CUMULATIVE ENVIRONME MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION...

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/

CEMA Contract No.: 2011-0020

Report

Cumulative Environmental Management Association (CEMA) Reclamation Working Group

Literature Review - Land Classification Systems for Disturbed Lands Summit Project No.: 2011-8073.000 December 2011

DISCLAIMER This report was prepared by Summit Environmental Consultants Inc. for the account of Cumulative Environmental Management Association (CEMA) Reclamation Working Group. The material in it reflects Summit Environmental Consultants Inc.’s best judgement, in the light of the information available to it, at the time of preparation. Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, are the responsibility of such third parties. Summit Environmental Consultants Inc. accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this report.

REPORT

i 2011-8073.000 Literature Review - Land Classification Systems for Disturbed Lands

Table of Contents

SECTION PAGE NO. Table of Contents i Definition of Terminology iii

1 Introduction 1-1

1.1 Objectives 1-1

2 Methods 2-1

2.1 Background Information Review 2-1 2.2 Literature Search Procedures 2-1 2.3 Database Design and Development 2-3

3 Summary of Literature Evaluated 3-1

3.1 Database Summary 3-1 3.2 Literature Categories 3-1 3.3 Examples of Classification Systems 3-2

4 Recommendations for Reclamation Classification System Development 4-1

4.1 Assemble Team and Prepare Detailed Workplan and Budget 4-2 4.2 Compile and Complete a Quality control / quality assurance (QA / QC) Existing Data 4-4 4.3 Standardize, Analyse, and Stratify Existing Data 4-4 4.4 Complete Gap Analysis 4-4 4.5 Edatopic Grid 4-5 4.6 Create Functional Classification 4-5 4.7 Develop Expert Based State-and-Transition Model 4-5 4.8 Creation of Interim Reclamation Classification System 4-6 4.9 Calibration of Interim Reclamation Classification System 4-7 4.10 Field Data Collection 4-7

5 Conclusion 5-1

References 5-1


ii 2011-8073.000 Literature Review - Land Classification Systems for Disturbed Lands

Appendix A – Guidelines for Article Evaluation

Appendix B – Database Users Guide

Appendix C – Summary of Relevant Classification Systems

Appendix D – Contact Tracking List

Definition of Terminology

iii 2011-8073.000 Literature Review - Land Classification Systems for Disturbed Lands

Definition of Terminology

Term Definition

Ascending typology Hierarchical classification that begins with looking at the broader picture and narrowing down to a more detail specific unit.

Climax community An ecological community that has reached a steady state through ecological succession.

Descending typology Classification that is primarily floristic with other site factors such as soil, hydrology or topography being secondary.

Ecosite An ecological unit that develops under similar environmental influences (climate, moisture and nutrient regime).

Ecosite phase A subdivision of the ecosite based on the dominant tree species in the canopy.

Edaphic Soil moisture and nutrient regime as it pertains to plant growth.

Physiographic An interdisciplinary approach to the study of patterns and processes in the environment, which may consider landscape features, hydrology, pedology and climate, among other components.

Physiognomy The general appearance of a landscape or broad ecological area, without reference to the implied characteristics.

Seral An intermediate stage in ecological succession before a climax community is attained.

Succession The process by which a community progressively transforms itself until a stable community is formed.

REPORT

1-1 2011-8073.000 Literature Review - Land Classification Systems for Disturbed Lands

1 Introduction

Summit Environmental Consultants Inc. (Summit) was retained by the Cumulative Environmental Management Association (CEMA), with direction from the Reclamation Classification System Task Group (RCSTG), to complete a literature review of existing ecological land classification systems. The purpose of this project was to examine the literature to determine if an applicable or adaptable disturbed ecosystem classification exists currently and to apply the learning from this exercise in making recommendations for the direct application, modification, or development of a Reclamation Classification System (RCS) for the mineable oil sands region of north eastern Alberta. The RCS will fulfill the need for an approach to classifying ecological communities that develop on upland reclaimed oil sands mining disturbances in the Boreal Plain. Oil sands mining disturbances in the region must be reclaimed to a productive state which requires detailed and up to date knowledge on the re-creation of landforms, rehabilitation of hydrologic functions, reconstruction of soil resources, and re-establishment of vegetation. Aggregate ecosystem development responses to these reconstruction / rehabilitation strategies are not well understood. Additionally, current land capability classification and reclamation practice guidance documents used in the oil sands region do not provide sufficient information to classify developing ecosystems on mining disturbances. A RCS will serve this purpose. 1.1 OBJECTIVES

The specific project objectives are as follows:

1. Conduct a global literature review of ecological classification systems used to classify ecosystems that have developed on disturbed lands (terrestrial to and including wetlands);

2. Compile a database of citations, abstracts, and attributes of the classification system; 3. Summarize and synthesize the literature review into categories; and 4. Provide recommendations regarding the reviewed classification systems and how they may be

informative to building the Reclamation Classification System (RCS). The final project deliverables include the final database and a summary report that: (1) provides an overview of the results of the literature review, and (2) provides recommendations for the RCS development. The final report will also be presented to the RCSTG. This document represents the summary report, which is preceded by an interim report, draft database, proposed literature categories and a presentation in September, 2011. The final report includes a general summary of the value and quantity of literature reviewed to demonstrate what is available and the applicability of the information, identification of data gaps, examples of applicable classification systems, and recommendations for the development of a RCS.

1

REPORT


2 Methods

2.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION REVIEW

The RCSTG mandate provided the basis for Summit’s background information review. The Alberta Environment guidelines for reclamation in the oil sands (Alberta Environment 2010) and the Devito et al. (2005) paper on broad-scale classification of hydrologic response units (HRUs) were also considered as starting points for the literature review. 2.2 LITERATURE SEARCH PROCEDURES

2.2.1 Contacting Leading Experts

At the beginning of the project, we understood from initial discussions with CEMA representatives and the research community that disturbance-based land classifications may have been initiated or developed within academic institutions, non-governmental organizations, and/or professional organizations in jurisdictions outside of Alberta, and that the results of these studies may not be readily accessible. Consequently, a search for experts through various organizations and the internet was completed and relevant people contacted through email. The search included professionals involved in academic institutions, professional, and industry associations, government agencies, consultants, and non-governmental organizations. Initial contact was accompanied by a letter stating the purpose of the project and desired information. The focus of expert contact focussed on the following geographic areas:

1. International Jurisdictions, specifically: Asia, Great Britain, and Europe; Australia; and United States.

2. Canadian provinces and territories, specifically:

Yukon, Northwest Territories, Newfoundland, and Labrador; British Columbia, Ontario, and Manitoba; and Quebec, Alberta, and Saskatchewan.

2.2.2 Internet Search

A number of internet search engines were used to locate relevant literature (i.e., Science Direct (SciVerse), Ingenta Connect, SpringerLink, Cab Direct, Google Scholar, and EMBSCO) with the most applicable being Science Direct. To complete the search, combinations of the identified keywords were entered into the search engine, and if too many (e.g., over 1,000) results were provided additional keywords were added to the same search. Keywords approved by the RCSTG

2



are listed in Table 2-1. As well, search engines within individual journals were used to determine if relevant articles were available and not captured through the broader search engines. The journals searched specifically were as follows: Applied Vegetation Science, Canadian Journal of Soil Science, Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, Ecological Applications, Ecological Engineering, Ecological Monographs, Ecological Restoration, Ecology, Ecosystems, Environmental Management, Forest Ecology and Management, Forest Science, Geomorphology, Hydrologic Processes, International Journal of Mining, Reclamation and Environment, Journal of Applied Ecology, Journal of Environmental Management, Journal of Range Management, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, Journal of Vegetation Science, Landscape Ecology, Landscape and Urban Planning, Landscape Ecology and Engineering, Oecologia, Oikos, Plant Ecology, Progress in Physical Geography, Restoration Ecology, Restoration Ecology and Management, Soil Science, Vegetatio, Water Resources, Wetlands, and Wetland Ecology and Management. The relevant literature that was found was exported to EndNoteTM. EndNoteTM is a reference-management software program that allows for direct import, and export of reference data, and functions as a documents library. Copies of collected documents of interest were attached to each bibliographic entry (when available) to facilitate reliable transfer, quick organization, and review of materials found prior to uploading to the project database.

2 - Methods


Table 2-1 Keywords used for literature search

abiotic ecological classification system pedometrics, pedogenic

ascending typology expert system predicting hydrologic response

biotic forestry predictive ecosystem classification

boreal forest geology reclamation treatment

classification geomorphology restoration

climate change hydrogeology revegetation

disturbance types hydrology SAGD

cattle grazing in-situ, insitu, in situ tar sands, tarsands

forestry land capability site characteristics / condition

insect landform-scale classification systems soils

mining landscape ecology state-in-transition

transportation land-use planning statistical analysis

natural disaster, wildfire modelling, modeling succession

urban monitoring terrain

roadways non-vegetated systems topography

seismic lines oil sands, oilsands vegetation

pipelines peatlands wetland

descending typology

2.3 DATABASE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT

Database design was initially based on the focus points identified in the Request for Proposal (RFP), with consideration for how each document type would be applicable to reclaimed landscapes in the mineable oil sands region. The RCS focus outlined in the RFP is interpreted and summarized in Table 2-2.



Table 2-2 Literature Review Focus

Source document type Purpose of reviewing document based on RCS focus To identify key issues to be addressed and applied in developing a comparable classification/mapping scheme. Summarize how each classification system is applicable/not applicable.

Provincial, National and International approaches to landform-scale classification systems currently in use (i.e., soil maps, topography, geomorphology, hydrogeology, forestry, and vegetation).

Description of intellectual property and licensing status. Can they be extrapolated? GIS/spatial database-type systems. Do they accommodate the topographic characteristics?

Models which have predictive capabilities (e.g., the University of New Brunswick's Wet Areas Mapping Application).

Can the models be adapted or applied to new, non-vegetated systems and wetland systems.

Input values of the classification systems. Potential of these systems to provide a foundation and general classification of site conditions (soil type/description, topography, geology, hydrogeology, hydrology).

Data inventory sources. To determine potential inputs for a RCS. Pedometrics. Applicability to the development of a RCS. Subsidiary references. Identify valuable information sources. Direct communication with leading experts. Discuss potential application of the systems. A draft database interface was created and reviewed by the consulting team. The database was then revised based on trial literature evaluation. Clear guidelines for literature evaluation were created to answer any questions about the database interface; the guidelines included definitions of terms (see guidelines in Appendix A). The use of guidelines allowed for consistency in literature evaluation between team members. A sample database form entry page is provided in Figure 2-1. The first question in the evaluation helped to narrow down the literature that needed to be evaluated in greater detail. If, based on the abstract, the article was determined to be not applicable, “No” was entered into question 1 of the evaluation and a more detailed evaluation was not completed, and applicable questions were populated with N/A (see Figure 2-1). If an article was deemed to be applicable, question 1 was answered “Yes” and the remaining questions and comments were filled in. During the article’s evaluation, the applicability of information for the creation of a RCS for the mineable oil sands region became clear. A number of articles were considered “strongly applicable” to the development of a RCS for the mineable oil sands region, and others were deemed “slightly applicable”, “not applicable” or “N/A” (filled in for question 10; Figure 2-1).

