Revised Reclamation Criteria for Wellsites and Associated Facilities for Grasslands

Transcription

1 Revised Reclamation Criteria for Wellsites and Associated Facilities for Grasslands

2 Outline History of reclamation certification in Alberta Overview of revegetation strategies for grasslands and minimal disturbance Reclamation Criteria Advisory Group 2009 Update Overview of assessment methodology for grassland Status of revised criteria Training opportunities

3 Past Method: Inquiry System On-site Inquiry included: Reclamation Officer, company rep, municipal rep & landowner Issues were resolved on-site, applications explained and/or verified & landowner concerns discussed. Shovels were used!

4 Equivalent Land Capability (ELC) EPEA introduced the concept of ELC in 1993 and targeted industrial lands. the ability of the land to support various land uses after conservation and reclamation is similar to the ability that existed prior to disturbance Recognized that individual land uses are not identical Regulation identifies the importance of physical, chemical and biological aspects of the land Includes topography, drainage, hydrology, soils and vegetation

5 1995 Reclamation Criteria Intent was to ensure Equivalent Land Capability has been met Recognized the different land use categories Recognized the need for a consistent assessment approach Landscape, soils and vegetation assessed Comparison with controls adjacent to the site Detailed Site Assessment Report, documentation that could an be verified during an onsite inquiry

6 Why is plant community classification essential to grassland reclamation and restoration? Restoration issues vary by Natural Subregion Range plant community guides provide a framework to evaluate reclamation and restoration success in the Grassland Natural Region and Central Parkland The new reclamation criteria will require users to define plant communities in pre-site assessments and as a standard for comparison to reclaimed areas. Reclamation 100

7 Information Letters and Supporting Guidelines EUB Il , Principles for Minimizing Disturbance in Native Prairie Petroleum Industry Activity In Native Prairie and Parkland Areas, Guidelines for Minimizing Disturbance. Native Prairie Working Group EUB IL 93-9, 9, Oil and Gas Developments Eastern Slopes (Southern Portion) Reclamation 100

8 Revegetation Strategies Natural Recovery: relies on the native seed bank and native plant propogules for site recovery and restoration. Assisted Natural Recovery: may include the use of short lived non-invasive cover crops, wild harvested hay, mechanical manipulation of the surface soils to create micro- sites. Native Seed Mix: seeding with native seed mix (native plant cultivars or wild harvested native species. Nursery Raised Transplants: native shrubs, forbs and grasses Reclamation 100

9 Industrial Application The importance of minimizing soil disturbance in native grassland Reclamation 100

10 Avoid Impact Minimize disturbance to grassland soils And vegetation Reclamation 100

11 Reclamation 100

12 Minimize Disturbance Minimize disturbance to sensitive soils and native plant communities

13 Reduce Fragmentation Cluster development Use existing disturbances Reclamation 100

14 Reclamation Criteria Advisory Group 2009 Update Presented by Jody Spady

15 RCAG - Structure Multi-stakeholder advisory group struck in September 2005 Includes industry, government departments, ERCB & landowner representatives Four land use groups: Cultivated, Forested, Grasslands & Peatlands

16 RCAG Members AENV: Gordon Dinwoodie, Bryan Hamman, Al Malcolm, Rick Ostertag, Natasha Page, Shane Patterson AFPA: Pat Wearmouth AARD: Jason Cathcart ASRD: Kevin Ball, Gerry Ehlert, Ken Greenway, Susan McGillivray CAPP: James Agate, Terry Forkheim, Jody Spady ERCB: Shaunna Cartwright, Tiffany Novotny Independent landowner, technical consultant: Ron McNeil Surface Rights Federation: Tom Nahirniak, Karl Zajes Wild Rose Agricultural Producers: Dalton Trenholm

17 RCAG - Mandate Define objectives and outcomes for reclamation of oil and gas facilities in Alberta Review the performance of the 1995 criteria to achieve the above Develop recommendations for enhancements to reclamation criteria

