoration Risk Analysis ... Natural Regions and the Subregions within are currently being revised as new data is acquired,

ECOLOGICAL SITE RESTORATION RISK ANALYSIS PART 1

APRIL 2009 18

McNeil, R.L. 2008. Riparian Plant Communities of Southern Alberta: Detailed Site and Soil Characterization and Interpretations. Prepared by LandWise Inc., for Alberta Public lands, Cows and Fish, Lethbridge, Alberta. Funded by Greencover Technical Assistance Program, Canada. 180 pages.

Native Prairie Guidelines Working Group, 2002 Petroleum Industry Activity in Native Prairie and Parkland Areas, Guidelines for Minimizing Surface Disturbance. Information Services, Alberta Energy and Utilities Board. Calgary. Available at www.ercb.gov.ab.ca.

Neville, M.J. 2007 Revegetation Strategies for Public Lands: A Gap Analysis. Prepared by Gramineae Services Ltd. for Land Management and Rangeland Management Branches, Public Lands and Forests, Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. 91 pages.

Page 21: ECOLOGICAL SITE RESTORATION RISK ANALYSIS · Ecological Site Restoration Risk Analysis ... Natural Regions and the Subregions within are currently being revised as new data is acquired,

ECOLOGICAL SITE RESTORATION RISK ANALYSIS PART 1

APRIL 2009 19

APPENDIX A – SUSTAINABLE RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT VEGETATION INVENTORIES

Information summarized by Ron McNeil, LandWise Inc.

Grassland Vegetation Inventory (GVI) The Grassland Vegetation Inventory (GVI) is the first comprehensive biophysical, vegetation, and anthropogenic inventory of the White Area of Alberta. It is coordinated by Sustainable Resource Development (SRD) and funded under the Land Use Framework of that department. It addresses requirements defined by several provincial government entities, including rangeland management, fish and wildlife, wetland management, and land use operations. GVI delineates and describes Site Types in the Primary Classes of native or natural areas, water bodies, and anthropogenic areas. The GVI Site Type classification is based on ecological range sites. Ecological range sites are native natural areas with similar site, soil, moisture and climate conditions, and with a common vegetative response. GVI Site Types are classified based on imagery interpretation and soils information for areas of native vegetation, and general land use for non-native areas (agricultural, industrial, and settled areas). There are 32 site types within the GVI classification (Table 1). GVI includes the following site types. • Fourteen upland site types, which are almost synonymous with ecological range

sites. • Ten wetland site types (five Lentic and five Lotic). • Eight anthropogenic site types (four agricultural, developed, pits, urban and rural).

The Agricultural Land Class is subdivided into Crop and Tame Pasture Land Sub-Classes.

Minimum Polygon Size

Mapping scale and minimum polygon sizes for GVI mapping are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Mapping Scale and minimum polygon size.

Site Type Group Suggested Mapping Scale

Minimum Polygon Size

Minimum Polygon Width

Uplands and Anthropogenic 1:30,000 5 ha 50 m Lentic and Lotic Wetlands 1:10,000 *1 ha 10 m *Lentic Open Water Site Types with the Dugout modifier have no minimum polygon size.

Page 22: ECOLOGICAL SITE RESTORATION RISK ANALYSIS · Ecological Site Restoration Risk Analysis ... Natural Regions and the Subregions within are currently being revised as new data is acquired,

ECOLOGICAL SITE RESTORATION RISK ANALYSIS PART 1

APRIL 2009 20

Circle

Square Rectangle

r = 0.4 cm a = 0.3 cm

b = 0.5 cm

Area = ab

a = 0.7 cm

b =

0.7

cm

Area = ab

Area = p x r2 Area = p x ab

a = 1 cm

b=0.

5 cm

OvalCircle

Square Rectangle

r = 0.4 cm a = 0.3 cm

b = 0.5 cm

Area = ab

a = 0.7 cm

b =

0.7

cm

Area = ab

Area = p x r2 Area = p x ab

a = 1 cm

b=0.

5 cm

Oval

A five-ha polygon mapped at 1:30,000 covers an area of 0.5 cm2. Examples of polygons with an area of 0.5 cm2 are shown in Figure 1. Figure 1. Examples of minimum-sized polygons at a scale of 1:30,000.

Attributes of GVI Polygon Data

• One to four site types per polygon recorded as 5 to 100% of a polygon. • Distribution pattern of site types in a polygon. • Distribution of trees and/or shrubs in a polygon, and dominant tree species. • Ground cover comprised of trees, shrubs, herbaceous, water, and non-vegetated for

each site type and equaling 100%. • Tree or shrub crown closure. • Tree or shrub height (five classes for each).