2 - Methods


Figure 2-1 Sample Database Page

REPORT


3 Summary of Literature Evaluated

Overall, no single document provided a suitable example of an ecological classification of disturbed ecosystems or described what would be required to develop a RCS for the mineable oil sands region. However, four documents provided important guidance in developing recommendations for a RCS and are listed below:

1. Development of Site Types: Classification through the Grouping of Ecosites and Interpretations for Reclamation by Geographic Dynamics Corp. (2005);

2. Guide to Range Plant Community Types and Carrying Capacity for the Dry and Central Mixedwood Subregions in Alberta by Willoughby et al. (2006);

3. Creating New Landscapes and Ecosystems by Johnson and Miyanishi (2008); and 4. Guidelines for Reclamation to Forest Vegetation in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region by

Alberta Environment (2010). Several additional papers provided potential elements of a RCS, including some studies that did not create or review classification systems but instead used modelling to characterize landscape or site features, which in some cases was considered applicable to developing a RCS. 3.1 DATABASE SUMMARY

The database is a user friendly tool that can be queried and custom data reports can be created. Preceding this report Summit created a memo providing instructions on how to query the database (Appendix B). The database was also provided in a format that is compatible to 2003, 2007, and 2010 Microsoft (MS) Access programs. The database queries functioned to assess the literature evaluation results and accordingly to determine the usefulness of the information. Data gaps were identified as well. An interim database was submitted to the RCSTG in early September, and no feedback regarding changes was received. Therefore, the final database follows the same format. Additional articles have been added and evaluated in the database since the interim report was submitted. Based on our evaluation, approximately one third of the 232 articles in the database provide some relevant information for the development of a RCS. The relevant articles (for which “Yes” was answered for question 1; Figure 2-1) comprise the basis for further queries to put the articles into categories. 3.2 LITERATURE CATEGORIES

One of the interim deliverables for this study was the presentation of literature assignment categories. The categories facilitated the summarization of the information into coherent topics of interest. These categories, listed below, detail the number of articles found relevant and the number of articles that fall into a specific category, which was extrapolated using database queries.

3



Literature categories are as follows:

Provides relevant information for the development of a RCS; Classification system is developed or evaluated; The classification system specifically includes disturbances and ecological response to

perturbations; The classification system is applicable to mining and/or oil and gas disturbances; Hydrogeology and/or surface water hydrology is considered and can be correlated to the boreal

forest; Modeling has predictive capabilities; Terrain (local- and regional-scales) and surficial materials (soils) are considered; Is adaptable to various scales; Bottom-up hierarchical approach that is ecosystem-based; Top-down hierarchical approach that is ecosystem-based; Is a combination of a bottom-up and top-down approach; Classifies seral and climax ecosystems; and Classification is robust enough to deal with both uplands and wetlands.

A list of literature that was highly relevant to the development of a RCS, and the category or categories it falls under is provided in Appendix C. 3.3 EXAMPLES OF CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS

Classification systems that were reviewed as part of the RCS development approach are those that were developed primarily from the United States, Canada, China, and Eastern Europe. The most applicable of the articles reviewed are referenced throughout the recommended RCS development approach in Section 3. A number of articles were considered “strongly applicable” to the development of a RCS for the mineable oil sands region. However, there was an obvious gap in the literature reviewed with respect to (1) classification of disturbances based on biotic potential and (2) incorporation of complex surface and subsurface hydrodynamics as a key element. As well, there was an absence of literature linking site specific disturbance classifications to formal jurisdictionally-specific regional or national classification schemes. No classification scheme with formal integration of ecosystem development on severely altered anthropogenic (primary succession) disturbances was found. In general the regional and national classification schemes reviewed are based primarily on climax and secondary succession classification schemes. Where multivariate classifications were conducted, their primary focus was disturbance type (i.e., Prach et al. 1999, Prach 2003, Prach and Pyšek 2001, Prach et al. 2001, Sumina and Miranova 2004, and Simanová 2008), substrate / minesoil properties (i.e., Strong 2000, Novák and Prach 2003, Hendrychová

3 - Summary of Literature Evaluated


2008, Guo et al. 2009), topographic relief (i.e., Gibson et al. 1985, Strong 2000, and Tischew and Lorenz 2005), and management treatments (i.e., Holl and Cairns 1994, Strong 2000, Takeuchi and Shimano 2009, and Tischew and Lorenz 2005, and Wiegleb and Felinks). Although moisture availability was considered in the studies reviewed, most studies considered topography, substrate properties as the dominant abiotic divers and revegetation practices and proximity to donor populations as the key biotic drivers for ecosystem development. As well, the mines were comparatively small relative oil sands mines. In the absence of a suitable classification, background on classification definitions, classification types or approaches and existing jurisdiction-specific classifications are provided as background for the development of a RCS. A summary of relevant papers reviewed in great detail, their classification approach, the biome considered, the literature category or categories they fit into and relevant keywords is provided in Appendix C.

3.3.1 Classification Definitions

Classification includes several distinct activities. In general, there are four fundamentally different activities associated with assigning membership to vegetation types or ecological units: 1. Expert-based rule definition is a classification approach in which membership rules are

derived from expert knowledge without any explicit reference to vegetation observations. This approach is often applied within global-level vegetation classifications that are based on climate, physiognomy, and/or structure.

2. Unsupervised classification is a classification approach that assigns unlabelled vegetation/ecosystem observations into subsets or clusters on the basis of similar vegetation/ecosystem attributes. The result is a set membership statements but membership rules may also be derived in some cases.

3. Supervised classification is a classification approach in which membership is inferred from a set of training vegetation/environment observations whose membership statements/rules are known in advance.

4. Assignment is the application of a membership rule to a vegetation observation to obtain a membership statement.

3.3.2 Classification Types

Communities with representative characteristics can be delineated, mapped at various scales, classified as ecological land classification (ELC) map units, and described (Sims et al. 1996). General categories of classifications are described in the following text and include: physiognomic, floristic, physiognomic-floristic, ecological-land, and extant and potential natural vegetation classifications. The assumption in providing the following brief descriptions that there are likely elements of these classifications that can be adapted/modified for a RCS.



Physiognomic Characterization Physiognomy, narrowly defined, refers to the general external appearance of vegetation based on growth form (gross morphology) of the dominant plants (Mueller Dombois and Ellenberg 1974). Structure relates to the spacing and height of plants forming the matrix of the vegetation cover (Fosberg 1961). Often physiognomy is used to encompass both definitions, particularly when distinguishing between physiognomic and floristic classifications. The basic unit of many physiognomic classifications is the formation which is defined as a community type defined by dominance of a given growth form in the uppermost stratum of the community, or by a combination of dominant growth forms.

Floristic Characterization Floristic characterization uses the composition of taxa to describe stands of vegetation. The characterizations are usually based on plot data which are essential to the definition, identification, and description of vegetation types. Methods in floristic classifications range from describing only the dominant species (Kimmins 1997) to recording the cover-abundance of all species present (total floristic composition) (Mueller-Dombois and Ellenberg 1974). Differences in these characterization methods have an important bearing on the definition and description of lower level hierarchy alliances and associations. Total community floristic composition is typically used for systematic community classification and two major approaches are employed in North America. The first is the “Zürich-Montpellier School” (Westhoff and van der Maarel 1973) while the second is the Daubenmire (1968) approach. Both approaches use an “association” concept which states that an association is “a plant community type of definite floristic composition, uniform habitat conditions, and uniform physiognomy” (Barbour et al. 1987).

Physiognomic-floristic Characterizations Vegetation descriptions do not have to be exclusively physiognomic or floristic. Descriptions of vegetation need not rely solely on either floristics or physiognomy. Classifications that employ both physiognomic and floristic criteria permit flexibility in characterizing an area by both its physiognomy and composition. The Nature Conservancy developed a combined physiognomic-floristic classification of existing vegetation titled the International Classification of Ecological Communities using modified physiognomic units of UNESCO for the upper levels and the floristic alliance and association units for the lower levels (Grossman et al. 1998). Ecological Land Classifications A number of classification systems include vegetation as one of several criteria for classifying ecological systems. Vegetation physiognomy is typically used to help delineate biogeographic or bioclimatic regions at broad scales, while floristic information is used to define ecological types and delineate ecological land units at finer scales. The habitat type approach is a vegetation-based site (land) classification system. Trends toward climax are interpreted and a key to habitat types (areas of similar potential natural vegetation) are developed typically from late-successional associations. Ecological land classification approaches typically use potential natural vegetation as one of



several key elements to define ecosystem or ecological land units (Bailey 1996). The site classification approach does not provide direct information on existing, or actual vegetation; rather, once the ecological unit is defined, existing vegetation information is used to characterize the current condition of the ecological unit (Bailey 1996). Site classifications are also used in the development of vegetation state-and-transition models (Bestelmeyer et al. 2003). Extant and Potential Natural Vegetation Classification Classification may be developed using existing vegetation or potential natural vegetation. An extant-based classification defines vegetation as the vegetation found at a given location at the time of observation whereas potential natural vegetation is defined as the vegetation that would become established if successional trajectories were completed without being altered by anthropogenic or “natural” disturbances under the current climatic and edaphic conditions (Mueller-Dombois and Ellenberg 1974). Classification of extant vegetation requires fewer assumptions about vegetation dynamics than classifying potential natural vegetation. Emphasis is placed on the current conditions of the stand in an extant classification whereas a classification that emphasizes potential natural vegetation requires the prediction of species composition of mature stages of vegetation based on knowledge of the existing vegetation, species auto-ecologies and habitat relationships, and disturbance regimes.