18 RCAG s Litmus Test for the Criteria Address ecosystem and management functions on a landscape basis Enable liability transfer from company to government Are enforceable and capable of compelling compliance Are transparent with clear rationale

19 Today s Method: Reviews & Audits Increased technical information enabled AENV to explore other options Desktop review and audit system replaced the inquiry system Assurance of outcome must be clear

20 What s in the next version? New criteria streamlines processing of routine applications Professional sign-off adds assurance Audit protocols are evolving

21 Field Trials Audit of sites put forward by industry randomly selected subset to see if different assessors would obtain the same outcome AENV s perspective on certified sites for audit program Field tested draft criteria during 2008 surface audits

22 Criteria training on various land uses Forest Training July 2, 2008 Cultivation Training #1 July 10, 2008 Grassland Training #1 July 9, 2008 Cultivation Training #2 August 6, 2008 Grassland Training #2 July 9, 2008 SRD GVI Project Photo by Ron McNeil

23 Reclamation in Grasslands Wellsite is reclaimed to adjoining control native grassland plant communities The concept of ecological trajectory is essential to the restoration of grasslands Need to focus on the front end design and construction encourage minimum disturbance, and interim reclamation wherever possible.

24 Intent of Grassland Criteria Measure land function and operability Is it comparable to the surrounding area or reference community? Criteria describe allowable changes in site conditions Typically require landscape, vegetation and soils assessments

25 Where the Grassland Reclamation Criteria Will Apply 2010 Grassland Reclamation Criteria applies to any native or modified grassland with more than 30% native grassland species. Reclamation 100

26 2010 RCAG Grasslands Criteria Disturbed vs. Undisturbed Disturbed areas undergone stripping (e.g., sod cutting or soil storage including well-centre or flare pits) and/or shows impacts (compaction or ruts) to the extent that the native community (i.e., species and/or layers) is altered. Undisturbed areas no surface soil disturbance native plant community has remained relatively intact (i.e., the on/off-site plant community and layers are similar). Generally applies where slopes are minimal and lease levelling was not required.

27 Grasslands: Two Levels in 2010 Assessment Undisturbed for minimal disturbance sites Must pass a screening test showing the plant community is intact with no soil impacts Disturbed for lease areas with soil and/or vegetation impacts. Undisturbed Area Disturbed Area Evidence of rutting Wellcentre Flare Pit

28 Item Drainage Erosion Contour Stability Gravel and Rocks Bare Area Debris 2010 RCAG Grasslands Criteria Landscape Assessment Criteria Site drainage must be consistent with the original patterns directions and capacity or be compatible with the surrounding landscape. No more erosion gullies or blowouts than there are on the adjacent land. Site shall conform to surrounding landscape. Surface roughness can enhance native species establishment and should be consistent with off-site. No visible evidence of slope movement slumping subsidence or tension cracks are allowed. May not be concentrated, piled, or windrowed. Number and size of bare areas (exposed soil) should not be greater than original or control vegetation. No industrial or domestic debris is allowed.

29 RCAG Grasslands 2010 Criteria Disturbed Area: Level 1 Soils Assessment Slope position Evidence of soil disturbance Topsoil depth & distribution Colour Texture Consistence and structure Rooting

30 RCAG Grasslands 2010 Criteria Inspection Points Maximum lease size (m) Minimum number of on-site sampling points Minimum number of off-site sampling points 40 x x x > more for each additional 1600 m 2 9

31 RCAG Grasslands 2010 Criteria Level 2 Soils Assessment - Disturbed Area Difference from the control measurements Rating PSA: % Clay Organic Carbon ph EC (ds/m) SAR 1 0 5% 0-1% % 1-2% % 2.1-4% >30% >4% >2 >4 >12