Non-polygonal GVI Data (only in Grassland Natural Region) Linear and point data is not mapped or described in urban areas • Linear (shelterbelts of trees, shrubs or mixed)

Height classes and length are included • Point

Individual or patch occurrences of trees or shrubs that cover an area smaller than 5 hectares.

Height class is included.

Page 23: ECOLOGICAL SITE RESTORATION RISK ANALYSIS · Ecological Site Restoration Risk Analysis ... Natural Regions and the Subregions within are currently being revised as new data is acquired,

ECOLOGICAL SITE RESTORATION RISK ANALYSIS PART 1

APRIL 2009 21

Table 2. Site types, modifiers and descriptions of the Grassland Vegetation Inventory; Prepared by LandWise Inc.

Primary Class

Land Class

Land Sub-class

Code Site Type Modifier (* if Mandatory)

Description

Wetland Lentic LenT Lentic Temporary Low prominent marsh, few floods, no salt crust

Lentic LenS Lentic Seasonal Shallow marsh vegetation with sedges usually present, seasonally flooded (>three weeks), no salt crust

Lentic LenA Lentic Alkali Intermittently flooded (weeks to months), saturated, white salt crust

Native/ Natural

Lentic LenSP Lentic Semi to Permanent

Tall marsh vegetation with reeds/cattails present, intermittent to permenantly flooded

Lentic LenW Lentic Open Water

N (Native/ Natural)* Undisturbed and not artificial

D (Dugout)* Constructed and usually with four distinct sides

R (Reservoir)* Constructed and usually with a distinct dam and shoreline

Water

Wetland

Lotic LtcR Lotic River Flowing water, Riparian wetland, >20m wide

Wetland Lotic LtcC Lotic Coniferous >25 trees/ha, often adjacent to Lotic River or streams

Lotic LtcD Lotic Deciduous 25% deciduous, or >25 Aspen poplar or Manitoba Maple trees per hectare; adjacent to streams

Lotic LtcS Lotic Shrub willow shrub if >10% willow; non-willow shrub if <10% willow)

Native/ Natural

Lotic LtcH Lotic Herbaceous sedge if >25% sedge canopy cover; non-sedge if <25% sedge canopy cover

Native/ Natural

Upland Sb Subirrigated Transitional between Wetland and Upland land classes with water table close to surface, often patchy or lush vegetation, no depressional edge.

Ov Overflow Transitional between Wetland and Upland land classes. Subject to water spreading, sheet flow, or slope wash on fan, apron or terrace settings. Floods generally less than one per ten years.

Page 24: ECOLOGICAL SITE RESTORATION RISK ANALYSIS · Ecological Site Restoration Risk Analysis ... Natural Regions and the Subregions within are currently being revised as new data is acquired,

ECOLOGICAL SITE RESTORATION RISK ANALYSIS PART 1

APRIL 2009 22

Cy Clayey Greater than 40% clay texture in solum and usually of lacustrine origin.

Lo Loamy Surface textures include any of loam, silt loam, clay loam, sandy clay loam or silty clay loam.

Sy Sandy Surface texture is typified by sandy loam.

Li Limy An eroded or immature soil with free lime within 15cm of surface, pH usually greater than 7.5.

Sa Sand Surface texture of loamy sand or sands.Parent materials generally eolian or glaciofluvial.

BlO Blowouts/Solonetzic Order

Areas with Solonetzic Order soils and may have eroded pits or an uneven ground surface. Hollows may be 10 to 50 cms in depth and frequency can range from one to five metres.

CS Choppy Sandhills A (Active Erosion; applies to non-vegetated dunes)

Duned irregular topography and surface texture usually of loamy sand or sands.

TB Thin Breaks Areas with soft or hard bedrock within 100 cms of surface; often partially vegetated and sloping; also includes slumped landscapes.

SwG Shallow to Gravel Soil with a 20 to 50cm layer of sandy/loamy surface over a gravelly or cobbly substrate.

SL Saline Lowland Transitional between Wetland and Upland land classes with moderate to excessive salt accumulation and halophytic vegetation due to saline groundwater discharge.

Gr Gravel Usually greater than 50% gravels or cobbles by composition with less than a 20 cm veneer of stone-free or reduced % stony material.

BdL Badlands/Bedrock Barren or nearly barren exposure of softrock, hardrock or surficial geological material; often steeply sloping.

Anthro-pogenic

Agri-cultural

Crop CI Crop-Irrigated SN (salinity) Irrigated annual or perennial crop production.

Crop CN Crop-Nonirrigated

SN (salinity) Non-irrigated annual or perennial crop production.