3.3.3 Classification Examples – Jurisdictions

International Terrestrial Ecological System Classification NatureServe completed a working classification of terrestrial ecological systems in the conterminous United States, southern Alaska, and adjacent portions of Mexico and Canada. NatureServe's terrestrial ecological system classification defines groups of plant communities that tend to co-occur within landscapes with similar ecological processes, substrates, and/or environmental gradients (Comer et al. 2003). Approximately 600 terrestrial ecological system units have been described in a comprehensive classification for the lower 48 United States and adjacent Canada (Jennings 2009). Canadian National Vegetation Classification The Canadian National Vegetation Classification (CNVC; Natural Resources Canada 2010) uses the same eight-level classification hierarchy as the United States National Vegetation Classification although the hierarchy has not yet been fully developed in Canada. The focus of the CNVC has been on developing and describing the associations. The classification schema is broadly categorized as having upper, middle, and lower levels (Ponomarenko and Alvo 2001, Alvo and Ponomarenko 2003). The upper hierarchical levels where physiognomy plays a dominant role are Formation Class (L1), Formation Subclass (L2), and Formation (L3). In the middle category of the classification, both floristics and physiognomy play significant roles. The classification layers at this level include Division (L4), Macrogroup (L5), and



Group (L6). At the lower level in the schema, floristics is predominant. The categories at this level are Alliance (L7) and Association (L8). Ecosite Classification – Alberta The ecosite classification system for northern landscapes in Alberta consists of an integrated hierarchical ecological classification with three levels (i.e., ecosite, ecosite phase, and plant community type) with a separate soil classification (Beckingham and Archibald 1996, Beckingham et al. 1996a, 1996b). The ecosite classification system is nested within Alberta’s geographically based natural region and subregion classification system (Alberta Environmental Protection 1994, Natural Regions Committee 2006). Ecosites are ecological units that develop under similar environmental influences (i.e., climate, moisture regime, and nutrient regime). Typically, there are one or more groups of ecosite phases that occupy the same portion of the edatope (moisture/nutrient grid). An ecosite phase is a subdivision of the ecosite based on the dominant species in the canopy and may be further subdivided into plant community types. Plant community types are the lowest taxonomic unit in the classification system and are roughly equivalent to the association category of the IVC, USNVC, and CNVC classifications. The environmental characteristics of the community are defined at the ecosite level and to a lesser degree at the ecosite phase level. Plant communities within the same ecosite phase differ in their understory species composition and abundance. Dry and Central Mixedwood Range Classification – Alberta Willoughby et al. (2006) developed a boreal rangeland classification scheme that is integrated with the ecosite classification of Beckingham and Archibald (1996). In this revision to previous boreal mixedwood range classification approximations, the new terms ecological site and ecological site phase are included and replace the terms ecosite and ecosite phase terms, respectively (Beckingham and Archibald 1996). Implicit within rangeland management is the philosophy of rangeland health and proper functioning condition of a range or ecological sites. Consequently, plant communities within an area under similar environmental influences are characterized according to their post-disturbance successional response to disturbance. In this classification, boreal rangeland community types are further separated into reference range plant communities, successional communities and harvesting and fire communities. The “successional community types” or “harvesting and fire succession” categories outline the successional sequence the community types undergo with heavy grazing pressure, harvesting or fire disturbance. Essentially, the system developed for boreal rangelands is a combination of Mueggler (1988) and Beckingham and Archibald (1996) approaches. As with Beckingham and Archibald (1996), the ecological units within a subregion are classified by their position on the edatopic grid. The range classification of Willoughby et al. (2006) maintains the same CNVC upper (physiognomic) and lower (floristic) level linkages as Beckingham and Archibald (1996). The boreal rangeland



classification approach of Willoughby et al. (2006) may have potential for the RCS in terms of preparing as keys for seral stage typing. Alberta Wetland Inventory (AWI) Alberta has a wetland classification for northern areas in addition to the ecosite classification. The wetland classification is considered a more comprehensive classification for wetland and peatland resources in northern Alberta (Halsey et al. 2003). The AWI wetland classes are based on hydrology and vegetation structure and composition. Ecosites and AWI wetlands classes can be correlated. Grassland Vegetation Inventory (GVI) – Alberta The Grassland Vegetation Inventory (GVI) is a comprehensive biophysical, anthropogenic, and land-use inventory within Alberta’s White Area Zone (ASRD 2010). The GVI classification includes ecological range sites based on site and soils for native vegetation (biophysical) and non-native vegetation and disturbances (land-use). Agricultural lands, industrial, and urban/suburban developments are assigned land-use categories. The ecological range site for native vegetation in the GVI classification is comparable to the ecological site of Willoughby et al. (2006). The GVI classification of native vegetation incorporates ecological dynamics whereas the land-use classification for anthropogenic disturbances does not. Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classification (BEC) – British Columbia The BEC system is a hierarchical classification that groups ecosystems at three levels of integration: regional, local, and chronological (MacKinnon et al. 1992). At the regional level, vegetation, soils, and topography are used to infer the regional climate and to identify geographic areas that have relatively uniform climate. These geographic areas are termed biogeoclimatic units and are roughly equivalent to the natural region level in the Alberta hierarchy. The biogeoclimatic zones in British Columbia are also further divided into subzones (small vegetation changes in zonal and non-zonal sites) and variants (variations in thermal and moisture regimes manifested as further changes in vegetation attributes). Conceptually, the classification of hydrologic response units based on climate, bedrock and surficial geology, soil type and depth, and topography and drainage networks of Devito et al. (2005) would likely best fit at the biogeoclimatic variant level. The closest classification analogue in British Columbia for the Boreal Mixedwood natural subregion in Alberta would be the Boreal Black Spruce – White Spruce (BWBS) biogeoclimatic zone (BCMOF 1998). Both boreal classifications are a mixture of upland forests and muskeg (peatland combination of bogs and fens) ecosystems. Segments of the landscape are classified into site units that have relatively uniform vegetation, soils, and topography at the local level. Several site units are distributed within each biogeoclimatic unit, according to differences in topography, soils, and vegetation. At the chronological level of integration, ecosystems are classified and organized according to site-specific chronosequences.



Vegetation units recognized for a particular site unit are arranged according to site history and successional status. In order to arrange ecosystems at the three levels of integration, the BEC system combines four classifications: vegetation, climatic (zonal), site, and seral. The vegetation of mature ecosystems is emphasized in the BEC as it is considered to be the best integrator of the combined influence of the environmental factors affecting a site. Vegetation units are determined by grouping plot data and then comparing the resulting units in a series of vegetation tables. Plant associations are the basic unit of the vegetation classification hierarchy. Each unit is differentiated by a diagnostic combination of species. Tree species, or broad forest types, are emphasized at the upper levels of the hierarchy (classes/orders), and understory vegetation at the lower levels, however, floristic similarity is used to group units. The climatic or zonal classification uses vegetation, soils, and topography to infer the regional climate of a geographic area. Areas of relatively uniform climate are called biogeoclimatic units. The geographic extent of biogeoclimatic units in the BEC system is inferred from the distribution of climax and late-seral plant communities on zonal sites. Zonal sites are those that best reflect the regional climate and are least influenced by the local topography and/or soil properties. Biogeoclimatic subzones are the basic unit of the climatic classification (Pojar et al. 1987). Site association is the basic unit of site classification, but site series is the most practical unit for field personnel. The seral (often termed successional) classification in BEC is an integration of site and vegetation classifications with structural stage development. However, seral plant communities are generally poorly described in British Columbia due to low levels of field of sampling. Due to the paucity of data on anthropogenic (land-use) and sparsely vegetated ecological units in British Columbia, Smyth et al. (2004) used an “expert-based” modification to the Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping (TEM) reclaimed mine spoil (RZ) code to map reclaimed mining disturbances for wildlife habitat suitability. In this process, the RZ code was modified by site and substrate conditions and assigned subscript seral type and structural stage codes.

REPORT


4 Recommendations for Reclamation Classification System Development

Typically, the creation of an ecological classification proceeds through several phases in a continual process of refinement (Comer et al. 2003). The phases in construction often include:

1. literature review and synthesis of current knowledge; 2. formulating an initial hypothesis describing each type, that supports; 3. establishing a field sampling design; 4. gathering of field data; 5. data analysis and interpretation; 6. description of types; 7. establishing dichotomous keys to classification units; 8. mapping of classification units; and 9. refinement of classification, establishing relative priorities for new data collection (Comer et al.

2003). The recommended approach is to develop a hierarchal RCS, based on biotic characteristics or functional in nature (bottom-up). The flow chart outlined in Figure 4-1 shows the recommended approach to creating a RCS. Each component is further outlined in subsections below. The end result should be a dichotomous key identifying units that are determined by the combined influences of all locally effective ecological factors, including climatic, physiographic, biotic, and anthropogenic (human) influences (Nichols 1923). As all of these influences determine the end reclamation result, all should be considered in the development of an RCS. Several assumptions were made in preparing the recommendations:

Development of a formalized disturbance classification schema (RCS) must possess taxonomic/nomenclature linkages to existing classifications in Alberta and Canada (federal) as well as internationally. Linkages to classifications in other jurisdictions are considered important due to the international attention to which the oil sands projects are subjected.

Initially the classification will need to be developed through a combination (hybrid) of empirical data and expert-based classification criteria and/or qualitative modeling but ultimately will need to be based on empirical data and quantitative modeling.

The provisional classification (including seral stage types) essentially will be a working hypothesis to be verified by the collection of plot data collected in a long-term monitoring network.

It is anticipated that the biological potential of the re-constructed post-mining landscape will be heterogeneous in terms of topographic relief, surficial materials (nascent soils or minesoils), capability, and hydrodynamics. The long-term monitoring network will be developed based on a

4



stratification of the disturbed landscape based into reclaimed ecological sites based on these abiotic and biotic factors as well as revegetation prescriptions (AENV 2010). The primary stratification criteria will be abiotic parameters such as vary by slope, aspect, substrate, cover soil depth and properties, groundwater (hydrogeomorphic behaviour) while the secondary stratification criteria will be parameters such as revegetation practices (i.e., species selection, establishment methods, and density), distance to suitable plant donor populations (Alday et al. 2011, Latzel et al. 2011), and zoogenic activities (Barbour et al. 1987).

The classification must be “built” from the bottom-up (ascending typology) that includes surface and subsurface abiotic factors as the foundation.

State-and-transition modeling will provide a logical link for conceptualizing succession dynamics triggers and trajectories, and conceptualizing potential alternative stable states as well as an instrument through which monitoring data can be incorporated into future RCS refinements/modifications.

4.1 ASSEMBLE TEAM AND PREPARE DETAILED WORKPLAN AND BUDGET

The first step in developing a RCS will be assembling a team of diverse professionals who have boreal forest, oil and gas, and mining experience. Additional reclamation planning and operational reclamation experience would be of significant benefit. The following professionals are recommended for the development of a RCS:

Mining engineer/civil engineer with experience in surface covers, reclamation planning and surface and subsurface water flow;

Hydrogeologist with significant boreal ecosystem experience; Terrain specialist/geomorphologist with boreal forest expertise including upland and wetland

ecosystems; Soil scientist/pedologist with boreal forest and mine reclamation experience; Vegetation ecologist (with experience in different classification systems, ecosystem identification

and classification in Alberta and other relevant jurisdictions such as B.C.); Database management / GIS specialist familiar with boreal ecology; and An independent reviewer.

This multidisciplinary team will provide input and consideration for all aspects of a classification system in the boreal forest and for oils sands reclamation. The first step once the team is assembled will be to review the RCSTG mandate, RCS objectives, and have a consensus on the approach to developing a RCS. The second step will involve the development of a detailed work plan, schedule, and budget.

