Page 1



Foothills Landscape Management Forum (FLMF) Date: Oct 4, 2011

Foothills Landscape Management Forum: “Berland Smoky Regional Access Development (RAD)Plan” Oct 4, 2011

Foothills Landscape Management Forum (FLMF)

FLMF planning area:

RAD plan • Outline: • FLMF background and business case for industry • RAD plan background • RAD plan process and findings • Recommendations • Commitments • Next steps.

BACKGROUND: CURRENT APPROACH FOR NATURAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT • Government allocates or sells the resources to meet economic goals; • Industry negotiates Post-disposition access to the resource with government departments; • Government sets conditions and standards on industry for mitigation other values; • Industry complies with standards

The Challenge: The current approach is uncertain and unpredictable • • • • •

Uncertain access Hard to predict costs Increasing risk Shifting social values Market access uncertain/environmental performance has an effect on global market access

“Meeting the Challenge” • Over the past 6 years the FLMF membership provided has provided leadership to:  Increase certainty  Demonstrate good stewardship  Maintain good data sets  Influence change  Be effective in mitigation

Step one


IIAP 2006 2008 IL 200805 Primary road plan: primarily location of corridors

Step two RAD plan 20092011 secondary corridors, mitigation, targets, and thresholds: improved certainty

Step three Foothills Land Stewardship Project: 2011- 2105 implementation of management

RAD plan Background • In June, 2009, a Terms of Reference approved Berland Smoky Regional Access Development (RAD) Plan. • Identified “Access Corridor Routing” over the next 30 years. • Identified recommendations to address a range of implementation considerations, plan amendment processes, metrics for reporting, and next steps to address reclamation/remediation


RAD plan unique features • Partnership lead by government • Independent management/support provided by FRI • Includes mitigation recommendations • Independent data management • Primary and secondary access needs • Monitoring to targets

Planning steps • • • •

• • • • •

Step 1 Initial Planning and Setup (scope) Step 2 Data Management Step 3 Outreach and Communication (who when) Step 4 Design of an Access Plan (forestry, energy projections, integrate) Step 5 Plan Assessment (footprint, open route density) Step 6 Risk Assessment (impacts, location) Step 7 Mitigation (effectiveness, restoration) Step 8 Monitoring & reporting (targets) Step 9 Funding and Administration

Status •

Planning is complete August 2011 and ASRD is doing an internal review

Results Open Route Density Target: •

maintain the open route density targets for grizzly bear management including within ±10% of current values

“Open routes”: any existing road, trail or right of way (ROW) that permits motorized access for a 4x4 highway vehicle during summer conditions. All EAP Class I-IV roads and some known traveled pipelines and seismic lines were included Circa May 2011.

Open route densities-No mitigation applied Table 1.

Comparison of Baseline Open Route Density to Proposed RAD Corridors by Core GBWU

Core GBWU G32 G38 G39 G43 G44 G46 Table 2.

Open Route Density (km/km2) Baseline

Baseline + New Corridors

0.29 0.21 0.43 0.02 0.47 0.13

0.41 0.42 0.40 0.32 0.49 0.16

Meets Grizzly Bear Recovery Thresholds (0.6 km/km2)

+41% +100% -7% +1500% +4% +23%

no no yes no yes no

yes yes yes yes yes yes

Comparison of Baseline Open Route Density to Proposed RAD Corridors by Secondary GBWU

Secondary GBWU

Open Route Density (km/km2) Baseline

G15 G20 G22 G30 G36

% Change

Meets SRD target (yes/no)

0.55 0.35 0.33 0.46 0.73

Baseline + New Corridors 0.61 0.51 0.41 0.53 0.77

% Change

Meets SRD target (yes/no)

Meets Grizzly Bear Recovery Thresholds (1.2 km/km2)

+11% +46% +24% +15% +5%

no no no no yes

yes yes yes yes yes

Findings: • The proposed target is of limited value because the current state of access development in each GBWU is not uniform. • It is easy to meet the target in GBWUs with high existing access which will have a higher allowance for more access.

• Conversely it takes little new development in GBWU with low existing access to exceed the target. These are the areas that need the most additional access to support new development. • Mitigation measures could be used to reduce open route density to zero. – – – –

timing of road construction reclamation road deactivation Legislated public use closures

Grizzly bear draft recovery threshold's 0.6 km/km2


Anthropogenic Footprint Target • reduce the percentage of the area within 250 meters of anthropogenic disturbance by 15% from current values.

Results 250m Buffer EAP Road Class I

Description All weather road - Paved Gravel road – 30-40 meter ROW all weather Gravel road – 20-30 meter ROW lane, all weather


Sub-total EAP Class I and II roads III IV V n/a n/a n/a

All weather or dry 15-20 meter ROW


Low grade 15m ROW frozen or dry Winter Road Reclaimed Trail Deactivated Road Rehabilitated Road Sub-total Other Roads Unclassified ROW Pipeline ROW Transmission Line ROW Reclaimed historic ROW Railway ROW Sub-total Other ROW Historic > 5m wide seismic


Rehabilitated > 5m wide seismic lines

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Sub-total Historic Seismic lines > 5m wide Total

Total net change

Baseline (ha)

New roads (ha)

Total (ha)

% Change

















Rehabilitated Area (ha)

44,744 7,951 54,393 1,496 3,278 4,451 107,088 292 154,018 3,624

842 5,690 163,624 653,338 -28%


653,338 1,027,646

Total Area Considered Rehabilitated A) B) Existing + C) Existing + Baseline/ new new - reclaimed Existing





C/A=Net change % 13.4%

2010 Seismic line Inventory Results Index


% of total


6647 km





Reclaimed 3159 km


28% (used in RAD plan) 11,277 km 100%


Reclaimed defined : prohibits access by ATV’s and 2) discourages any deciduous browse species from growing in the understory. Source Kirby Smith Fish and Wildlife, Edson.

Findings • Areas of influence (buffering) on differing intensities of disturbance should be different (i.e., an active road versus an old seismic line), but the area of influence is difficult to assess and verify. • The area of influence is subject to double counting making footprint modelling challenging. • The area of influence blankets the entire landscape, so additional footprint creates no net increase. • Need to reduce skewing of “area of influence”.

Next steps • Approval of the RAD plan • Apply mitigation if necessary: e.g. Public access controls (legislation); reclamation plan; monitor and report • Adopt step 3: Foothills Land Stewardship Project (FLSP)

The RAD is a step towards “Foothills Land Stewardship Project” • A formal public-private partnership between FLMF and GOA • Support LUF through – FLMF lead: habitat (vegetation) and footprint – GOA lead: wildlife populations and people

• Working together we can – Achieve more than either can do alone – Reallocate resources to be more effective and efficient thereby reducing risk – Increase certainty



Flmf 2011 10 prsnttn fri agm flmfmeetingthechallenge  
Flmf 2011 10 prsnttn fri agm flmfmeetingthechallenge