Page 25: ECOLOGICAL SITE RESTORATION RISK ANALYSIS · Ecological Site Restoration Risk Analysis ... Natural Regions and the Subregions within are currently being revised as new data is acquired,

ECOLOGICAL SITE RESTORATION RISK ANALYSIS PART 1

APRIL 2009 23

Tame Pasture

PI Tame Pasture or Hay Irrigated

SN (salinity) Irrigated forage or pasture production including grasses, legumes or grass-legumes for grazing, seed, or hay crops.

Tame Pasture

PN Tame Pasture or Hay Non-irrigated

SN (salinity) Non-irrigated forage or pasture production including grasses, legumes or grass-legumes for grazing, seed, or hay crops.

Anthro-pogenic

Indus-trial

Pit Pits Coal (C), Sand (S), Gravel (G), Clay (Y), Quarries (Q), or Unknown (U)*.

Areas subject to removal of vegetation and or overburden to extract resource materials. A modifier is mandatory.

Dev Developed Confined Feeding Operation (CFO), Transportation (TR), Agric.Res/Proc. (AG), Indus Proc. (IP), Lagoon (LG), Oil/Gas (OG), Mining (MI), Unknown (U)*.

Active or inactive developments that are difficult to return to agriculture production or natural landscapes. A modifier is mandatory.

Anthro-pogenic

Settled Ur Urban GS (green space) Cities, towns, and villages and includes industrial, residential, commercial and developing lands.

Ru Rural GS (green space) Low population density compared to Urban. Includes farmsteads, campgrounds, golf courses, small hamlets, ghost towns and rural cemetaries.

Page 26: ECOLOGICAL SITE RESTORATION RISK ANALYSIS · Ecological Site Restoration Risk Analysis ... Natural Regions and the Subregions within are currently being revised as new data is acquired,

ECOLOGICAL SITE RESTORATION RISK ANALYSIS PART 1

APRIL 2009 24

Page 27: ECOLOGICAL SITE RESTORATION RISK ANALYSIS · Ecological Site Restoration Risk Analysis ... Natural Regions and the Subregions within are currently being revised as new data is acquired,

ECOLOGICAL SITE RESTORATION RISK ANALYSIS PART 1

APRIL 2009 25

Alberta Vegetation Inventory (AVI)

The Alberta Vegetation Inventory (AVI) is a Crown-managed, photo-based, digital inventory that identifies the type, extent, and conditions of vegetation on land managed by the Crown, land managed under a Forest Management Agreement (FMA), and others including Metis Settlements, First Nations and Federal Parks. The AVI product is based on 1:20,000-scale aerial photography flown from 1987 to the present, so it can be used to identify potential changes in vegetation over time. Depletions (timber harvesting and fire) are updated periodically, but are not complete for the AVI area. The AVI provides detailed information to assist in the decision-making process for forest management planning, forest protection, wildlife habitat classification and integrated resource management activities. AVI polygons are classified using the structure shown in Figure 2, and have the following attributes:

• Moisture Regime • Crown Closure • Stand Height • Species Composition and Percentage • Stand Structure and Value • Stand Origin • Timber Productivity Rating • Naturally Non-Forested Vegetated Land (i.e. shrubs, forbs) • Naturally Non-Vegetated Land (i.e. rivers, rock barren) • Anthropogenic Vegetated Land (i.e. agriculture, industrial) • Anthropogenic Non-Vegetated Land (i.e. created by man) • Stand Modifier, Extent and Year (i.e. burn, clearcut) • Data Source

The minimum polygon size for AVI varies with the degree of feature contrast (Table 3).

Table 3. Minimum polygon size in AVI.

Feature Contrast

Minimum AVI Polygon Size (ha)

Two Examples

Strong 2 i) Anthropogenic feature surrounded by a forest stand. ii) Coniferous type within a deciduous type

Moderate 10 iii) Tree crown closure differs by a minimum of two classes iv) Height differs by a minimum of two classes (6 m)

Slight 20 v) Tree crown closure differs by one class vi) % composition of a single tree species differs by ≥10%

AVI is available as individual township coverages in ArcInfo.e00 format. Average file size per township is approximately 2.0 Mb. The data has a positional accuracy of data of ±20 metres.

Page 28: ECOLOGICAL SITE RESTORATION RISK ANALYSIS · Ecological Site Restoration Risk Analysis ... Natural Regions and the Subregions within are currently being revised as new data is acquired,

ECOLOGICAL SITE RESTORATION RISK ANALYSIS PART 1

APRIL 2009 26

Page 29: ECOLOGICAL SITE RESTORATION RISK ANALYSIS · Ecological Site Restoration Risk Analysis ... Natural Regions and the Subregions within are currently being revised as new data is acquired,

ECOLOGICAL SITE RESTORATION RISK ANALYSIS PART 1

APRIL 2009 27

Figure 2. Alberta Vegetation Inventory primary classification.