4 - Recommendations for Reclamation Classification System Development


Figure 4-1 Flow Chart of RCS Development Approach



4.2 COMPILE AND COMPLETE A QUALITY CONTROL / QUALITY ASSURANCE (QA / QC)

EXISTING DATA

The next step will be to compile and complete a qualitative analysis of existing reclamation and baseline data for the mineable oil sands region. Existing ecological data (provided by CEMA members) as well as all unavailable or ill-conditioned data not used by GDC (2005) and all data collected in subsequent years (i.e., 2006 – 2011) will need to be obtained. Any relevant hydrogeological, terrain, surficial materials, and mine (i.e., material management, site preparation, and revegetation) data/documentation that could be used to stratify undisturbed and disturbed landscapes and standardize where appropriate will need to be acquired. Existing data is assumed to be available, or could be made available from reclamation monitoring reporting and baseline assessments for oil and gas lease applications. Existing data could include: long-term monitoring plots that measure soil, vegetation, and forest parameters; Wet Areas Mapping (WAM) (Arp et al. 2009); characteristic species thresholds; species ingress data and non-native and/or weed species inventories; and fire history. The existing data would then be categorized as biotic or physiographic. 4.3 STANDARDIZE, ANALYSE, AND STRATIFY EXISTING DATA

Once accumulated, the vegetation species and environmental data will be standardized according to variable requirements, categorical coding, and database format. A QA / QC review will be performed on the standardized database in preparation of analysis. Data analysis should be a multivariate analysis conducted on the complete data set to classify ecological units (climax and seral plant communities within disturbed ecological sites), to explore ecological relationships among data variables, and to produce diagnostic species assemblages for each ecological site. The suggested analytical procedures, subject to the outcome of the QA / QC review, are as follows:

hard or fuzzy cluster analyses (Wildi 2010, Borcard et al. 2011); direct and indirect ordinations (Oksanen et al. 2008, Kent 2011); indicator species analysis (De Cáceres et al. 2010); multivariate regression trees (Borcard et al. 2011); and electronic table sorting (traditional European) procedures (Tichý 2002, Tichý et al. 2011).

The analyzed/synthesized data will be provided to team members in advance of the state-and-transition modeling work shop. 4.4 COMPLETE GAP ANALYSIS

A gap analysis should be completed with respect to development of a RCS needs. Data gaps may entail low quality data which can be identified through qualitative analysis and missing data. A gap analysis will aid in determining what additional data is needed to create more detailed and/or accurate ecological site descriptions. GDC (2005) assembled data up to 2005 but acknowledged that there was additional relevant



data that was available but was ill-conditioned, missing variables, or not readily available. This data and data collected in the intervening years should be obtained, formatted, conditioned and subjected to a QA / QC. Particular effort should be placed on data collected from mine disturbed areas (i.e., reclaimed, non-reclaimed, and spontaneous regeneration versus technological reclaimed). 4.5 EDATOPIC GRID

An essential step in the classification process will be to revisit the edatopic grid concept of GDC (2005) with a focus on re-created mine landforms and suitable natural analogues (Hollingsworth 2010). The natural analogues or “reference areas”, as abiotic and biotic surrogates for pre-mining ecosystems, would provide process guidance rather than compositional and structural targets for the successional trajectories of reclaimed ecological sites. Here, the insights on boreal plains hydrology and ecosystem functioning (Devito et al. 2005) and the thoughts of Johnson and Miyanashi (2008) regarding the need for the integration of abiotic and biotic inputs at appropriate scales to the creation of new reclaimed landscape elements will be valuable. Based on mine reclamation landform reconstruction and substrate replacement practices, it is anticipated that post-mining landforms, when embedded within the larger landscape, will be heterogeneous and complex similar to the structure and functioning of boreal plains described by Devito et al. (2005) prior to mining. The Wet Areas Mapping tool (Arp et al. 2009) should also be considered in an attempt correlate vegetation development with ecological moisture within the structure of an edatopic grid. In the absence of empirical data, the grid design would be based, initially, on an expert understanding of plant community moisture requirements, hydrology, and soils in the boreal forest and where available reclaimed landforms. The autecological data contained in the Guidelines for Reclamation to Forest Vegetation in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region (AENV 2010) and the Guidelines for Wetland Establishment on Reclaimed Oil Sands Leases (AENV 2008) would be valuable to this exercise. 4.6 CREATE FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION

Creation of a functional classification would entail creating a qualitative plant functional attribute matrix and performing functional classification and diversity analyses. Classification of the ecological data will be based on vital attributes (Cattelino et al. 1979, Noble and Slatyer 1980, Aronson and Le Floc’h 1996) or functional types (Pausas and Lavorel 2003). Vital attributes or plant functional schemes are another approach to understanding plant community dynamics and to classifying seral types. Autecological data provided in the Guidelines for Wetland Establishment on Reclaimed Oil Sands Leases (AENV 2008) and the Guidelines for Reclamation to Forest Vegetation in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region (AENV 2010) will be used to construct the matrices used in the analyses. 4.7 DEVELOP EXPERT BASED STATE-AND-TRANSITION MODEL

To develop a framework for constructing state-and-transition model (STM) narratives, a team of experts should be assembled and an STM workshop conducted, with the outcome being STM narratives. Successional trajectories, alternative stable states and seral types will be identified by landform, substrate, hydrologic response and unit type, where possible.



4.8 CREATION OF INTERIM RECLAMATION CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

At this stage, a preliminary RCS should be constructed that integrates with the ecosite, ecosite phase and plant community type nomenclature by Beckingham and Archibald (1996). The RCS also should integrate with the range management-focused ecological site, ecological site phases, and plant community categories of Willoughby et al. (2006) where appropriate. An essential component of a RCS is the classification of successional stages. This is crucial for reclamation classification as reclamation is essentially a series of seral stages until climax vegetation is reached. Determining if adaptive management is required to achieve reclamation success entails determining succession trajectories, or if the desired end result will be met based on current site characteristics. Multiple successional pathways can occur, and are determined by biotic factors (Taylor and Chen 2011). Therefore, a RCS must be created that identifies the respective seral stages of a reclaimed ecological site. Determining successional stages can be initiated through multivariate analysis of data to determine early (pioneer), mid (seral) and late (climax) successional indicators (Tischew and Lorenz 2005). By following the methods of classification of successional stages is possible using a ordination and cluster analyses (Prach et al. 1999, Prach et al. 2001, Hoda ová and Prach 2003, Novák and Prach 2003, Tischew and Lorenz 2005, Takeuchi and Shimano 2009, Alday et al. 2011), or electronic table sorting (Simonová 2008). As well, visible succession in sequential aerial photography should be reviewed in combination with field surveys to provide an empirical data source for studying long-term trends in vegetation composition. By using these methods, biotic indicators and indicator thresholds can be clearly identified for each successional stage, within each reclaimed ecological site. Tischew and Kirmer (2007) identify a complex model used to determine general ecosystem development tendencies, as well as predictability of succession based on identified “switch-points” in successional pathways. State-and-transition modelling is a good approach to this stage of the classification system (Bestelmeyer et al. 2003, 2010). Ratios or indices from prominence of frequency of native species relative to introduced species should also be developed as this provides an indication of the stage of ecosystem development (Geographic Dynamics Corporation 2005). Introduced species are often pioneer species, which will be replaced over time by native species through natural succession and spontaneous revegetation (Prach 2003, Tischew and Kirmer 2007). Ratios or indices of native relative to introduced species will provide input on where the reclamation is along the successional pathway to climax. These ratios or indices should be incorporated into classification of each successional stage (early-, mid- and late-seral) within each reclaimed ecological site. Creation of an interim classification system would be a first approximation of a RCS with linkages to existing classification systems, where appropriate. A dichotomous key should be developed once the RCS is calibrated by empirical data.



4.9 CALIBRATION OF INTERIM RECLAMATION CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

Development of a classification system requires independent review to identify insufficiencies and in-continuities. Calibration of the interim RCS should be completed as part of the independent review process by the expert team as initially it will be an expert-based RCS. This will include clear identification of current and future technical reference condition sites and data collection requirements and protocols for empirical verification/adaptive management of an RCS. 4.10 FIELD DATA COLLECTION

The majority of classification systems reviewed are based on field data. Field observations (monitoring) provide data that can be used to calibrate / verification and refine the units of classification and to provide feedback on the performance of site and soil reconstruction practices (e.g., the abiotic indicators of Welham and Nicholson 2006). Based on a literature review, AENV (2010) has suggested that the initial floristics model (Egler 1954) best describes the dominant successional mechanism directing ecosystem development in the boreal mixed wood natural subregion and likely will be the “agent” for succession on reclaimed oil sands landforms. Nevertheless, there likely will be site specific differences in ecosystem recovery responses. For example, it may be possible for some reclaimed ecological sites to approach the natural range of variability for some non-mining disturbed ecosites. Therefore, ecosystem development trajectories could be evaluated against the natural range of variability for a particular ecosite (ecological site) as determined by a set of representative natural analogues (Welham and Nicholson 2006) or “reference areas.” The stratification of the post-mining landscape into reclamation polygons / terrain units (AENV 2010) or reclaimed ecological sites will serve as the abiotic and management foundation for the RCS. In the development of the RCS, these “reclamation treatment units” will be assumed to represent the biotic potential of the reclaimed ecological sites. As reclaimed ecological site successional trajectories (chronosequences) are identified and tracked during monitoring, refinements can be made to the classification; the ecosystem development information also will be used to modify site preparation and revegetation practices if the trajectories appear to be retrograde or are moving towards targets that are undesirable from an end-land use or equivalent capability perspective. Although Hardy BBT (1990) and GDC (2006) have indicated that natural ingress by most native species likely will be limited on reclaimed oil sands sites, proximity to suitable donor populations (Alday et al. 2011, Latzel et al. 2011) may result in different ecosystem trajectories adjacent to donor areas and that this potential variability should be monitored and, if appropriate, classified within the RCS. A comprehensive suite of site, soil, vegetation and wildlife habitat use data should be collected. The monitoring protocols outlined by AENV (2010), with possible additions from ASRD (2003) and ABMI (2007) would be applied.



In addition to the calibration/refinement of the disturbed ecosystem classification, the monitoring program could be structured to answer the following questions:

What are the properties of a reconstructed soil that would support establishment of a target ecosite (ecological site or reclaimed ecological site)?

Do the Guidelines for Reclamation to Forest Vegetation in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region (AENV 2010) provide guidance to reclaim to a target ecosites (reclaimed ecological sites) and to evaluate reclamation success based on a site type?

Does the guidance document provide sufficient direction in management practices to direct reclamation practitioners to the intended ecosystem reconstruction outcome?

How can an RCS be defined to test the guidance document?