32 Vegetation Assessment Inspired by Rangeland Management Tools Range Health Assessment Range Plant Community Guides

33 Foothills Fescue, Loamy Range Site, Beazer O.B PC = Rough fescue Parry s Oatgrass PC = Parry Oatgrass Rough Fescue ES = 24 ES = 16 Nil to Light Moderate PC = Parry Oatgrass - Kentucky bluegrass Kentucky PC = Sedge bluegrass Fringed Pasture Sage sage 14/60 23% ES = 9 ES = 0 Heavy Very Heavy

34

35 Range Plant Community Guides Soil Correlation Guidelines Range Vegetation Data Integrate Soil, Climate and Vegetation Data Range Plant Community Guides Provide Ecological Site Descriptions

36 Ecological Site Descriptions Q #1 Q #4 Q #1 Q #2 Q #3 Q #5

37

38 Vegetation Assessment Summary Vegetation is sufficient to stabilize the site Meets minimum desirable species, including infill from surrounding plant community Plant community shows progress along a successional pathway towards the control Expression of structural layers Evidence of litter accumulation and decomposition, min of 15% of control (disturbed) 65% (undisturbed) Weeds and other invasives not exceeding the type and distribution in the control

39 Vegetation Assessment - Undisturbed Area Visual estimation of cover for each plant species Cover estimates made to a minimum of 1% For a Pass the Total Percent Community Score must be 70% or greater RCAG WORKSHEET & TOOL AU1109 (Grassland Criteria).xls

40 Vegetation Assessment - Disturbed Area Average plant species cover estimated in representative sample plots and appropriate number of controls Cover estimates made to a minimum of 1% Must have 50% total acceptable vegetation cover Must have 15% infill of native spp RCAG WORKSHEET & TOOL AU1109 (Grassland Criteria).xls

41 Model of Native Plant Community Recovery Following a Disturbance Regime Native PC Pioneer Seeded Infilling of Native Species Year

42 Grazing Response and Vegetation Assessment Name Description Grazing Response/ Worksheet Code Native Decreaser Native Increaser - type 1 Native Increaser type 2 Invader spp palatable, dominant spp in reference plant community increase as decreasers decline may decrease later as grazing or other disturbance pressures continue increaser species continue to increase in abundance with increasing disturbance pressures introduced, non-native species

43 Plant Community Structure

44 Plant Community Assessment

45 Moisture Retention/Nutrient Cycling Indicators of Rangeland Health Does the site retain moisture? Functions of Litter cools soil surface enhances water infiltration retains scarce moisture adds organic matter to soil

46 Re-establishment of litter

47 RCAG Grasslands 2010 Criteria: Re-establishment establishment of Litter as an Indicator of Rangeland Health Evidence of litter accumulation and decomposition, minimum of 15% of control for disturbed sites, and 65% for undisturbed sites.

48 Weeds Are there restricted or noxious weeds on the site?

49 Note on Weeds By incorporating the Weed Control Act into the Public Land Act, the standard of zero tolerance for restricted weeds and requirement for control of noxious weeds is applicable to all public land dispositions, including reclamations.

50 Weeds Collect data on restricted, noxious, nuisance, problem invasive agronomic species Species name and rating recorded Presence of weeds and other invasives may not exceed that of the control

51 RCAG Grasslands 2010 Criteria Implementation Dates Vegetation Differs based on expectations and guidelines during the Construction and Reclamation periods Jan 1, 1993 Problem Plant IL Vegetation cover and compatibility Soils Differs based on Construction periods April 30, 1994 Average replacement Minimum replacement

52 Range Health Tools for Industry Plant Taxonomy Plant Community Classification Range Health Indicators

53 Present Status of Criteria Requires approval by the Minister of Environment Roll out of training programs in is a trial period, practitioners may chose 1995 criteria or revised criteria 2011, revised Grassland Criteria will apply.

54 Positive Outcome! A greater understanding of the process of restoration following industrial disturbance in native prairie