Page 30: ECOLOGICAL SITE RESTORATION RISK ANALYSIS · Ecological Site Restoration Risk Analysis ... Natural Regions and the Subregions within are currently being revised as new data is acquired,

ECOLOGICAL SITE RESTORATION RISK ANALYSIS PART 1

APRIL 2009 28

Page 31: ECOLOGICAL SITE RESTORATION RISK ANALYSIS · Ecological Site Restoration Risk Analysis ... Natural Regions and the Subregions within are currently being revised as new data is acquired,

ECOLOGICAL SITE RESTORATION RISK ANALYSIS PART 1

APRIL 2009 29

Primary Land and Vegetation Inventory (PLVI) Primary Land and Vegetation Inventory (PLVI) is a simplistic approach to stratifying and attributing large tracts of land in both the green and white areas of the province. This inventory is proposed for use in areas of the province where the detail and expense of AVI and GVI are not warranted, or time and resources are limiting constraints. As the word “Primary” indicates, this inventory is “basic” and “preparatory to future adaptation in a continuing process”. It would allow inventories with finer resolution to be undertaken within the existing polygons and data structure, and would be seamless with the GVI inventory. Under the current PLVI structure, lands will be classified into three primary classes, seven land classes, three land sub-classes, and 26 site types (Table 2). The Vegetated Landscape Primary Class includes descriptions of the Natural Subregions, Ecological site, Ecological site phase, and Ecosite phase. Attributes described on naturally wooded lands include density class, species group, leading tree species, seral class and natural disturbance history. A pilot project for the PLVI was initiated in early 2009 to evaluate the potential use and application of the proposed classification (Table 2). It is anticipated that the PLVI will be subject to modification or enhancements based on the results of the pilot project and feedback from potential users.

Page 32: ECOLOGICAL SITE RESTORATION RISK ANALYSIS · Ecological Site Restoration Risk Analysis ... Natural Regions and the Subregions within are currently being revised as new data is acquired,

ECOLOGICAL SITE RESTORATION RISK ANALYSIS PART 1

APRIL 2009 30

Table 1. Classification structure for the PLVI.

Primary Class

Land Class Land Sub-Class Site type Code ID

Modified Agriculture Annual Crops CA 1 Vegetated Landscape Tame Grass CP 2

Rough Pasture CPR 3

Timber harvest Recent CR 4

Regen CC 5

Clearings Non-treed CIP 6

Treed CIT 7

Naturally Wooded Forested FT 8

Wetland Bog Treed WT 9

Shrub WS 10

Fens Treed TF 11

Shrub SF 12

Grass GF 13

Marsh Marsh M 14

Swamp Swamp SW 15

Sparse Open shrub OS 16

Naturally Non-wooded

Medial Medial shrub MS 17

Dense Closed shrub CS 18

Grass, Forb Herbaceous grass HG 19

Water Water NW 20

Rock/Mineral Soil Rock NMR 21

Sand Sand NMS 22

Naturally Non-Vegetated

Glacier Ice NWI 23

Settlement Tracts Settlement Tracts ASC 24

Industrial Tracts Industrial Tracts AII 25

Developed Non-vegetated

Transportation Surface

Transportation Surface

AIH 26

Page 33: ECOLOGICAL SITE RESTORATION RISK ANALYSIS · Ecological Site Restoration Risk Analysis ... Natural Regions and the Subregions within are currently being revised as new data is acquired,

ECOLOGICAL SITE RESTORATION RISK ANALYSIS PART 1

APRIL 2009 31

APPENDIX B – WHEN RESTORING GRASSLAND – DRIER IS BETTER! By Barry W. Adams, Provincial Rangeland Specialist – Grasslands, Lethbridge

Photo 1 – On a gradient from dry to moist, restoration success is easier to accomplish in drier environments. The manipulation of moisture regime may be an important consideration in developing effective restoration practices for foothill plant communities (Image adapted from ALCES presentation slide by Brad Stelfox, photos by Lorne Fitch). It seems counter to common sense but grassland restoration is easier to accomplish in drier environments. I became interested in reclamation of wellsites and pipelines in the late 1980’s when my colleague Lowell Calder, a Land Management Specialist with ASRD, pulled me away from my normal rangeland duties to look at some of his reclamation projects. Since that time I and many others from government and industry have been able to observe and document a variety of sites from dry to moist and to see that evidence of restoration is strongest in the prairie environment and very limited in the deep black soils of the foothills. Restoration is defined as the process of returning a disturbed site to the ecosystem characteristics that existed prior to surface disturbance, usually based on the characteristics of an adjacent reference or control site. Consider restoration success along this gradient from dry to moist:

• A study in the 1990s in the Dry Mixedgrass, compared small diameter pipeline development options and showed early evidence of restoration success. With natural recovery, choppy sandhills sites showed the most rapid recolonization of key native species followed by loamy and blowout site types. At the 3 to 5 year mark, post development, the key components of the plant community were present and expanding. Sixteen years later, the natural recovery plots closely resemble the controls except in those areas where scalping resulted in topsoil loss (Adams et al 1996).

Page 34: ECOLOGICAL SITE RESTORATION RISK ANALYSIS · Ecological Site Restoration Risk Analysis ... Natural Regions and the Subregions within are currently being revised as new data is acquired,

ECOLOGICAL SITE RESTORATION RISK ANALYSIS PART 1

APRIL 2009 32

Photo 2 - An example of effective restoration of a small diameter pipeline project near Vauxhall Alberta, 16 years post construction. • A clear trend is evident in our vegetation plot data of native grassland and riparian sites.

The data show that the frequency of trace amounts of invasive plant species increases along a moisture gradient from Dry Mixedgrass to mesic Foothills Parkland sites to moist riparian sites (Bradley 2003).

Natural Subregion n=sample plots

Timothy Awnless brome Kentucky bluegrass

Crested Wheatgrass

Dry Mixed Grass1 n=1628

0 T 5 2

Mixed Grass1 n=724

2 6 32 4

Foothills Fescue1 n=283

36 7 68 T

Foothills Parkland1 n=410

73 21 75 T

Riparian Inventory Plots2

n=872

47 78 87 17

1 Source - Alberta Sustainable Resource Development 2 Source – Cows and Fish Program, Riparian Health Inventory Program

Page 35: ECOLOGICAL SITE RESTORATION RISK ANALYSIS · Ecological Site Restoration Risk Analysis ... Natural Regions and the Subregions within are currently being revised as new data is acquired,

ECOLOGICAL SITE RESTORATION RISK ANALYSIS PART 1

APRIL 2009 33

• A recent study by Peggy Desserud (Desserud 2006) evaluating reclamation success on foothills pipeline projects showed little evidence of restoration success on 80% of study sites. The other 20% showed some degree of restoration success where minimum disturbance practices and winter development had been applied. A portion of these more successful sites were also located on dry slope crests and south facing aspects.

• In this newsletter, Jake Willms from ASRD Lethbridge, profiles his success in

establishing Foothills Rough Fescue on a gravel range site on the Milk River Ridge – a site within the Foothills Fescue natural subregion which experiences considerable drought stress due to both climate and gravel soils.

Most of our noxious weeds and invasive agronomic species like Timothy, Smooth Brome, Kentucky bluegrass and Crested wheatgrass originated in moister growing conditions like Europe and Asia. So these species tend to be far less competitive in drier environments where natives are better able to prevail. The paradox for foothills grasslands is that Rough Fescue will grow to the near exclusion of other species in the absence of grazing, yet once the grassland profile is broken through some form of mechanical disturbance, this competetive edge appears to be lost. Of course there are other factors that are altered with mechanical disturbance including available nutrients, as the mineralization of the soil profile accelerates and also with the disturbance of soil microorganisms. Manipulation of moisture regime may be a key piece in the restoration of rough fescue grasslands. Foothills grasslands evolved with the impacts of both bison grazing and periodic fire, natural processes that would have imposed a periodic “drying” effect on the grassland. At the recent Foothills Restoration Forum meeting we heard from Steven Tannas and Peggy Desserud about possible role that moisture management may have in achieving restoration success. We will watch as their and other new studies sponsored by the FRF will work cooperatively with many stakeholders in an effort to crack the puzzle of grassland restoration in south western Alberta. References: Adams, B., O. Castelli, W. Tedder, D. Downing. 1996. Reclamation of Mixedgrass Prairie Disturbed by Pipeline

Construction. Technical Report to the Reclamation Research Technical Advisory Committee (RRTAC), Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. 76 pp.

Bradley, C. 2003. Invasion of Non-Native Plant Species. Report of Workshop Results for ALCES Modeling.

Alberta Environment and Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. 23 pp. Desserud, P.A. 2006. Restoration of Rough Fescue (Festuca campsetris) Grassland on Pipelines in Southwestern

Alberta. Rangeland Management Branch, Public Lands Division, Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Lethbridge, Alberta, Pub. No. 77 pp.