REPORT


5 Conclusion

The literature review determined that no single document provided a comprehensive approach for the ecological classification of disturbed ecosystems that would be applicable to the mineable oil sands region of north eastern Alberta. Many international studies presented a posteriori classifications of disturbed ecosystems with some of these studies providing descriptions of habitat templates (Southwood 1988) as the basis for biotic interactions with descriptions of trajectories. The majority of the studies were restricted to localized disturbances and not linked to a formal national classification schema. However, four reports completed for disturbance classification, two of which were for the boreal region, provided guidance in developing recommendations for a RCS. The reports/studies considered relevant are as follows:

1. Development of Site Types: Classification through the Grouping of Ecosites and Interpretations for Reclamation by Geographic Dynamics Corp. (2005);

2. Guide to Range Plant Community Types and Carrying Capacity for the Dry and Central Mixedwood Subregions in Alberta by Willoughby et al. (2006);

3. Creating New Landscapes and Ecosystems by Johnson and Miyanishi (2008); and 4. Guidelines for Reclamation to Forest Vegetation in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region by

Alberta Environment (2010). A number of other articles were entered into the literature database and were deemed as relevant for input into a RCS. These articles were evaluated in detail and can be summarized into categories created as part of interim reporting for this project, and approved by RCSTG. Based on our interpretation of the available scientific literature on the subject, the most suitable approach for the development of a Reclamation Classification System (RCS) for the mineable oil sands region is a hierarchal system based on biotic characteristics or functional in nature (bottom-up or ascending typology) that includes landforms, substrates, and hydrogeological dynamics as a foundation. The initial classification development should be a combination of empirical data and expert-based assessment, which would ultimately be subject to qualitative and/or quantitative modelling. The RCS must correlate to existing provincial (ecosite) classification at some level, and would ideally correlate to Canadian federal and international classifications due to the current high profile of oil sands development. The provisional classification (including seral stage types) will be a working hypothesis to be verified by the collection of plot data collected in an expanded long-term monitoring network. State-and-transition modeling will provide a logical link for conceptualizing succession dynamics triggers and trajectories, and conceptualizing potential alternative stable states, as well as an instrument through which monitoring data can be incorporated into future RCS refinements/modifications (adaptive management). Development of a classification system is a continual process that should be continually revised based on trial application and availability of additional information.

5

REPORT

References

Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute (ABMI). 2007. Terrestrial Field Data Collection Protocols. (10001), Version 2007-12-13. Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute, Alberta. 76 pp. Report available online at: www.abmi.ca.

Alberta Environmental Protection (AEP). 1994. Natural Regions of Alberta. Publication No. I/531. Alberta Environmental Protection. Edmonton. 18 pp.

Alberta Environment (AENV). 2008. Guideline for Wetland Establishment on Reclaimed Oil Sands Leases. Second Edition. Prepared for the Wetlands and Aquatics Subgroup of the Reclamation Working Group of the Cumulative Environmental Management Association, Fort McMurray, Alberta by M.L. Harris of Lorax Environmental Services Limited, Vancouver. 330 pp.

Alberta Environment (AENV). 2010. Guidelines for Reclamation to Forest Vegetation in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region. Second Edition. (December 2009). Prepared by the Terrestrial Subgroup of the Reclamation Working Group of the Cumulative Environmental Management Association, Fort McMurray. 342 pp.

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD). 2003. Ecological Land Survey Site Description (Second Edition). Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Strategic Corporate Services Division, Resource Data Branch, Edmonton. 132 pp.

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD). 2010. Grassland Vegetation Inventory (GVI) Specifications Fifth Edition. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Edmonton. 90 pp.

Alday, J.G., R.H. Marrs and C. Martinez-Ruiz. 2011. Vegetation convergence during early succession on coal wastes: a 6-year permanent plot study. Journal of Vegetation Science, 22, 1072-1083.

Alvo, R, and S. Ponomarenko. 2003. Vegetation Classification Standard for Canada Workshop: May 31-June 2 2000 (Hull, Quebec). Canadian Field Naturalist, 117, 1, 125-139.

Anand, M. and R.E. Desrochers. 2004. Quantification of restoration success using complex systems concept and models. Restoration Ecology, 12, 1, 117-123.

Aronson, J. and E. LeFloc’h. 1996. Vital landscape attributes: missing tools for restoration ecology. Restoration Ecology, 4, 4, 377-387.

Arp, P., J. Ogilvie, M. Castonguay, D. Campbell, D. Hiltz. 2009. Wet-areas Mapping Principles and Application. Faculty of Forestry and Environmental Management, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton NB. Presentation from Alberta’s New Wet Areas Mapping Initiative, A Tool to Support Sustainable Management of Alberta’s Forested Landscape. SFMN KETE Workshop, December 8, 2009, Edmonton. 2 pp.

Bailey, R.G. 1996. Ecosystem Geography. Springer-Verlag Publishers, New York. 204 pp.


Barbour, M.G., J.H. Burk and W.D. Pitts. 1987. Terrestrial Plant Ecology. Second Edition. The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company Incorporated, Menlo Park. 634 pp.

Bastian, O. 2000. Landscape classification in Saxony (Germany) – a tool for holistic regional planning. Landscape and Urban Planning, 50, 145-155.

Beckingham, J.D. and J.H. Archibald. 1996. Field Guide to Ecosites of Northern Alberta. Special Report 5. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Northwest Region, Northern Forestry Centre, Edmonton. 516 pp.

Beckingham, J.D., I.G.W. Corns and J.H. Archibald. 1996a. Field Guide to Ecosites of West-Central Alberta. Special Report 9. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Northwest Region, Northern Forestry Centre, Edmonton. 630 pp.

Beckingham, J.D, D.G Nielsen and V.A. Futoransky. 1996b. Field Guide to Ecosites of the Mid-boreal Ecoregions of Saskatchewan. Special Report 6. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Northwest Region, Northern Forestry Centre, Edmonton, Alberta. 272 pp.

Bestelmeyer, B.T., J.R. Brown, K.M. Havstad, R. Alexander, G. Chavez, and J. Herrick. 2003. Development and use of state-and-transition models for rangelands. Journal of Range Management, 56, 2,114-126.

Bestelmeyer, B.T., K. Moseley, P.L. Shaver, H. Sanchez, D.D. Briske and M.E. Fernandez-Gimenez. 2010. Practical guidance for developing state-and-transition models. Rangelands, 32, 6, 23-30.

Borcard, D., F. Gillett and P. Legendre. 2011. Numerical Ecology with R. Use R Series. Springer-Verlag Publishers, New York. 302 pp.

British Columbia Ministry of Forests (BCMOF). 1998. The Ecology of the Boreal White and Black Spruce Zone. Research Branch, British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Victoria. 4 pp.

Cattelino, P.J.; Noble, I.R.; Slatyer, R.O. and S.R. Kessell. 1979. Predicting the multiple pathways of plant succession. Environmental Management, 3, 41-50.

Comer, P., D. Faber-Langendoen, R. Evans, S. Gawler, C. Josse, G. Kittel, S. Menard, M. Pyne, M. Reid, K. Schulz, K. Snow and J. Teague. 2003. Ecological Systems of the United States: A Working Classification of United States. Terrestrial Systems. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. 83 pp.

Cooke, J.A. 1999. Chapter 14. Mining. Ecosystems of Disturbed Ground. Ecosystems of the World 16. (L.R. Walker, Editor). Elsevier Publishers, New York. pp. 365-384.

Daubenmire, R.F. 1968. Plant Communities: A Textbook of Plant Synecology. Harper and Row, New York. 300 pp.

De Cáceres, M., P. Legendre and M. Moretti. 2010. Improving indicator species analysis by combining groups of sites. Oikos, 119, 1674-1684.

References

Devito, K., I. Creed, T. Gan, C. Mendoza, R. Petrone, U. Silins and B. Smerdon. 2005. A framework for broad-sale classification of hydrological response units on the Boreal Plain: is topography the last thing to consider? Hydrological Processes, 19, 1705-1714.

Down, C.G. 1973. Life-form succession in plant communities on colliery waste. Environmental Pollution, 5, 19-22.

Egler, F.E. 1954. Vegetation science concepts: I. Initial floristics composition – factor in old-field vegetation development. Vegetatio, 4, 412-417.

Fosberg, F.R. 1961. A classification of vegetation for general purposes. Tropical Ecology, 2, 1-28.

Geographic Dynamics Corporation (GDC). 2005. Development of Site Types: Classification Through the Grouping of Ecosites and Interpretations for Reclamation. Prepared for the Cumulative Environmental Management Association, Reclamation Working Group, Soil/Vegetation Subgroup (SVSG), Fort McMurray by Geographic Dynamics Corporation, Edmonton. 87 pp.

Geographic Dynamics Corporation (GDC). 2006. Investigation of Natural Ingress of Species into Reclaimed Areas. Prepared for the Cumulative Environmental Management Association, Reclamation Working Group, Soil/Vegetation Subgroup (SVSG), Fort McMurray by Geographic Dynamics Corporation, Edmonton. 92 pp.

Gibson, D.J., J.G. Hodgson and R. Hunt. 1985. Revegetation of unreclaimed coal strip mines in Oklahoma. II. Plant communities. Reclamation and Revegetation Research, 4, 31-47.

Grant, C.D. 2006. State-and-transition succession model for bauxite mining rehabilitation in the Jarrah Forest of Western Australia. Restoration Ecology, 14, 1, 28-37.

Grant, C.D. 2009. State and transition models for mining restoration in Australia. New Models for Ecosystem Dynamics and Restoration. (R.J. Hobbs and K.N. Suding, Editors). Island Press, Washington DC. pp. 80-294.

Grossman, D.H., D. Faber-Langendoen, A.S. Weakley, M. Anderson, P.S. Bourgeron, R. Crawford, K. Goodin, S. Landaal, K. Metzler, K. Patterson, M. Pyne, M. Reid and L. Sneddon. 1998. International Classification of Ecological Communities: Terrestrial Vegetation of the United States. Volume I. The National Vegetation Classification System: Development, Status, and Applications. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington. 139 pp.

Guo, X., G. Zhang, H. Gong, K. Wang and J. Zhang. 2009. Development of plant communities after restoration of the Antaibao mining site, China. Frontiers of Biology in China, 4, 2, 222-227.

Halsey, L.A., Vitt, D.H., Beilman, D., Crow, S., Mehelcic, S. and R. Wells. 2003. Alberta Wetland Inventory Classification System Version 2.0. Prepared for the Resource Data Division, Sustainable Resource Development, Edmonton. 35 pp.

Hardy BBT Limited. 1990. Natural Plant Invasion into Reclaimed Oil Sands Mine Sites. Report No. RRTAC 90-3. Prepared for the Alberta Land Conservation and Reclamation Council (Reclamation Research Technical Advisory Committee) by Hardy BBT Limited, Calgary. 66 pp.


Hendrychová, M. 2008. Reclamation success in post-mining landscapes within Czech Republic: a review of pedological and biological studies. Journal of Landscape Studies, 1, 63-78.

Hoda ová, D. and K. Prach. 2003. Spoil heaps from brown coal mining: technical reclamation versus spontaneous revegetation. Restoration Ecology, 11, 3, 385-391.

Holl, K.D. and J. Cairns, Jr. 1994. Vegetational community development on reclaimed coal surface mines in Virginia. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club, 121, 4, 327-337.

Hollingsworth, I.D. 2010. Mine Landform Design Using Natural Analogues. Doctoral Dissertation, Faculty of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources, The University of Sydney, Sydney. 259 pp.

