Researchers seek $117,000 to improve peatland revegetation methods; LCCMR does not award emergency funds

University of Minnesota researcher Chris Linhardt presented a proposal to the Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources on June 11 asking for $117,000 from the emerging-issues account to upgrade an experimental peatland mesocosm facility on the Saint Paul campus. The project would test water chemistry, water-level and vegetation strategies intended to improve revegetation success on peatland restorations in northern Minnesota.

Linhardt, a research professor in Bioproducts and Biosystems Engineering who also works with The Nature Conservancy in Minnesota, told commissioners peatland restoration is increasingly pursued for carbon storage, water storage and habitat benefits but that many impoundment restoration sites fail to revegetate with sphagnum moss and other peatland species. He proposed buying equipment and supplies and funding a graduate student for 18 months to run controlled mesocosm tests of pH control, water-level management and planting approaches; he said results would be shared in near-real-time with ongoing restoration projects north of the Red Lake area so design choices could be informed now.

Staff described the request as time-sensitive because many restoration projects are entering design and construction phases over the next several years. Linhardt said Saint Paul tap water has a relatively high pH (above 8) and the mesocosm requires acidic conditions (pH ~5) more typical of bog rainfall; proposed work would test water-harvest and treatment approaches, vegetation mixes and water-level regimes.

Representative Emma Lillie moved a recommendation to fund the request for $117,000, but the motion failed in a roll call: yes 4, no 11. Commissioners who opposed the emergency appropriation cited prioritization of the emerging-issues account for unexpected urgent events and suggested peatland restoration research may be more appropriate for the regular competitive RFP or other grant programs. Supporters said the project would directly inform imminent and numerous restoration projects, improving carbon and hydrologic outcomes.

Ending: The LCCMR did not recommend the emerging-issue appropriation. Research proponents said the facility work remains an identified need and they will pursue other funding opportunities and collaborations with DNR, Fish and Wildlife Service and The Nature Conservancy.