Jennings, M.D., D. Faber-Langendoen, O.L. Loucks, R.K. Peet and D. Roberts. 2009. Standards for associations and alliances of the United States National Vegetation Classification. Ecological Monographs, 79, 173-199.

Johnson, E.A. and K. Miyanishi. 2008. Creating new landscapes and ecosystems. The Alberta Oil Sands. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1134, 120-145.

Kent, M. 2011. Vegetation Description and Data Analysis: A Practical Approach. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 414 pp.

Kimmins, J.P. 1997. Forest Ecology: A Foundation for Sustainable Management. Second Edition. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River. 596 pp.

Krabbenhoft, K., D. Kirby, M. Biondini, G. Halvorson and D. Nilson. 1993. Topographic unit analysis: a site classification system for reclaimed mined lands. Catena, 20, 289-301.

Kwabena Antwi, E. R. Krawczynski and G. Wiegleb. 2008. Detecting the effect of disturbance on habitat diversity and land cover change in a post-mining area using GIS. Landscape and Urban Planning, 87, 22-32.

Latzel. V., J. Klimešová, J. Doležal, P. Pyšek, O. Tackenberg and K. Prach. 2011. The association of dispersal and persistence traits of plants with different stages of succession in Central European man-made habitats. Folia Geobotanica, 46, 289-302.

MacFarlane, A.K. 2003. Vegetation Response to Seismic Lines: Edge Effects and On-line Succession. M.Sc. Thesis, Department of Biological Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton. 146 pp.

MacKinnon, A. D. Meidinger and K. Klinka. 1992. Use of the biogeoclimatic ecosystem classification system in British Columbia. The Forestry Chronicle, 68,100-120.

Makineci, E., B.S. Gungor and M. Kumbasli. 2011. Natural plant revegetation on reclaimed coal mine landscapes in Agacli-Istanbul. African Journal of Biotechnology, 10, 16, 3248-3259.

Martínez-Ruiz, C., B. Fernández-Santos, P.D. Putwain and M.J. Fernández-Gómez. 2007. Natural and man-induced revegetation on mining wastes: changes in floristic composition during early succession. Ecological Engineering, 30, 286-294.

References

Martínez-Ruiz, C., and R.H. Marrs. 2007. Some factors affecting successional change on uranium mine wastes: insights for ecological restoration. Applied Vegetation Science, 10, 333-342.

Moreno de las Heras, M., J.M. Nicotau and T. Espigares. 2008. Vegetation succession on reclaimed coal-mining slopes in a Mediterranean-dry environment. Ecological Engineering, 34, 168-178.

Mueggler, W.F. 1988. Aspen Community Types of the Intermountain Region. Report INT-250. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Intermountain Forest Research Station, Fort Collins. 133 pp.

Mueller-Dombois and Ellenberg. 1974. Aims and Methods of Vegetation Ecology. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 547 pp.

Natural Regions Committee. 2006. Natural Regions and Subregions of Alberta. (D.J. Downing and W.W. Pettapiece, Compilers). Publication No. T/852. Government of Alberta, Edmonton. 264 pp.

Natural Resources Canada. 2010. Canadian Forest Ecosystem Classification System (CREC). Frontline Express, Bulletin 38. Canadian Forest Service – Great Lakes Forestry Centre, Thunder Bay. 2 pp.

Nicols, G.E. 1923. A working basis for the ecological classification of plant communities. Ecology, 4, 2. pp. 154-179.

Noble, I.R. and R.O. Slatyer. 1980. The use of vital attributes to predict successional changes in plant communiteis subject to recurrent disturbance. Vegetatio, 43, 5-21.

Novák, J. and K. Prach. 2003. Vegetation succession in basalt quarries: pattern on a landscape scale. Applied Vegetation Science, 6, 111-116.

Oksanen, J., R. Kindt, P. Legendre, R.B. O’Hara, G.L. Simpson and M.H.H. Stevens. 2008. Vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version 1.11-0. http://cran.r-project.org/, http://vegan.r-forge.r-project.org/.

Pausas, J.G. and S. Lavorel. 2003. A hierarchical deductive approach for functional types in disturbed ecosystems. Journal of Vegetation Science, 14, 409-416.

Pojar, J.K., K. Klinka and D.V. Meidinger. 1987. Biogeoclimatic ecosystem classification in British Columbia. Forest Ecology and Management, 22, 119-154.

Ponomarenko, S., and R. Alvo. 2001. Perspectives on Developing a Canadian Classification of Ecological Communities. Canadian Forest Service Information Report ST-X-18E. Canadian Forest Service, Ottawa. 50 pp.

Prach, K. 2003. Spontaneous succession in Central-European man-made habitats: what information can be used in restoration practice? Applied Vegetation Science, 6, 125-129.

Prach, K. and P. Pyšek. 2001. Using spontaneous succession for restoration of human-disturbed habitats: experience from Central Europe. Ecological Engineering, 17, 1, 55-62.


Prach, K., P. Pyšek and B. Marek. 2001. Spontaneous vegetation succession in human-disturbed habitats: a pattern across seres. Applied Vegetation Science, 4, 83-88.

Prach, K., P. Pyšek and P. Šmilauer. 1999. Prediction of vegetation succession on human-disturbed habitats using an expert system. Restoration Ecology, 7, 1, 15-23.

Price, J.S., R.G. McLaren and D.L. Rudolph. 2010. Landscape restoration after oil sands mining: conceptual design and hydrological modelling for fen reconstruction. International Journal of Mining, Reclamation and Environment, 24, 2, 109-123.

Purdy, B.G., Macdonald, S.E. and V.J. Lieffers. 2005. Naturally saline boreal communities as models for reclamation of saline oil sand tailings. Restoration Ecology, 13, 4, 667-677.

Rooney, R.C. and S.E. Bayley. 2011. Relative influence of local- and landscape-level habitat quality on aquatic plant diversity in shallow open-water wetlands in Alberta’s boreal zone: direct and indirect effects. Landscape Ecology, 26, 1023-1034.

Simanová, D. 2008. Vegetation of trampled habitats in the Czech Republic: a formalized phytosociological classification. Phytocoenologia, 38, 3, 177-191.

Sims, R.A., I.G.W. Corns and K. Klinka. 1996. Global to Local: Ecological Land Classification. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. 610 pp.

Smyth, C.R., D.A. Sheppard and D.G. Paton. 2004. Elkview Coal Corporation Land Capability/Productivity and Habitat Suitability Mapping. Prepared for Elkview Coal Corporation by Geotec Mapping Solutions, Myosotis Ecological Consulting and Anatum Ecological Consulting, Blairmore. 404 pp.

Southwood, T.R.E. 1988. Tactics, strategies and templets. Oikos, 52, 3-18.

Strong, W.L. 2000. Vegetation development on reclaimed lands in the Coal Valley Mine of western Alberta, Canada. Canadian Journal of Botany, 78, 110-118.

Sumina, O.I. and S.I. Mironova. 2004. Classification of the vegetation of technogenic landscapes of the Russian far north. Polar Geography, 28, 239-252.

Takeuchi, K. and K. Shimano. 2009. Vegetation succession at the abandoned Ogushi sulphur mine, central Japan. Landscape Ecology and Engineering, 5, 33-44.

Taylor, A.R. and H.Y.H. Chen. 2011. Multiple successional pathways of boreal forest stands in central Canada. Ecography, 34, 208-219.

Tichý, L. 2002. JUICE, software for vegetation classification. Journal of Vegetation Science, 13, 451-453.

Tichý, L., J. Holt and M. Nejezchlebová. 2011. JUICE, A Program for Managing, Analyzing and Classification of Ecological Data. Vegetation Science Group, Masaryk University, Brno. 65 pp.

References

Tischew, S. and A. Lorenz. 2005. Spontaneous development of peri-urban woodlands in lignite mining areas of eastern Germany. Wild Urban Woodlands. (I. Kowarik and S. Körner, Editors). Springer-Verlag Publishers, Berlin. pp. 163-180.

Tischew, S. and A. Kirmer. 2007. Implementation of basic studies in the ecological restoration of surface-mined land. Restoration Ecology, 15, 321-325.

Welham, C. and N. Robinson. 2006. Proposed Criteria and Indicators of Ecosystem Function for Reclaied Oil Sands Sites. Prepared for the Cumulative Environmental Management Association by FORRx Consulting Incorporated, Belcarra. 87 pp.

Westhoff, V. and E. van der Maarel. 1973. The Braun-Blanquet approach. Handbook of Vegetation Science. Part V. Ordination and Classification of Communities. (R.H. Whittaker, Editor). Junk bv. Publisher, The Hague. pp. 617-726.

Wildi, O. 2010. Data Analysis in Vegetation Ecology. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 234 pp.

Wiegleb, G. and B. Felinks. 2001. Predictability of early stages of primary succession in post-mining landscapes of Lower Lusatia, Germany. Applied Vegetation Science, 4, 5-18.

Willoughby, M.G., C. Stone, C. Hincz, D. Moisey, G. Ehlert and D. Lawrence. 2006. Guide to Range Plant Community Types and Carrying Capacity for the Dry and Central Mixedwood Subregions in Alberta. Sixth Approximation. Publication No. T/074. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Public Lands and Forests Division, Edmonton. 254 pp.

REPORT

A-1 2011-8073.000 Literature Review - Land Classification Systems for Disturbed Lands

Appendix A – Guidelines for Article Evaluation

A



Guidelines for CEMA Record Review Literature Source Information

Author: Auto populated from EndNoteTM download source information.

Title: Auto populated from EndNoteTM download source information.

Full Citation: EndnoteTM generated output.

Abstract: Auto populated from EndNoteTM download source information.

Record entered by: Reviewer of document once in the database.

Date record entered: Date reviewer evaluated document.

Date uploaded from EndnoteTM: Date that a record was transferred from EndnoteTM to the database.

Record No.: Database record number. Auto populated based on entry into database from EndnoteTM.

Publication year: Auto populated from EndNoteTM download source information.

Keywords: These are the terms that the electronic data source (scientific databases) that are associated with the exported record. Please note that as not all electronic sources recognize and/or export key terms; thus, this field is not completed for all records. Auto populated from EndNoteTM download source information.

1. Does the document provide relevant information for the development of a classification system for the minable oil sands area (MOSA)?

Document relevancy determined based on abstract, or if unclear read/search pdf. This second document screening (first is the EndnoteTM screening) is to determine if literature may provide information for a MOSA classification system. If no, then no further evaluation of the record was completed; however, if a classification system is created of evaluated, its approach needs to be reviewed before determining “no” to question 1. If yes, paper was reviewed and database fields were populated. The intent was to still show CEMA documents that were initially reviewed but not relevant to defining a future classification system.

2. Disturbance types incorporated in document.

Lists the disturbance types that are evaluated/incorporated into the classification system (i.e., grazing, agriculture, forestry, mining, oil and gas exploration, natural disaster, transportation, urban development, wildfire, wildlife, N/A, all, other).

Comments: describes ‘other’ disturbance types.

3. What type of source information was used in the report?

Outlines the data source information type (i.e., data, GIS spatial database, field observation, N/A, or other).

A - Guidelines for Record Evaluation


Comment: describes ‘other’ selection.

If data, summary of data source: Provides further detail on ‘data’ selection.

If a GIS/spatial database, can they be extrapolated to reclaimed landscapes in the minable oil sands region?

CEMA required information outlining if the framework of the GIS database can be used on reclaimed landscapes found in MOSA.

4. Reference Type.

Primary, Secondary and Subsidiary option defined as the following.

Primary: The authors of the document directly participated in the research presented.

Secondary: The document reviews or compares information originally reported by different authors. Such references include literature reviews, systematic review articles, handbooks, and papers by major scientific associations.

Subsidiary: Are documents that summarize a range of secondary sources (i.e., Encyclopedias, and textbooks.

Classification Information

5. Is a classification system developed or evaluated in the document?

If no, then all subsequent classification based questions were auto filled as N/A (Not Applicable).

6. What is the scale of document classification system or study?

Six scales, as listed in the table below. Document scale provides a comparative tool to see if classification system can be used on a MOSA scale.



km2 Hectares

<1 km2 <100

1-10 km2 100-1,000

10-100 km2 1,000-10,000

100-1000 km2 10,000-100,000

1,00-10,000 km2 100,000-1,000,000

10,000 km2 >1,000,000

N/A Not applicable

Comments: Any notable scale related comments were recorded.

7. Is it known if the classification system is used on any of the following jurisdictional levels?

Answer gives an indication to the acceptance of a classification system to be used as a jurisdictional standard (i.e., provincial, national, international, N/A, unknown).

8. Are there accessibility/copyright concerns with the classification system?

CEMA requirement to see in there were any restrictions in adopting the classification system (whole or part) into future MOSA system (i.e., yes, no, N/A, unknown).

Comments: Notes additional information in regards to copyright accessibility.

9. To what seral stage does the classification scheme apply? Does the classification pertain to vegetation communities or ecosystems?

Identifies the vegetation seral stage to which the classification system applies.

Climax Only: The vegetation that would exist in an area if growth had progressed undisturbed for an extended period, or reached a steady state. This would be the "final" collection of plant types that presumably would remain in perpetuity, or until perturbation.

Seral Direct: Direct observation or measurements of vegetation seral stage or intermediate stage.

Seral Inferred: Seral stage (intermediate stage) is inferred based on various criteria.

A - Guidelines for Record Evaluation


N/A: No classification system developed or evaluated or not based on vegetation classification.

10. Is the classification system applicable to mining in the oils sands region (i.e., is the classification applicable to boreal forest, mining, or wetlands)?

11. What is the classification type?

Ascending typology: Bottom-up approach where the process begins by distinguishing general groups and then proceeds to develop more specific types.

Descending typology: Top-down approach. A study beginning with the individual attributes and builds up to broad groupings. This approach focuses on floristic attributes.

N/A: No classification system developed or evaluated.

12. What is the basis for the classification?

Word / Narrative: Classification system is based on narrative information.

Picture / figure: Classification system is based on pictures or figures that are based on defined change characteristics.

Remote sensing: Model based on inputs acquired from remote sensing.

Statistical model: A formalization of relationships between variables in the form of mathematical equations.

Simulation model: A mathematical model that calculates the impact of uncertain inputs and decisions we make on outcomes.

N/A: No classification system developed or evaluated.

Other: Other type of classification system such as conceptual model.

Comments: Describes ‘other’ type of classification system as a conceptual model.

13. Does the classification system have predictive capabilities?

Answers the question as to whether the model has the ability to predict outcomes based on varying inputs (i.e., yes, no, N/A, or unknown).

14. Can the system be easily applied at different scales or is it dependent on detailed plot-based field data?

15. What inputs where evaluated in the classification system?

Answer lists inputs to classification system (e.g., hydrology, hydrogeology, landforms, soils, vegetation, wildlife, topography, N/A, other).

Comments: Identifies ‘other’ as what other inputs were evaluated.

Document evaluation: Brief description (2-3 sentences) describing the information.



Reviewers brief description of the content and scope of the document. Not written if the article is obviously not applicable to a RCS in the MOSA (question number 1).

REPORT

B-1 2011-8073.000 Literature Review - Land Classification Systems for Disturbed Lands

Appendix B – Database Users Guide

B



The purpose of this memo is to provide the Reclamation Classification System Task Group (RCSTG) with brief procedures to use the Literature Review database. The procedures include the following:

Running pre-designed queries; Sorting and filtering records in the form; and Creating/modifying simple queries.

Following our September 12, 2011 discussion regarding the three different versions (i.e., 2003, 2007, and 2010) of Microsoft (MS) Access that the Task Group members are working with, we decided to remove the switchboard for this release. Removing the switchboard enables users to use the same database file no matter which version of MS-Access they have installed on their computers. Furthermore, as the switch board’s main function was to assist in the development stage, its removal does not affect or limit the database’s functionality or value. If at a later date it is decided that it should be included, we will send instructions on how to enable the macros for each separate version of MS-Access. In relation to the various versions, you will see that the figures throughout this document have been generated from Microsoft 2003; however, any variations in procedures that are applicable to MS-Access 2007 and 2010 users are explained within the text. We do not foresee any version issues arising, as I have tested the released database on all three versions. Please note that the released database is static; there is no linkage between the released database and the master database. Therefore, any changes (to the database or the individual records) made after the release date will not be present in the other version. In addition, changes made in your database file are permanent (i.e., there is no “Save As” function in MS-Access). Running Pre-designed Queries

The most common type of query is a select query. A select query retrieves data from one or more tables by using specified criteria and displays the data in a desired order (e.g., ascending order based on a data value). Although other types of queries exist, they should be used only by very experienced database users, as they can permanently alter or delete information in the database. For this reason, only select queries have been described in this memo. That said, I have included instruction on how to edit or create new select queries (please see the following – 3). To run the pre-designed queries: 1. Under Objects (on the left-hand side of the Database window), click Queries. For MS-Access

2007 and 2010, click the dropdown arrow on the left-hand side of the screen (in the Navigation Pane) and select Queries. The names of the pre-designed queries will be displayed in the Database window.

B - Database Users Guide


2. Double click on the pre-designed query of interest to view the results.

Sorting and Filtering Records in the Form

Forms in a database can be used for data entry and also are an easy way to view, filter and sort the records. This database currently only has one form. To open it, look under Objects (on the left-hand side of the Database window), then click Forms. For MS-Access 2007 and 2010, click the dropdown arrow on the left-hand side of the screen (in the Navigation Pane) and select Forms. Double click ENTER RECORDS HERE.

SORTING

Once open, you can sort any of the fields by clicking your mouse in the desired field, then at the top toolbar click Records – Sort, and choose Sort Ascending or Sort Descending. The records will remain sorted until another user sorts differently, so to apply sorting of multiple fields, sort your desired fields one field at a time.



FILTERING

This feature could be used in combination with the pre-designed queries to further review a “group” of data (e.g., all records with <1 km2-scale, or furthermore all primary records at that scale, etc.). As above, to filter out data, click your mouse in the desired field, and click Records – Filter – Filter by Form. The form will come up blank and then you would type in whatever you want to use to filter the database. Selection of multiple fields is permitted. Once you have entered the fields to search by, click the Apply Filter button (funnel icon as shown below) to view the results. The * (asterisk) is a wildcard symbol and can be used to search for partial words (e.g., *eco* would find ‘ecosystem’ and ‘ecological’).

Creating/Modifying Simple Queries

The following instructions outline the basic steps required to create/modify a select query, in query Design View.

1. Under Objects (on the left-hand side of the Database window), click Queries. 2. To create a new query, Click New (top of the Database window). To modify an existing

query, highlight the query of interest and click Design. 3. In the New Query window select Design View, then OK. 4. This database has all data in one table. In the Show Table window, select the

ptbl_INFO_DB table, then Add and then Close. Note: If you accidentally close the ‘Show Table’ window, you may bring it back by choosing the ‘Query’ menu, and choosing ‘Show Table…’

5. The query is completed by filling in the design grid, as follows: a. To add a field to the design grid, drag the field from the field list to a column in the

design grid, or double-click the field name in the field list (to remove a field from the

B - Database Users Guide


design grid, click the column selector to highlight the column, and then press the Delete key);

b. To sort records in the query results, click in the Sort cell for the field you want to sort, click the arrow, and then select a sort order from the drop-down list (e.g., ascending); and

c. To limit the records that you see in the query’s results, specify criteria in the Criteria row for one or more fields (e.g., to include only primary enter “*primary*”). As above, note that the * (asterisk) is a wildcard symbol and can be used to search for partial words.

View the results of the query by clicking the Run button (exclamation mark icon) on the toolbar, or select Datasheet View from the View menu.

If you have questions or additional querying requests, please call (250-545-3672 extension 236) or email [email protected]. For more information on queries you can also refer to the MS Office Access Help under the Help menu.

REPORT

C-1 2011-8073.000 Literature Review - Land Classification Systems for Disturbed Lands

Appendix C – Summary of Relevant Classification Systems

C


Table C-1 Summary of Strongly Applicable Articles and Associated Key Words

Keyword Group Article Study

Approach

Biome Category

classification

disturbance type

ecological/ecosystem

geomorphology

hydrology/hydrogeology

land/landscape/land use

modeling

monitoring

oil sands/tar sands/SAG

D

pedogenesis/pedometrics

reclamation/restoration

succession

terrain/landform/topography

Alday et al. (2011) empirical MSh 2,6,11

Anand and Desrochers

(2004) review NA 2

Bastian (2000) modeling MBME 2,6

Cooke (1999) review NA 2,4,6,11

Devito et al. (2005) empirical/

modeling NF/MF 4,7

Down (1973) empirical MBME 1,2,6,11

GDC (2006) empirical NF/MF 1,2,4,6,11,12

Gibson et al. (1985) empirical MGr 1,2,6

Grant (2006) empirical/

modeling TrS 1,2,4,6,11

Grant (2009) empirical/

modeling TrS 1,2,4,11

Guo et al. (2009) empirical TrSF 1,2,6,11

Hendrychová (2008) empirical MB/ME 2,4,6,11


Article Study

Approach

Biome Category Keyword Group

classification

disturbance type


geomorphology



modeling

monitoring

oil sands/tar sands/SAG

D



succession


Holl and Cairns (1994) empirical MBME 1,2,6,11

Johnson and Miyanishi

(2008) review NF/MF 2,4,6

Krabbenhoft et al. (1993) empirical MGr 1,2,6

Kwabena Antwi et al.

(2008)

empirical/

modeling NF/MF 2,4,6

MacFarlane (2003) empirical NF/MF 2,3

Makineci et al. (2011) empirical MSh 1,2,6

Martínez-Ruiz and Marrs

(2007) empirical MSh 1,2,6

Martínez-Ruiz et al. (2007) empirical MSh 1,2,6,11

Moreno de las Heras et al.

(2008) empirical MSh 2,6

Novák and Prach (2003) empirical MBME 1,2,6,11

Prach et al. (1999) expert modeling MBME 1,2,6,11

Prach et al. (2001) expert modeling MBME 1,2,4,11


Article Study

Approach

Biome Category Keyword Group

classification

disturbance type


geomorphology



modeling

monitoring

oil sands/tar sands/SA

GD



succession


Price et al. (2010) empirical/

modeling NF/MF 4,6

Purdy et al. (2005) empirical NF/MF 2,3,4

Rooney and Bayley

(2011) empirical NF/MF 2,4

Simonová (2008) empirical NF/MF 1,2,6,11

Smyth et al. (2004) empirical/

modeling NF/MF 1,2,6,11

Strong (2000) empirical NF/MF 1,2,6,11

Sumina (1994) empirical AAT 1,2,6,11

Sumina and Mironova

(2004) review AAT 1,2,11

Takeuchi and Shimano

(2009) empirical NF/MF 1,2,6,11

Taylor and Chen (2011) empirical NF/MF 2,5

Tischew and Kirmer

(2007) empirical NF/MF 1,6

Tischew and Lorenz

(2005) empirical NF/MF 1,2,6,11

Wiegleb and Felinks empirical NF/MF 1,2


(2001)

Willoughby et al. (2006) empirical NF/MF 1,2,4,7,8,11

Categories:

1. Classification system is developed or evaluated.

2. The classification system considers disturbances.

3. The classification system considers mining and/or oil and gas disturbance.

4. Hydrogeology and/or hydrology are considered and can be correlated to the boreal region.

5. Modeling has predictive capabilities.

6. Terrain (local- and regional-scales) and surficial materials considered (soils).

7. Is adaptable to various scales.

8. Bottom-up hierarchical approach that is ecosystem-based.

9. Top-down hierarchical approach that is ecosystem-based.

10. Is a combination of a bottom-up and top-down approach.

11. Classifies seral and climax ecosystems.

12. Classification is robust enough to deal with upland and wetlands.

Biome key: AAT – arctic tundra, MBME – mid-latitude broadleaf and mixed forest, MSh – Mediterranean shrub land, NF/MF – needleleaf / montane forest, TrSF – tropical seasonal forest and scrub.

REPORT

D-1 2011-8073.000 Literature Review - Land Classification Systems for Disturbed Lands

Appendix D – Contact Tracking List

D

D-1 2011-8073.000 Literature Review - Land Classification Systems for Disturbed Lands

CEMA Literature Review - Record Keeping

Information Type SubjectRecord details

Outcome Follow-up

1 11-May-11 MP ASSMR United States personal communication mining, reclamation reclaimed mine classification

website:http://www.asmr.us/, Phone: 859 351-9032 | Fax: 859 335-6529; email: [email protected] (Dr.

Richard Barnhisel)

Connected on the second try. noClint followed up - Dr. Barnhisel indicated he

was not aware of a classification. -

2 16-May-11 MP University of Saskatchewan Saskatchewan personal communication restoration ecology reclaimed mine classification (306) 966-4966, [email protected] Contacted twice, recommended

from others three times - no response.

no - -

3 6-Jun-11 MP

Faculty member in the Department of Biological Sciences in the School of

Sustainable Building and Environmental Management at NAIT; Boreal Conservation

Program (ALPAC and DUC)

Alberta personal communication classification, wetland wetland classification for boreal Silvie Forest; [email protected]: (780-378-2806

Contacted three times - no response.

no - -

4 24-May-11 MP Michigan United States personal communication hydrology, hydrogeology experience with hydrological modellingFrank Breen through the Intota

network (www.intota.com)

No knowledge of a mine-specific disturbance ecological

classification.no - no

5 31-May-11 MP Frankfurt, Austria Europe primary reference disturbance classification general theory, site potential and disturbanceFound at:

http://www.sandachse.de/Materialien/Dissertation-Jentsch-2001-v1.pdf

No knowledge of a mine-specific disturbance ecological

classification.yes - no

6 31-May-11 MP Lakehead University Ontario primary reference disturbance, management landscape located at:

http://flash.lakeheadu.ca/~fluckai/Harvey.pdf

Review unknown - no

7 31-May-11 MPUniversity of Alberta, Department of

Renewable Resources Alberta personal communication disturbance, boreal below-ground dynamics

Renewable Resources221 Human Ecology Building

(780) [email protected]

Research not considered relevant to ecological

classification of reclaimed mines.

no - no

8 1-Jun-11 PH Meidinger Ecological Consultants Ltd.British

Columbia primary reference n/a classification systems [email protected] Contacted twice; no response. no - -

9 6-Jun-11 MPDepartment of Crop and Soil

Environmental Sciences (CSES), Virginia Tech

United States

Physical and Chemical Soil Properties of Ten Virginia

Department of Transportation (VDOT) Mitigation Wetlands

wetland, reclamation to evaluate the relative edaphic potential of mitigation s ite soils.

http://www.cses.vt.edu/revegetation/Papers%20PDF/G%20Fajardo%20M

S%203-06sm.pdf, found through: http://www.cses.vt.edu/revegetation/

wetlandrest.html

Thesis available. yes - no

10 6-Jun-11 MP C & S Companies, Syracuse NY United StatesMid-Atlantic Hydraulic Soils

Committee wetland, reclamation hydric soils classification Amanda Atwell ([email protected]) Contacted twice - no response. no - -

11 6-Jun-11 MP Aurora NY United StatesMid-Atlantic Hydraulic Soils

Committee wetland, reclamation hydric soils classification Steve Carlisle ([email protected])Replied with additional

contacts. no - -

12 6-Jun-11 MPUSDA-NRCS Resource Soil Scientist,

Leesport PA United StatesMid-Atlantic Hydraulic Soils

Committee wetland, reclamation hydric soils classification John D. Chibirka ([email protected])Contacted three times - no

response. no - -

13 6-Jun-11 MPUS Dept. of Agriculture - Natural Resources Conservation Service,

Smithfield, VAUnited States

Mid-Atlantic Hydraulic Soils Committee wetland, reclamation hydric soils classification Greg Hammer ([email protected])Contacted twice - no response. no - -

14 9-Jun-11 MP Soil Scientist Professor, Virginia Technological University United States academic reclamation, mining soils, reclamation [email protected]

Can speak to the classification of the mine soils, but not to ecological classification of

reclaimed mines.

no - no

15 9-Jun-11 MP Professor Emeritus, UMD United States academic wetland, reclamation acid sulfate soils [email protected] Replied with additional contacts noContact: [email protected];

[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

no

16 9-Jun-11 MP Soil Scientist, USDA-NRCS West Virginia United States research reclamation, mining soils, reclamation [email protected]

In the eastern US they are just now beginning to develop

ecological classifications so there are none developed for mine lands that he knows of. However, in the western US

they have had these descriptions for a long time and may have some related to your

needs. May want to seek assistance from states like

Wyoming.

no - no

17 9-Jun-11 MPChairholder of the Industrial Research

Chair in Peatland Management, University of Laval

Quebec research Boreal, wetland reclamation wetland reclamation, peatlands

[email protected]; http://www.gret-perg.ulaval.ca/equipe-gret0.html?&L=1%252520%25252Findex.php%25253Fid%25253D&tx_centrerecherche_pi1[showUid]=399&cHash=b9db3d64065b4f60d7275b3d2

686d6d4

look at the USA (US Corps of Engineers – Wetlands section)

and England no - No

18 9-Jun-11 CRS Virginia Tech Virginia research, ecological classificationmine reclamation, ecological

classificationtopography, succession, ecological classification of

mining disturbances [email protected] knowledge of a mine-

specific disturbance ecological classification

- -

19 9-Jun-11 CRSDepartment of Geography, Peking

University China research, ecological classificationmine reclamation, ecological


mining disturbances [email protected] three times; no

response. no - -

20 12-Jun-11 CRS British Land Reclamation Society Wales research, ecological classificationmine reclamation, ecological


mining disturbances [email protected] knowledge of a mine-

specific disturbance ecological classification

no - -

21 12-Jun-11 CRS Colorado State University Colorado research, ecological classification mine reclamation, ecological classification

topography, succession, ecological classification of mining disturbances

[email protected] knowledge of a mine-

specific disturbance ecological classification.

no - -

22 15-Jun-11 CRSDepartment of Botany, Faculty of

Biological Sciences, University of eské Bud jovice

Czech Republic research, ecological classificationmine reclamation, ecological


mining disturbances [email protected] clssifications but no formal embedded classification. yes - -

236/20/2011

and 9/20/2011

MPUniversity of Alberta, Professor of

Ecology, Land Reclamation, Revegetation, Restoration Ecology

Alberta researchmine reclamation, ecological


mining disturbances

Telephone (780) 492-9539 Fax: (780) 492-4323

E-mail: [email protected]

Soils knowledge but nt aware of any mine-specific disturbance

ecological classification.no - -

24 20-Jun-11 MP Princeton Hydro Ontario restoration mining, reclamation '[email protected]' Contacted twice - no response. no - -

25 6-Jul-11 MPUniversity of Alberta, thesis on carex

established on reclaimed oil sand landscapes, Suncor

Alberta reclamation reclamation, oil sands revegetation, reclamationPatricia Marlowe,

[email protected] Contacted twice - no response. no - -

26 20-Jul-11 MPUniversity of Calgary, ecology and

terrestrial communities and ecosystems Alberta research, fire ecology, disturbance disturbance, succession disturbance ecology [email protected] Contacted twice - no response. no - -

27 26-Aug-11 MP University of Southern IIlinois Illinois research wetlands wetland drainage [email protected] aware of any mining-specific formal ecological

classification.no - -

28 15-Sep-11 CRS Laurentian University, CLRA Ontario research, ecological classificationmine reclamation, ecological


mining disturbances [email protected] aware of any mining-specific formal ecological

classification.yes - -

29 16-Sep-11 CRS Helmholtz-Zentrum Potsdam Germany research, ecological classificationmine reclamation, ecological


mining disturbances [email protected] responded yesProvided contact information for Frank Messner. -

30 17-Sep-11 CRSHelmholtz-Zentrum für Umweltforschung-

UFZ, Leipzig Germany research, ecological classificationmine reclamation, ecological


mining disturbances [email protected] responded yesProvided some information but primarily aquatic. yes

Record Number Date

Record Entry

(staff initials)Contact Location / Affiliatiom

Geographic Location

Include in Literature Review?

Who, when, what record number shows follow up?

No further investigation

Send Deliverabledata, primary reference, secondary

referene, GIS/spatial database, subsidiary reference, personal

communication

Keywords UsedClimate, bedrock geology, surficial geology, soil type and depth, topography and drainage network

Contact information, search details, web address

discussion details, document synopsis

CUMULATIVE ENVIRONME MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION...

Documents

Transcript of CUMULATIVE ENVIRONME MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION...