adm 2008 04 wrkpln annualworkplan2008 2009vol2detailedworkplan

Foothills Research Institute (Formally Foothills Model Forest)

Annual Work Plan April 1, 2008 – March 31, 2009

Volume II Detailed Work Plan

Table of Contents

Program Code Program Title Page #

100 Geographic Information Systems.............................. 1 128 Natural Disturbance Program ................................. 11 131 Aboriginal Involvement Program............................. 41 150 Fish and Watershed Program ................................. 47 150.3 Foothills Stream Crossing Program ......................... 59 202.1 Caribou Landscape Management Association ........... 69 204 Grizzly Bear Research Program............................... 97 224 Social Science Program.........................................119 235 Foothills Growth and Yield Association ...................121 246 Mountain Pine Beetle Ecology Program ..................141 300 Communications and Extension Program................151 401 Administration .....................................................169 612 Adaptive Forest Management ................................173

- 1 -

Foothills Research Institute Annual Work Plan 2008/2009 (Formally Foothills Model Forest -FtMF)

100 - Geographic Information Systems (GIS)

1. Prepared by:

Debbie Mucha, GIS/LLI Coordinator Foothills Research Institute Box 6330 Hinton, AB T7V 1X6 Ph (780) 865-8290 Fax: (780) 865-8331 Email: [email protected]

2. Sign off Sheet Currently the GIS Program’s Activity Team consists of program leads from program areas that require GIS and data management support. Signed approvals will be obtained when the work plan is reviewed and approved by program leads. ________________________________ Aboriginal Involvement – Brad Young

________________________________ Adaptive Forest Management- Bob Udell

________________________________ Caribou Landscape Management Association (CLMA) – WayneThorp

________________________________ Communications and Extension – Lisa Jones

________________________________ Fish and Watershed Program – Rich McCleary

________________________________ Foothills Growth and Yield Association (FGYA) – Bob Udell

________________________________ Grizzly Bear Program – Gordon Stenhouse

________________________________ Jasper National Park (JNP) – Helen Purves

________________________________ Local Level Indicators (LLI) – Mark Storie

________________________________ Natural Disturbance – Dave Andison

________________________________ Social Science Program – Bill White

________________________________ Stream Crossing Association – Jerry Bauer

________________________________ Mountain Pine Beetle Fire Ecology – Don Podlubny 3. Executive Summary The Foothills Research Institute’s (FRI) GIS Program provides an exceptional level of GIS, GPS, and data management support services for FRI program areas. At the time of writing this work plan, the terms of reference for a formal activity team for the GIS Program is being set-up. This document describes background information, program objectives, budget requirements, GIS time allocation, risks, and staff retention. At FRI, the demand for GIS and associated data management services has increased greatly through Phase III. As the organization flows into the new business cycle, growth and demand for GIS and associated technologies has continued. GIS technology is also evolving at an unprecedented rate. Time needs to be committed in researching, planning, and evaluating GIS technology, software, and hardware. This investment in time is critical in order to plan for a GIS architecture that will meet the future needs and objectives of the FRI. An emphasis will be placed on efficient data sharing, and online Internet mapping technologies and efficient data management.

- 2 -

4. Introduction/Background Information

The FRI GIS has been in place to support FRI projects and promote the application of GIS since the first year of Phase 1 in 1992. Currently, the primary role of the GIS Program is to provide GIS, Global Positioning Systems (GPS), and data management support for the on-going projects undertaken by the Foothills Research Institute (FRI). This role will continue into the next business cycle of the FRI, which begins in April 2007. Debbie Mucha replaced Christian Weik, former GIS Coordinator in July 2006. It should also be noted that the GIS Coordinator has also been coordinating the Local Level Indicators Program (LLI). Julie Duval is working full-time as a GIS Specialist. Heather Daw started working part-time as a FRI GIS Specialist October 1st of this year. One new addition to the first year of the new business cycle will be scheduling time to investigate new and emerging GIS technologies in order to better position the FRI GIS Program into the future. A strong emphasis will be placed on data sharing between FRI Program Areas. Collaborative data sharing will also be a goal for data sharing with partners and other organizations. All FRI Programs will be encouraged to complete metadata for their spatial data holdings and to actively participate in creating a spatial data inventory for the FRI as requested by the Program Implementation Team. A Five Year Business Plan has been completed for the GIS Program and this plan will be updated through time as the program evolves. The GIS Program links to the Foothills Research Institute Business Strategy (2007-2012) through the program theme for data, information, and knowledge management. The main areas of focus for this program theme are a web-based data management program and innovative applications and tools for resource management. The GIS Program contributes to sustainable resource management by providing migrating data into sound information that can then be used to make powerful decisions by land and resource managers across the FRI’s landbase. 5. Program Objectives

The primary role of the GIS Program is to support the on-going projects of the FRI. Most project objectives and deliverables are directly linked to support for priority projects by other programs in the Research Institute. Exceptions are general GIS program management and the upcoming Geoconnections user needs assessment project and potential Internet mapping project.

Aboriginal Involvement - Brad Young (1 day /quarter)

• Aboriginal Involvement Program (AIP) currently has a part-time GIS /data management technician position that will be dedicated to the AIP. The AIP GIS technician will be involved in monthly GIS program meetings for inter-technology / knowledge transfer for FRI GIS. The GIS Technician will report to the AIP Program Lead. At the time of this writing no GIS support is required from the GIS Program

Adaptive Forest Management - Bob Udell (7 days /quarter)

• Map(s) for future books (may include editing/updating of existing maps and/or new mapping products) – “A Human and Ecological Guide to the Highway 16 Corridor”

• Forest history database (would include interviews, photos, site information, and ecotour information).

Caribou Landscape Management Association (CLMA) - Wayne Thorp (10 days /quarter)

• Attend CLMA meetings in Edmonton (when required) • Assist CLMA half-time position with GIS support, learning, and mapping • Management and maintenance of CLMA Geodatabase and associated spatial data • Maintain ArcIMS website and map projects • Assist with LTAP report due September 30, 2008 (GIS analysis, figures etc.)

- 3 -

Communications and Extension – Lisa Jones (2 days /quarter) • Environmental education – GIS Based Activities: This may include events such as GIS Day or

other related GIS/GPS educational events • Mapping products – creation of maps for reports and communication products • Joint proposals – collaborative funding proposals

Fish and Watershed Program – Rich McCleary (12 days/quarter)

• Managing data acquisition and dispersement for Riparian Research Project including LIDAR analysis within 4 pilot areas

• Develop procedure for completing LIDAR terrain analysis • Gain proficiency with use of NetMap program • Database development and support for Riparian Research Project • Updates to Fish Inventory Database to ensure efficient data collection and report production • Complete submission to FMIS • Development of watershed network query tools • Assistance with tech transfer sessions for fish probability model • General data management support (ongoing) • General mapping support/training as required

Foothills Growth and Yield Association (FGYA) – Bob Udell (5 days/quarter, Note: the FGYA is investigating other options for housing the database, this would reduce the number of days required so 5 days/quarter would likely be an overestimate)

• FGYA database maintenance (master database in SQL Server • FGYA database data contractor loading (TBD) • FGYA database queries and reporting • General data management • Mapping products

GIS Program – Debbie Mucha (10 +/- days per month, also includes GIS Specialists) GIS Vision – technology, software, and hardware scooping, investigation, and evaluation (through learning, training, conferences, seminars)

• Budgeting • Communications including phone calls, emails, and meetings • GIS and database software maintenance and licensing • Funding proposals and partnership building • Equipment and hardware management including computer and plotter management • Maintain updated data holdings and metadata for the GIS Program • FRI tape backups (provide tapes to I.T. for weekly/monthly/yearly backups) • GIS protocol and procedures document • Formation of internal and external data sharing polices for the FRI • Special Project for 2008/2009: Geoconnections User Needs Assessment project (April to August

2008) and potential Regional Atlas proposal and project (August 2008 to August 2009) • Special Project for 2008 (requested by the FRI Program Implementation Team): Spatial data

inventory catalogue for the FRI (in collaboration will all program areas – projected completion date – September 2008)

Grizzly Bear Program – Gord Stenhouse (18 days/quarter)

• Database management: loading data into the database, structural upgrades, maintenance • Evaluation of new technology: A new data management system for provincial grizzly bear data -

web based? • Redefine and redesign the grizzly bear database to be a more global (data for all Alberta) and

easily accessed by partners and researchers with defined limited access. This project would tie-in our efforts to have data and databases available on our Internet site.

- 4 -

• Providing support to Andrew Hunter who is collecting imagery from all the cameras attached to collars

• Provide support for GPS collar data management (scripts, tools, general support) • Providing general GIS and database support to staff and research students • Maintaining/updating the health data from Marc Cattett (data comes in 1-3 times per year) • Providing support to Karen Graham for her 'roads' paper

Jasper National Park (JNP) – Helen Purves (2 days per quarter)

• As needed basis for JNP Project support or training Local Level Indicators (LLI) Program – Debbie Mucha / Mark Storie (3 days per quarter)

• At the time of this writing the future of the LLI program is unknown, 3 days per quarter is estimated for workshops, follow-up, and webpage maintenance

Misc. Requests – All program areas and beyond (4 days/quarter)

• Time budgeted for emergency/unexpected requests for GIS/GPS/data management • Whirlpool mapping project for Peter Murphy

Mountain Pine Beetle Fire Ecology Program – Don Podlubny (2.5 days /quarter)

• Tasks to be determined once the program is set-up

Natural Disturbance – Dave Andison (12 days per quarter) • NRV course. May need to develop some more examples for students. • LWD project seems self-sufficient mostly, but may ask for some assistance. Hwy40 caribou

project data management • NEPTUNE – potential online delivery of NEPTUNE • Wildfire pattern study - contract to Greenlink to compile a spatial dataset, but they should be

completely independent next year. Note that within the next year or two though that the FRI will be the keeper of a natural wildfire database that covers most of western Canada. Data sharing, marketing, etc.

• General program support - map updates and overlaps from other program areas or the most recent layers of existing data for presentations and "camera ready" stuff for publications

Social Science Program – Bill White (3 days – 4th quarter, Note: funding dependant)

• Mapping of census data

Stream Crossing Association – Jerry Bauer (5 days/quarter, Note: If the online database project goes ahead and is worked on in-house by FRI staff, and extra 20 days support may be required. At the time of this writing this project is uncertain).

• Updating/streamlining of queries for Stream Crossing Report (Deadline: Nov 15, 2008) • Updates to Stream Crossing database as required • Data logger support • Online database technology investigation • General data management • Extension and training services for data collection and management • General mapping support

6. Objectives and Deliverables for Communications and Extension

The Communications and Extension Plan for GIS is not completed. This plan was started this summer by the GIS intern and is in Draft format. Updates and completion of the plan is scheduled for Spring 2008.

- 5 -

Deliverables currently planned for 2008 that have extension or communication aspects include:

• GIS Day: Schedule dependent, we will participate in GIS Day. GIS Day is an international event where users of geographic information systems (GIS) demonstrate real-world applications that are making a difference in our society. Some examples of events include corporate open houses, hands-on workshops, GIS demonstrations, school assemblies, and more.

• Environmental Education – GIS Based Activities: Participate in GIS / GPS Environmental Education Activities. For example, the JNP Stewardship Program.

• Website Improvement: Collaborate with Communications for the website redevelopment and focus on the improvement of the GIS and LLI sections of the FRI website.

• Bulletins: minimum of 1 Quicknotes providing summaries of program activities and updates. • Internet Mapping: The Geoconnections proposal for a User Needs Analysis for a Regional Atlas

will require communications and extension support if the proposal is accepted.

7. Inter Program Links Because the main role of the GIS program is supporting FRI Program areas, the GIS Program will be working collaboratively with all program areas listed under Section 5 – Program Objectives. At the time of this writing, the future direction for the LLI program is being determined, however there will be strong linkages to the LLI Program through data management activities. 8. Funding Requirements

The GIS Program budget relies on funding provided by the FRI. Outside additional funding opportunities for the next business cycle will be pursued through opportunities such as GeoConnections. The Forestry Corp. provides 10 days per year in-kind support for GIS projects and there are a limited number of support days provided through the Timberline Natural Resource Group. Table 1 summarizes the funding requested by item description for the GIS Program. Table 1: GIS Program Budget Summary for 2008/2009

Note: The vehicle lease is shared with the Communications and Extension Program

The GIS Program is requesting $181,000.00 FRI core funding for the 2008/2009 fiscal year. Additional funds for the budget in Table 1 will be attained through the carry-over of funds from this current fiscal year and through Association charges for GIS support. Please refer to the summary in Table 2 for the breakdown of GIS funding sources for the 2008/2009 fiscal year.

Item Description Budget Salaries and Benefits (2 full-time positions) $140,000.00

Contracts $45,000.00 Software $18,000.00 Hardware $4,500.00 Training $5,500.00 Travel $6,000.00

Office/Administration/Rent $3,500.00 Utilities $900.00

Vehicle (including maintenance, insurance, and lease) $3,600.00 Contingency Fund $1,500.00

User Needs Assessment (GeoConnections) $32,500.00 Internet Mapping $20,000.00

Total $281,000.00

- 6 -

Table 2: GIS Program Budget Funding Breakdown (GIS 100) for 2008/2009 Contributing Organization (Incl. Requested from FRI)

Carry Forward Cash Committed Total Confirmed Funding

Comments

FRI – Carry forward from GIS Budget

$35,000 $35,000 $35,000 This amount is an estimate. Will need to request all remaining GIS funds for carry-over. Association Hours are not guaranteed and funding will be required for GeoConnections and the half-time GIS position. This carry-over is due to the GIS Specialist being half-time for a period of time, and some surplus from the half-time GIS position (minimizing the number of days until a routine schedule could be determined)

FRI Core Funds Requested $181,000 Core funds requested from FRI, this cannot be confirmed until reviewed and approved by the FRI Board of Directors

Associations (CLMA, SCA, and FGYA)

$7,500 $25,000 $25,000 This is an estimate and should not be relied on a source of funding. FGYA will be paying for minimal GIS support for the 2008/2009 fiscal year

GeoConnections N/A $32,500 $32,500 The funding contribution is being finalized with GeoConnections at the time of writing

Totals $223,500 $57,500 $92,500

Budget Note: If the requested FRI core funding does not occur, the only area that could be cut without affecting the daily operations of the GIS Program would be Internet Mapping ($20,000). However, this would affect future funding opportunities with GeoConnections for the Regional Atlas project.

The below is a detailed description of the items summarized in Table 1 and a description of the associated funds requested for the GIS Program.

Salaries and Benefits ($140,000.00): Covers the required salaries and associated benefits (EI, CPP, payroll costs) for one GIS Coordinator and for one GIS Specialist Position. Also includes a 3% estimate for potential raises associated with the annual performance review for each position. Contracts ($45,000.00): The contracts budget covers the wages for part-time contract GIS position (Heather Daw) along with computer lease, office space, office supplies, training, and holidays.

Software ($18,000.00): Annual ESRI GIS software maintenance fees for 2 Arcinfo licenses and 2 Arcview licenses. These fees are not optional; we are required to pay this for support and upgrades to the software on a yearly basis. This would also cover 3 user licenses for Papertiger software (which helps digitally manage our filing of CDs and DVDs). Hardware ($4,500.00): This budget covers the cost of computer leases for GIS staff, server lease, MD1000 lease, and the tape autoloader lease. Training ($5,500.00): Training for GIS Coordinator and the GIS Specialist. GIS training is expensive (e.g., can be $1200.00 per course) but it is absolutely critical for GIS staff to be knowledgeable about GIS technology and software in order to support program areas in GIS and data management. GIS staff should be training in SQL Server this upcoming fiscal year.

$281,000.00 (Total Requested Funds) - $20,000.00 (Internet Mapping Funds Requested) = $261,500.00 (Critical Funding Required)

- 7 -

Travel ($6,000.00): Travel for the GIS Coordinator and the GIS Specialist for training, workshops, meetings, and conferences. Will require approximately $2300.00 for the ESRI GIS Conference travel costs for one of the GIS Staff to attend in San Diego, CA in August 2008. This conference is critical for GIS professionals to attend in order to network, attend workshops, presentations, and to learn where the area of GIS is heading into the future. Program areas are to cover the travel/accommodations of GIS personnel that are requested to attend program specific meetings, workshops, or training. Office/Administration/Rent ($3,500.00): Plotter supplies, office rent, photocopier, office supplies etc. Utilities ($900.00): Phone/fax and water costs. Vehicle ($5,500.00): The GIS Program splits the cost of lease for a van that is shared with the Communications Program. The requested amount would cover the cost of the shared vehicle lease, insurance, maintenance and repairs. Contingency Fund ($1,500.00): Emergency contingency funding. User Needs Assessment ($32,500): Funding provided by GeoConnections for the User Needs Assessment (UNA) project. $1500.00 of the travel budget listed above will be contributed from FRI for travel; the remainder will be in-kind support time from the GIS Coordinator. Internet Mapping ($20,000.00): Once the UNA project is completed and approved by GeoConnections, a proposal would be submitted to produce a Regional Atlas. The $20,000.00 being requested for the Regional Atlas would be combined with FRI in-kind support and partner support in order to leverage matching funds of up to 50% of the project cost from GeoConnections.

9. Program/Project Key Members and Responsibilities

GIS staff will be working on identified GIS and data management projects. GIS staff includes the following 2.5 positions:

GIS Coordinator – Debbie Mucha GIS Specialist – Julie Duval GIS Specialist (part-time) – Heather Daw (contracted from Timberline)

10. Environmental/Occupational Health and Safety/Permits

N/A

- 8 -

11. Appendices

Predicted GIS Time Allocation

Table 3 summarizes the requested GIS support from program areas (please refer to Section #5 – Objectives) for a description of GIS Program objectives. For example, the CLMA requires 10 days of GIS support for each individual quarter for a total of 40 days per year. Program areas that require a level of support that is beyond what can be provided by FRI’s GIS staff (base level GIS support) will be required to budget for additional GIS support. Three program areas that follow this model are the Caribou Landscape Management Association, the Aboriginal Involvement Project and the Grizzly Bear Program. The CLMA is currently funding a part-time road researcher, the AIP is funding a part-time GIS position and the Grizzly Bear Program funds a full-time GIS contractor. It should be noted that if the CLMA, AIP, and Grizzly Bear Programs were not funding their own additional support, that the GIS Program would be unable to meet the requested days for GIS support for these program areas. Over the last two years, the GIS Coordinator has also been coordinating the LLI Program. Duties associated with the release of the 2007 report are expected to decline after the release of the report and the future of the LLI Program will be evaluated by the FRI Board of Directors in the Spring of 2008. It is also recommended that the LLI Program provide funding to backfill GIS duties of the GIS Coordinator if the current working model is continued into the future of this business cycle. With reference to Table 3, the GIS Program is nearly in equilibrium with the number of support days requested and the number GIS support days available for FRI program areas. The total estimated GIS staff days that is available for requested project work is calculated by the following formula: (Total workdays/quarter – (statutory holidays + vacation days + estimated sick days + GIS mngt.)) = GIS Days Available Projects that have been listed and approved in Section #5 Objectives, will have first priority for work and completion by GIS staff. The GIS Coordinator will work with project leads to outsource where possible when program area GIS needs cannot be met through available staff hours. Projects that arise during the year that have not been listed in section #5 Objectives will only be completed should there be no outstanding deadlines for priority projects (and time permitting). If a program area has firm project deadlines that include GIS deliverables, GIS Staff will require 1 month’s notice in order to plan to meet these deadlines. It should also be noted that requested support days for the GIS Program are not guaranteed to be met. In 2007 a GIS work request form was implemented for GIS projects to assist in managing the GIS workload and associated project management. At the time of writing there are plans to form a GIS Activity Team.

- 9 -

Table 3 shows that there is an estimated 5-day deficit. In comparison to last year’s work plan, the GIS program is in a much-improved situation in regards to providing support due to the addition of the half-time GIS position. It should be noted as a result of the January Program Implementation Team meeting, an additional project has been added to this work plan: the FRI Data Inventory Catalogue project. A separate funding proposal is being written up in order to attain funds to help cover the additional staff time to complete this project. It is estimated that this project will require a minimum of 6 months to be completed by one GIS staff member two days per week.

Table 3: GIS Time Allocation Task/Program Area Q1 (A, M, J) Q2 (J, A, S) Q3 (O, N, D) Q4 (J, F, M) Total

Aboriginal Involvement 1 1 1 1 4

Adaptive Forest Management 7 7 7 7 28

CLMA 10 10 10 10 40

Communications 2 2 2 2 8

Fish and Watershed Program 12 12 12 12 48

FGYA 5 5 5 5 20

GIS Management 45 45 45 45 180

Grizzly Bear Program 18 18 18 18 72

JNP 2 2 2 2 8

LLI Program 8 2 2 2 14

Misc. Urgent Projects 4 4 4 4 16

Mountain Pine Beetle Fire Ecology 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 10

Natural Disturbance 12 12 12 12 48

Social Science 0 0 3 0 3

Stream Crossing Association 5 5 5 5 20

Total Project Days Requested 133.5 127.5 130.5 127.5 519

Staff Days Available (2.5 GIS staff) 131 114.5 130.5 138 514 5-Day deficit Note: time estimates are in requested days per quarter, and it should be noted that these are estimates. GIS Staff days available takes the total number of work days and subtracts estimated holidays and sick days to get an estimated total number of work days available per quarter.

- 10 -

Risks

Risks that might possibly affect the timelines of GIS projects and planning are listed below. Program leads should be aware of these risks, as it is possible that projects timelines, deliverables, and GIS support may be affected should these risks come into play.

• FRI is removed from the Alberta Government Network in 2008/2009 (in this case, program leads should budget a minimum of a 3 week delay in GIS project work).

• GIS does not have plotter access. • FRI moves to a different location / building (in this case, program leads should budget approximately a

3 week delay in GIS project work). • Aboriginal Involvement Program funding for a project specific GIS position does not occur. • GIS Staff turnover, it will take time to search for, interview, and train a new person. • Grizzly Bear Program funding for their independent GIS position does not occur. • CLMA funding for a project specific roads researcher does not occur. • There are not sufficient GIS software licenses available to complete work. • There are not sufficient FRI core funds to retain part-time GIS position. • FRI is removed from the AB Government network and moves to a different location (in this case,

program leads should budget approximately a 6 week delay in GIS project work.

GIS Staff Retention It is very difficult to attain GIS staff that have the required skill sets and work aptitude. This challenge is further compounded by a “hot” labour market in Alberta and the high availability of GIS positions in the workforce. It is also difficult to attract staff to Hinton due to the lack of affordable housing and rental units. Strong efforts should be made to maintain GIS staff that achieve a satisfactory ranking on their annual performance review and have met position and organizational expectations. Many projects that GIS staff are involved in at the FRI are extremely complex and highly specialized. Should employees depart from their current positions, it will be extremely difficult to locate replacements. Some projects may simply not be completed due to the specialized skills sets that are required. Retention of GIS staff will be linked to the FRI Business Strategy for human resource management. It is suggested that a focus on staff retention be implemented immediately to match today’s current workforce. Some suggestions are flexible workweeks, income-averaging opportunities, staff incentives, and team-building retreats.

- 11 -

Foothills Research Institute Annual Work Plan 2008-09 (Formally Foothills Model Forest, FtMF)

128 - Natural Disturbance Program

Index Introduction Program Budget Projects: Program Coordination Pages 16-17 Communications Pages 18-19 Large Woody Debris project Pages 20-22 NRV Short Course Pages 23-24 Hwy40 Demo project – Caribou Pages 25-27 Hwy40 Demo project – Implementation Pages 28-29 Montane Dynamics project Pages 30-31 Natural Wildfire Patterns project Pages 32-34 Cultural Wildfire Patterns projects Pages 35-36 NEPTUNE DSS tool Pages 37-39

Introduction The Foothills Research Institute and its’ partner organisations initiated a program in 1995 to study and describe natural and cultural disturbance across over two million hectares in the Rocky Mountains and Foothills natural regions. The program, and its’ inclusive projects, are designed to deliver research, communication, and implementation initiatives to support and demonstrate the integration of natural disturbance patterns into forest land management. In recognition of the significant scope of this mandate, a long-term natural disturbance research program (or “business plan”) for the Foothills Research Institute was first drafted in 1996, and has since been updated ten times (Andison 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2006), the most recent in the fall of 2006. The long-term plan now includes a detailed list of over 50 individual research projects that range in scope from empirical data collection, to communication, to simulation modelling, to decision-support tools. Together, the projects represent a package of potential knowledge on how natural disturbance-related processes created the historical patterns in Alberta and beyond. The projects listed in this annual work plan represent the most recent priorities of the various ND Program partners in the context of the work already accomplished by the program and the available resources. Figure 1 shown below is from the Long-Term workplan for the ND Program. It provides a sense of which projects have been completed, which ones we are currently working on, and what projects remain on the long-term “to do” list. All ND projects listed in the long-term plan are connected to each other through scale, but also through one of three key priority areas; 1) research, 2) communication, and 3) integration. It is important to realize that it is the overall package of project results that provides the greatest benefits, and that this work plan is the eleventh such iteration of that holistic plan. The specific linkages are listed in the individual projects, as they are applicable. It is a formulae that has worked well in the past, and after ten years, the FRI ND Program is arguably one of the more influential SFM programs in western boreal Canada. The 2008/09 version of the ND work plan includes 10 projects, and a total budget of $655,650. The “base budget” and “core funds” of the FRI ND program from the four main program partners are as follows: 100,000 - Hinton Wood Products (FRI core funding) 33,000 - Alberta Newsprint Co. 23,000 - Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (FRI core funding) 21,000 - Jasper National Park (FRI core funding) $177,000 TOTAL BASE Expenditures above and beyond the base budget of the program (directed towards individual projects) are identified in Table 1, and in each project budget.

- 12 -

Table 1. Summary of ND Project Budget for 2008/09.

Funding 2008/09

Project Code From 07/08

ND Base

Budget In-

kind Open FRIP HWP ANC Other

Industrial Other Total

Expenditure in ‘08/09

Carryover to ‘09/10

Program Coordination 128.0 7,500 53,000 60,500 60,500 0

Communications and Extension 128.8 53,000 53,000 53,000 0

Large Woody Debris 128.6 6,000 8,0001 30,000 30,000 60,0002 134,000 134,000 0

NRV Short Courses 128.9 59,4003 59,400 59,400 0

Hwy40 Demo – Caribou 128.4 146,000 58,000 50,000 254,000 54,000 200,000

Hwy40 Demo – Implementation 128.1 151,200 151,200 0 151,200

Montane Dynamics 128.10 15,000 15,000 15,000 0

Natural Wildfire Patterns 128.3 200,250 40,000 43,5004 283,750 220,750 63,000

Cultural Wildfire Patterns 128.11 4,000 50,000 54,000 54,000 0

NRV Panning Tool – NEPTUNE

128.5 48,300

48,300 5,000 43,300

TOTAL 557,250 177,000 8,000 98,000 30,000 80,000 43,500 119,400 1,113,150 655,650 457,500

1 UBC Geography time and travel 2 NSERC collaborative research grant (to UBC Geography) 3 Tuition fees based on 3 courses x 20 students x $990 tuition fee 4 Alpac, Tolko, DMI, MDFP, and Slave Lake Pulp

- 13 -

Figure 1. FRI Natural Disturbance Program Map (from Version 10 of the FRI ND Long-Term Plan, completed in October of 2006).

COMMUNICATIONS

300 – Conceptual foundations communication 301 – Technical foundations communication 302 – Integration potential communication 303 – Professional education

Level 2: Related Pattern Research

COARSE-SCALE RESEARCH

1 – Landscapes as fire regimes 2 – Sub-regime existence 3 – Disturbance Frequency 4 – Age-class distributions 5 – Disturbance event sizes 6 – Disturbance patch sizes 7 – Other patch sizes 8 – Disturbance event / patch shapes 9 – Other patch shapes 12 – Riparian area dist. Frequency 25 – MPB dynamics 26 – Land slide pattern dynamics 27 – Flooding dynamics

FINE-SCALE RESEARCH

13 – Riparian area dist. severity 17 – Remnant island characteristics 18 – Residual heterogeneity patterns 19 – Residual het. spatial controls 20 – Other residuals patterns 21 – Other residual spatial control 22 – Edge architecture patterns 23 – Edge arch. spatial controls 24 – Creating LWD/CWD

AREA-SPECIFIC RESEARCH

101 – Montane disturbance regime change 102 – Lower foothills regime change 103 – Subalpine disturbance dynamics 104 – Upper foothills disturbance severity 111 – Treeline dynamics

POST_DISTURBANCE RESEARCH

107 – LWD/CWD temporal dynamics 108 – Long-term residual dynamics 109 – Long-term ingress dynamics 105 – Temporal regime changes 100 – Site-stand temporal dynamics 110 – Disturbance impacts on soils

INTEGRATION

200 – Floating reserves 201 – Natural and managed disturbance 202 – Retaining natural landscapes 203 – Restoring landscapes 204 – Renovating landscapes 205 – Evaluating practical implications 206 – Operational Scale NRV DSS 207 – Strategic Scale NRV DSS\ 208 – Demonstrating NRV

Level 1: Basic Pattern Research

Phase 3: Getting it On the Ground

MESO-SCALE RESEARCH

10 – Event design 11 – Event design controls 14 – Remnant island patterns 15 – Remnant island types 16 – Remnant island spatial controls 28 – Browse patterns 29 – Wildfire patterns in Alberta+ 30 – Wildfire vs. controlled fire patterns

ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS RESEARCH

106 – Ecological impacts research

Completed Projects Ongoing Projects

Potential Future Projects

- 14 -

Summary of FRI ND Program Objectives, by Project Program Coordination (128.0)

Objective #1: Hold at least two NDP activity team meetings. Objective #2: Meet all work plan, administrative, and budgetary requirements of the FRI organization. Objective #3: Meet with other FRI program leads at least three times to discuss integration opportunities

between projects. Objective #4: Develop and deliver the annual ND Program work plan to the satisfaction of the FRI and the

NDP activity team. Objective #5: Continue to build the project, partnership, and support base as relates to ND program

objectives. C&E Objective #1: Present a ND Program overview to the FRI BoD.

Communications and Extension (128.8)

C&E Objective #1: Produce four Quicknotes. C&E Objective #2: Produce one Integration Note. C&E Objective #3: Produce two first draft manuscripts. C&E Objective #4: At least four presentations on various ND topics. C&E Objective #5: At least one presentation at a scientific conference.

Coarse / Large Woody Debris Study (128.6) Objective #1: Sample at least 20 sites for LWD. Objective #2: Process the summer ’07 samples. Objective #3: At least one meeting with F&W Program lead to discuss integration.

Objective #4: Participate in any new Water For Life group proposals relevant to this work. C&E Objective #1: Lead one field tour. C&E Objective #2: One conference presentation. NRV Short Courses (128.9)

Objective #1: Offer and deliver NRV course #1 five times. C&E Objective #1: Help develop marketing materials for the short course.

- 15 -

Hwy40 Caribou Monitoring (128.4) Objective #1: Continue to manage / deploy / collect radio collars and data as necessary. Objective #2: Continue to explore additional funding and partnership sources.

C&E Objective #1: One Hwy40 update on caribou. C&E Objective #2: One presentation / tour on Hwy40 caribou. Hwy40 Implementation Fund (128.1)

Objective #1: Develop and implement prescribed burns and/or other non-commercial treatments in the Hwy40 study area as the need arises.

Montane Dynamics (128.10) Objective #1: Prepare, measure and cross-date all outstanding tree ring samples. Natural Wildfire Patterns (128.3)

Objective #1: Complete all pre-fire photo interpretation. Objective #2: Complete all pos-fire photo interpretation. Objective #3: Continue to solicit new partners.

C&E Objective #1: Develop and widely distribute at least one “natural wildfire pattern” project update (the exact form of which is yet to be determined).

Cultural Wildfire Patterns (128.11)

Objective #1: Seek out partnerships, collaborators, and supporting funds to support future phases of the project. Objective #2: Begin the process of photo interpretation of some fires.

NRV Planning Tool - NEPTUNE (128.5)

Objective #1: Provide a maximum of ten person-days of (GIS, technical, or research) support during the 2008/09 fiscal year to the existing NEPTUNE members. Objective #2: Demonstrate / present / introduce the NEPTUNE model at least 3 times during the 2008/09 fiscal year. Objective #3: Hold at least one meeting of the NEPTUNE partners during the 2008/09 fiscal year. Objective #4: Ensure that any new FRI foundation natural pattern research is consistent with the methods and language of that already used by NEPTUNE.

C&E Objective #1: Develop and make available to potential new partners across western boreal Canada a NEPTUNE information package during the 2008/09 fiscal year. C&E Objective #2: Host at least one demonstration of NEPTUNE to FRI staff during the 2008/09 fiscal year.

- 16 -

Foothills Research Institute Annual Work Plan

128 Natural Disturbance Program – Program Coordination 1. Prepared by

Dr. David Andison, Program Manager 3828 West 22nd Ave, Vancouver, BC V6S 1J7 Ph: (604) 225-5669 Fax: (604) 225-5668 Email: [email protected]

2. Sign off (FRI ND Activity Team)

Rick Bonar, Hinton Wood Products Ltd. _________________________________

Daniel Chicoine, Alberta Newsprint Company _________________________________

Tom Archibald, FRI _________________________________

David Smith, Jasper National Park _________________________________

Herman Stegehuis, Alberta SRD _________________________________

John Stadt, Alberta SRD _________________________________

3. Executive Summary

This is a general project category that includes all expenditure associated with running a complex, connected program. The Natural Disturbance Program is now responsible for more than ten research, education, communication, integration, and demonstration projects, several of which involve external partners. A sustained effort is required to ensure that all current and future projects are consistent with the mandate of the ND Program specifically, and the goals of the FRI in general. Specific tasks under this project include applying for external funds, drafting the work plan and updating the long-term (business) plan and communications plan, expanding the partnership base, soliciting and hiring staff and sub-contractors, commitments related to the Research Institute network, meetings and presentations to the FRI activity team and board of directors, working with other FRI program leads on project integration, dealing with requests and queries, administration, budgeting, training and supervision of staff and sub-contractors, administrative support, and office and utilities costs. 4. Background Information

The ND Program has had a long-term (business) plan for eleven years, and a communications plan for six years. Version 10 of the long-term plan was completed in October of 2006. Two internal program reviews have been completed over the last 10 years, one in 1998, and another in 2002, with an external review pending early in 2008. 5. Objectives

Objective #1: Hold at least two NDP activity team meetings. Objective #2: Meet all work plan, administrative, and budgetary requirements of the FRI organization. Objective #3: Meet with other FRI program leads at least three times to discuss integration opportunities between projects. Objective #4: Develop and deliver the annual ND Program work plan to the satisfaction of the FRI and the NDP

activity team. Objective #5: Continue to build the project, partnership, and support base as relates to ND program objectives.

- 17 -


C&E Objective #1: Present a ND Program overview to the FRI BoD. 7. Links

The ND Program is part of a Water For Life grant application in conjunction with the FRI Fish and Watershed Program, the Grizzly Bear Program, and the MPB Program. 8. Funding sources for this period

All funds for this activity will come from the NDP base budget (with the original funding source shown in brackets).

Contributing Organization (Incl.

Requested from FRI)

Carry Forward 07 / 08

Cash Committed

08 / 09

Total Confirmed

Funding

In-kind Support Comments

FRI rollvoer from 07/08 7,500 7,500

FRI base (HWP) 8,000 8,000

FRI base (ANC) 8,000 8,000

FRI base (SRD) 18,500 18,500

FRI base (JNP) 18,500 18,500

Totals 7,500 53,000 60,500 9. Program/Project Key Members and Responsibilities

Most of the duties outlined above are the shared responsibilities of Dr. Andison and Ms. McCleary.

Dr. David Andison, Bandaloop - Program coordinator Ms. Kris McCleary - Project manager Dr. Rick Bonar, HWP - Activity team Mr. Greg Branton / Mr Daniel Chicoine, ANC - Activity team Mr. Herman Stegehuis, ASRD - Activity team Mr. Dave Smith, JNP - Activity team Mr. Don Podlubny, FRI - Activity team


None.

11. Appendices

Version 10 of the ND Program Long-Term Plan and the ND Communications and Extension plan are available upon request.

- 18 -


128.8 - Natural Disturbance Program – Communications and Extension 1. Prepared by

Dr. David Andison, Project Manager 3828 West 22nd Ave, Vancouver, BC, V6S 1J7 Ph: (604) 225-5669 Fax:(604) 225-5668 Email: [email protected]


Rick Bonar, Hinton Wood Products Ltd. __________________________________

Daniel Chicoine, Alberta Newsprint Company __________________________________

Tom Archibald, FRI __________________________________

David Smith, Jasper National Park __________________________________

Herman Stegehuis, Alberta SRD __________________________________

John Stadt, Alberta SRD __________________________________


As per the long-term plan of the ND program, the emphasis on communication and extension has been steadily increasing over the last few years. Today, it is one of the fundamental elements of the program, and all indications are we have been successful. A recent survey revealed that 90% of the land management organizations in Alberta have used, or are using information, knowledge, or tools created by the FRI ND program. The communications strategy of the FRI ND program is to develop a broad range of C&E products that are accessible to as wide an audience as possible. For example, the ND Program now boasts five different, but connected types of written material through the FRI; the Quicknote series, the Integration Note series, the Research Report series, the Research Methods series, and the new Demonstration series. In addition, there are also scientific manuscripts, posters, and news articles. Presentations, tours, workshops, and invited lectures to a wide range of professional and public audiences remain a mainstay of the ND program C&E efforts. Attending and presenting findings at conferences and other academic venues is necessary to help maintain scientific credibility. 4. Background Information

The ND Program created a Communications and Extension plan five years ago with the assistance of the FRI C&E Program. Note that some ND projects have their own C&E objectives, and the Hwy40 Demonstration project (128.12) has its own C&E plan in fact. 5. Objectives

None.

- 19 -


C&E Objective #1: Produce four Quicknotes. C&E Objective #2: Produce one Integration Note. C&E Objective #3: Produce two first draft manuscripts. C&E Objective #4: At least four presentations on various ND topics. C&E Objective #5: At least one presentation at a scientific conference.

7. Links

N/A

8. Funding sources for this period

All funds for this activity will come from the NDP base budget (with the original funding source shown in brackets).


Requested from FRI)


Cash Committed

07 / 08

Total Confirmed

Funding


FRI base (HWP) 28,000 28,000

FRI base (ANC) 25,000 25,000

Totals 53,000 53,000


Dr. David Andison, Bandaloop - Program coordinator Ms. Kris McCleary - Project manager Ms. Lisa Jones - FRI C&E support


None. 11. Appendices

Version 10 of the ND Program Long-Term Plan and the ND Communications and Extension plan are available upon request.

- 20 -


128.6 - Natural Disturbance Program – Coarse / Large Woody Debris Study 1. Prepared by

Dr. David Andison, Project Manager 3828 West 22nd Ave Vancouver, BC V6S 1J7 Ph: (604) 225-5669 Fax:(604) 225-5668 Email: [email protected]





David Smith, Jasper National Park __________________________________


John Stadt, Alberta SRD __________________________________ 3. Executive Summary

Riparian zones pose a unique challenge for an NRV framework. Foothills Research Institute (FRI) Research suggests that riparian zones are historically disturbed by wildfire (a chemical disturbance process) almost as often as upland areas of the landscape. There are many examples of the positive biological benefits of disturbance in riparian zones from both an aquatic and terrestrial perspective. However, harvesting - a mechanical disturbance process - increases the risk of soil compaction and erosion, and physical damage to the aquatic system, and removes critical large biomass. On the other hand a disturbance avoidance-protection strategy will likely result in the slow degradation of the “natural” biological system. Neither management solution is ideal since both represent a significant shift away from how the natural system functioned. It was our belief that a more robust management solution begins with a better understanding of the patterns and process of riparian zone dynamics. Towards that larger goal, we chose to focus first on gathering new knowledge on the dynamics of large woody debris (LWD). Not only does LWD play a key role in the functioning of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, but also the FRI is particularly well positioned to address this issue. To facilitate this work, the FRI Natural Disturbance (ND) Program and the FRI Fish and Watershed (F&W) Program initiated a partnership several years ago to address separate, but linked LWD questions. The F&W program focused on methods of quantifying overall LWD budgets, and the relationships between LWD and other physical stream characteristics such as sediment loads and stream structure. The ND program initiated work that focused on tracking the “life” of LWD over time, from recruitment through the many stages of decay and function. In other words, when is woody debris created, by what disturbance mechanism, when, how much, and how long does it last in various stages of decay? Without knowledge of these very fundamental questions, we are not likely to sustainable choices for LWD values in riparian zones over the long–term. The ultimate goal of the project also involves some field-scale LWD decision-support tools for planners.

- 21 -

4. Background Information

Under the auspices of the ND Program, HWP and ANC first sponsored this research in 2004 through a pilot study carried out by a graduate student at UBC Department of Geography. These funds represented a financial commitment above and beyond the base FRI ND budget, other than the time and travel of the ND program lead. Based on the complex findings from the first study, HWP and ANC agreed to extend the study both in breadth and depth for another three years. A Post-Doctoral Fellow with UBC Geography has been retained to lead the work, and ANC and HWP have agreed to fund this position above and beyond the base budget for the ND Program. We were successful last year in obtaining ACA and matching NSERC CRD funding. The efforts to ensure that this work integrates with the LWD and stream work of the FRI F&W program will continue. This is year two of a three year project 5. Objectives

Objective #1: Sample at least 20 sites for LWD. Objective #2: Process the summer ’07 samples. Objective #3: At least one meeting with F&W Program lead to discuss integration. Objective #4: Participate in any new Water For Life group proposals relevant to this work. 6. Objectives and Deliverables for Communications and Extension

C&E Objective #1: Lead one field tour. C&E Objective #2: One conference presentation. 7. Links

Intra-Program Links: This project is part of the NDP long-term plan, and the concept developed from basic disturbance research efforts in riparian zones. The ultimate plan is to link the results of this back to several ND projects such as LANDMINE simulation modelling and the riparian disturbance research results. Furthermore, this project is using many of the databases that the ND program has created over the last several years, including the stand origin maps and detailed fire patterns of historical wildfires. Inter-Program Links: The riparian dynamics work at the FRI has been a collaborative effort between the ND Program and the Fish and Watershed Program for several years now. For this project, we will make every effort to share study sites, data sources, and sampling methods, and we will continue efforts to maximize the opportunities for research and tool integration. External Program Links: UBC Department of Geography is the scientific lead on this project, through Dr. Lori Daniels. Dr. Marwan Hassan, also in the Geography Department, is the scientific lead on the F&W LWD research. This project also may become part of an integrated Water For Life proposal over the next fiscal year in collaboration with a dozen other scientists and professionals.

- 22 -


The annual commitment of 30k each from ANC and HWP to support the UBC post-doc position is above and beyond the ND base budget contributions. We were successful in obtaining an NSERC collaborative industrial grant for matching funds. The remaining 6k base funds are FRI ND program support to UBC, and integration with F&W.


Requested from FRI)


Cash Committed

08 / 09

Total Confirmed

Funding


FRI base (HWP) 6,000 6,000 Assistance, support, GIS.

NSERC 60,000 60,000 Industrial Development Grant

ANC 2008 contribution 30,000 30,000 Over and above base budget.

HWP 2008 contribution 30,000 30,000 Over and above base budget.

UBC 8,000 Time, office and lab space, supplies.


Dr. David Andison - Project Coordinator Ms. Kris McCleary - Project assistant Dr. Lori Daniels - Principle Investigator Dr. Trevor Jones - Post-Doc Researcher


None.

11. Appendices

None.

- 23 -


128.9 - Natural Disturbance Program – NRV Short Courses 1. Prepared by

Dr. David Andison, Project Manager 3828 West 22nd Ave Vancouver, BC V6S 1J7 Ph: (604) 225-5669 Fax:(604) 225-5668 Email: [email protected]


Rick Bonar, Hinton Wood Products Ltd. ____________________________________

Daniel Chicoine, Alberta Newsprint Company ____________________________________

Tom Archibald, FRI ____________________________________

David Smith, Jasper National Park ____________________________________

Herman Stegehuis, Alberta SRD ____________________________________

John Stadt, Alberta SRD ____________________________________


Interest in natural disturbance patterns has grown at a rapid pace over the last few years. The interest in, and attraction to natural disturbance emulation strategies is understandable. Such knowledge can potentially be used as ecologically-defendable “coarse filters” to help guide forest management decision-making. However, despite its potential, using natural disturbance patterns to help forest management is still a fragile proposal. There is broad agreement by forest and land managers that the concept of using natural patterns to guide management decisions is a good idea. However, there is an obvious and significant gap on how, where, when, and even if natural patterns should be applied in forest management decision-making. This disparity is potentially affecting the quality of decisions as they relate to the ultimate goal of sustainable land management. For example, small differences in levels of understanding, perception, or the meaning of natural disturbance terms can lead to disagreements, prolonged approval process, and the rejection of what might be progressive plans. These in turn lead to the erosion of trust, decreased likelihood of achieving adaptive forest management, and the adoption of more conventional rules. Ultimately, this may lead to the rejection of all natural disturbance (ND) approaches, which may represent a significant lost opportunity for Alberta, and potentially a diminished progression of sustainable forest management ideals. The solution for many other jurisdictions has been to develop prescriptive “guidelines” that mandate the details of how, what, and where to harvest. However, this solution does not always allow for exploration and experimentation, or necessarily a true understanding of the value of coarse-filter knowledge. We feel that the answers lay less in science than they do education and communication based on sound science. By exposing Alberta’s forestry professionals to the same basic general level of knowledge about NRV as we know it today, we are better able to build a universal foundation of understanding and language. Towards this, in 04/05 we began developing an intensive 3 day short course “primer” on natural disturbance. As the first in a series of three short courses, it covers the basics, including nomenclature, the theoretical underpinnings, examples of comparisons with current practices, different models of integration, an overview of research challenges, and research output interpretation. 4. Background Information

Course #1 was completed in ‘06/07 and was offered three times in 07/08. The first course only, in June ’07, was offered for free as a promotion. For 2008/09, the course will be offered at cost-recovery basis. This represents a shift in tuition policy in response to the dire economic situation of the forest industry right now across Canada. For now, the course sponsors (HWP, ANC, JNP, ASRD, and SIAST) are supporting each and every course offering

- 24 -

since they shared the cost of the original course development. We are projecting another three courses somewhere across Canada in 08/09, with an average of 20 students per course. Both resources and the need do not permit work on course #2 during 08/09. If and when financial conditions improve, course #2 and #3 will be developed. 5. Objectives

Objective #1: Offer and deliver NRV course #1 three times. 6. Objectives and Deliverables for Communications and Extension

C&E Objective #1: Help develop marketing materials for the short course. 7. Links

Intra-Program Links: This project is part of the NDP long-term plan. Inter-Program Links: The course has been developed collaboratively with the FRI Communications and Extension Program, and this association will continue throughout ‘08/09. External Program Links: Bandaloop will continue to donate time towards course marketing and development. 8. Funding sources for this period

Assuming the current difficult economic situation for forest management partners continues, we have trimmed the tuition fee to include only cost-recovery. The course will be offered as many times as the market demands, which we assume will be three times in 2008/09. The only income will be generated from course fees.


Requested from FRI)


Cash Committed

08 / 09

Total Confirmed

Funding


Course fees collected 0 59,400 59,400 Based on 3 courses x 20 students x $990 tuition fees

Bandaloop 3,000 Professional time. FRI Admin, C &E, and

GIS support 0 4,000 4,000 Portion of course fees that will go into the development of course #2.


Dr. David Andison - Course Coordinator Lisa Jones - FRI C&E Liaison


None 11. Appendices

None

- 25 -


128.4 - Natural Disturbance Program – Hwy40 Caribou Monitoring 1. Prepared by

Dr. David Andison, Project Manager 3828 West 22nd Ave Vancouver, BC V6S 1J7 Ph: (604) 225-5669 Fax: (604) 225-5668 Email: [email protected]






John Stadt, Alberta SRD __________________________________


The volume of natural disturbance pattern results from the FRI Natural Disturbance Program and beyond has been tremendous over the last several years. The challenge now has shifted to more practical considerations of implementation guidelines, operational realities, ecological impacts, and social and economic limitations. While small, isolated integration efforts have become fairly commonplace, no one has tried to integrate a wide range of many different NRV patterns, and develop a plan based on NRV patterns from step 1 across a very large area. The Hwy40 Natural Disturbance Demonstration project (originally from the FRI ND 2003/04 work plan) was designed to borrow heavily from the natural disturbance toolkit to install a large experiment on or near the FRI landbase to test various ecological, social, and economic aspects of adopting some or all parts of the natural disturbance model. The outcome from the original Hwy40 Demo project is a 10-year “disturbance plan” that identifies locations, sizes, and types of planned disturbance activities for a 70,000 ha area including parts of the Hinton Wood Products, ANC, and Foothills Forest Products management areas, and the Willmore Wilderness Area. This is the first such plan of its type, in no small part because it considered the entire land area for disturbance activities, and thus logging will be combined with prescribed fire and other (non-merchantable) mechanical treatments, as well as oil and gas activities where possible, to achieve our disturbance design. The three main objectives of the Hwy 40 Demo project are:

a. Evaluate the robustness of an NRV strategy as a package. b. Identify and explore potential convergences and conflicts with existing policies, practices, objectives,

and other economic, social, and ecological values, and. c. Build a common understanding of the concept and practice of adopting a natural disturbance based

plan. It would be difficult to achieve these goals without developing a comprehensive monitoring program for the Hwy40 project linking a coarse filter-based plan to specific fine filter predictions and outcomes. The most obvious species for monitoring in this area is woodland caribou. The location of the Hwy40 study site overlaps a portion of the current range of the A la Peche herd. The opportunity to not only learn about how caribou respond to the unique disturbance activities in Hwy40, but also to add to the overall understanding of woodland caribou dynamics, makes this an ideal opportunity for both monitoring and research activities. Despite some excellent recent focused research, little is known about why, when, or how woodland caribou migrate or choose to move from one

- 26 -

geographic location to another. Given the state of caribou herds, and our insistence of focusing on “protection” strategies until now, this knowledge will be critical to the survival of the species in Alberta. 4. Background Information

During 2005 and 2006, we successfully secured funds from HWP, ANC, ASRD, and FRIAA OPEN FUNDS to support this project above and beyond the ND program base budget. With the help of ASRD F&W, we deployed one caribou collar in the spring of 2006. That summer we contracted a dedicated wildlife biologist, Matt Wheatley. Under Matt’s leadership, in December of 2006 we recovered the first collar and collared seven animals with very little stress on the herd (which was the limit of our existing permit). The remaining five collars were deployed in JNP / Willmore area several weeks later. In the absence of provincial leadership or program, Matt has been collaborating with JNP wildlife biologists on data and proposals. In 2007/08, a progress report was completed and submitted to the funding partners, OPEN FRIP, HWP and ANC. 5. Objectives

Objective #1: Continue to manage / deploy / collect radio collars and data as necessary. Objective #2: Continue to explore additional funding and partnership sources. 6. Objectives and Deliverables for Communications and Extension

C&E Objective #1: One Hwy40 update on caribou. C&E Objective #2: One presentation / tour on Hwy40 caribou. C&E Objective #3: One progress report. 7. Links

Intra-Program Links: This project is part of the Hwy40 project under the auspices of the ND long-term plan. It provides vital information on the ecological response to natural patterns, but more appropriately belongs under a program more focused on wildlife research. However, when this change occurs, we fully anticipate maintaining strong links with this project. Inter-Program Links: Over the last few years, we have relied heavily on the expertise and assistance from the FRI Grizzly Bear program both technically and administratively, particularly prior to having a dedicated wildlife biologist. External Program Links: We have received assistance with caribou collaring from ASRD F&W over the past year, and previous to that, relied heavily on them for advice on technical issues wrt the number and type of radio collars to purchase, and capturing, collaring, and submitting capture permits. Every effort has been made over the last two years to inform and/or collaborate with associated caribou research at the provincial level through the University of Alberta, the Alberta Caribou Committee and the Caribou Land Management Association. More recently successful collaborations have occurred with Jasper Park.

- 27 -


The funds identified here are those secured by the ND program last year from OPEN FRIP and ANC for caribou monitoring, plus the original seed money from ASRD and HWY. Note that funding for this project is on a calendar year.


Requested from FRI)


Cash Committed

08 / 09

Total Confirmed

Funding


Cash April 1, 08 146,000 146,000 146,000 This project does not operate on an April –March fiscal year.

ANC 50,000 50,000 Last instalment of a 3 year commitment.

Open FRIP 58,000 58,000 Jan. ’08 Open FRIP payment


Dr. David Andison - Project lead Matthew Wheatley - Lead Scientist


Wildlife capture permits from ASRD and Parks have been obtained, and will be updated annually as required. 11. Appendices

None.

- 28 -


128.1 - Natural Disturbance Program – Hwy40 Implementation Fund 1. Prepared by



Rick Bonar, Hinton Wood Products Ltd. ________________________________

Daniel Chicoine, Alberta Newsprint Company ________________________________

Tom Archibald, FRI ________________________________

David Smith, Jasper National Park ________________________________

Herman Stegehuis, Alberta SRD ________________________________

John Stadt, Alberta SRD ________________________________


As described in more detail in project 128.4 above, one of the key goals of the Hwy40 plan is to integrate different types of disturbance activities into a single “disturbance plan”. More specifically, we intend on integrating prescribed fire with harvesting, road building, and well-site design. As part of this initiative, ASRD committed 143k in 2004 to field operation costs to implement the Hwy40 plan – specifically for activities not related to standard harvesting. Some money was drawn from this account during 07/08, and subsequently replaced by ASRD. For the most part, this fund will be used for prescribed burning. However, the focus of these burns will be on efforts to emulate natural disturbance patterns. For example, burning non-merchantable or non-forested areas, partially burning residual islands, and even burning riparian zones will all be on the table as part of the final Hwy40 disturbance plan. Most of these activities are being planned at this time in concert with the relevant harvesting details. The prescribed burn plan for the study area will be developed by the Forest Protection Branch of ASRD. Note also that the potential also exists to use part of these funds for non-commercial mechanical operations (such as pre-commercial thinning to encourage lichen growth). It is unknown if that any of these funds will be used during the ‘08/09 fiscal year. The decision to move ahead with harvesting operations within any of the forest management areas is at the discretion of the companies involved. 4. Background Information

The implementation fund for Hwy40 now sits at 151,200. During the 2006/07 year, 35k was transferred to the NEPTUNE project (code 128.5) to cover the membership costs for ASRD in that initiative, and then another 40k returned to the fund by ASRD later in the year. 5. Objectives

Objective #1: Develop and implement prescribed burns and/or other non-commercial treatments in the Hwy40 study area as the need arises.

- 29 -


None. 7. Links

Intra-Program Links: This project is part of the Hwy40 project under the auspices of the ND long-term plan. Many of the burn objectives derive directly from the wildfire pattern research conducted by the ND program over the last ten years. Inter-Program Links: We will be relying on the assistance of the FRI C&E program to talk about and create educational opportunities around integrating burning with harvesting. External Program Links: The plans and the actual work involved will be the responsibility of the ASRD Forest Protection Branch. 8. Funding sources for this period

The funds identified here are those secured by the ND program in 2004, most of which will carry over past the ‘07/08 year.


Requested from FRI)


Cash Committed

08 / 09

Total Confirmed

Funding


FRI cash April 1, 08 151,200 151,200

Totals 151,200 151,200 9. Program/Project Key Members and Responsibilities

Dr. David Andison - Project lead Chad Morrison - Lead liason with FPB. 10. Environmental/Occupational Health and Safety/Permits

Burning permits will be obtained as required. 11. Appendices

None.

- 30 -


128.10 - Natural Disturbance Program – Montane Dynamics 1. Prepared by










One of the most complex disturbance regimes within the FRI landbase exists in the Montane ecoregion. Wind, ice, snow, slides, flooding, insects, disease, and both stand-replacing and stand-maintaining fires operate in these valleys. Determining the timing, extent, and relative impact of each of these vectors requires a field and laboratory sampling effort well beyond that of areas with simpler disturbance history patterns, and methodologies that are equally robust. The ND Program completed a preliminary study of the fire history of this area in 1999, but identified the need for more intensive field sampling to fully address the questions raised. This work has been on hold for several years as a low priority of the ND program, and still resides as the lowest priority. However, sufficient resources exist to at least begin work on the laboratory analysis of the tree rings during the 2008/09 fiscal year. 4. Background Information

In 1998, we began intensive field sampling involving taking tree cores, cookies and wedges using a gridded sampling pattern in Jasper National park. We were forced to resample a considerable area in 2001 after a large number of our samples were lost or destroyed by our partner responsible for the tree-ring dating work. Those samples still sit in storage at the FRI awaiting processing. No analysis can be completed until all samples have been measured and cross-dated. 5. Objectives

Objective #1: Prepare, measure and cross-date all outstanding tree ring samples. 6. Objectives and Deliverables for Communications and Extension

None.

- 31 -

7. Links

Intra-Program Links: This project is part of the ND long-term plan. Inter-Program Links: None. External Program Links: Jasper National Park was heavily involved in assisting with the original Montane study, and we are confident they will provide assistance with this extension. 8. Funding sources for this period

The funds identified here are from the base budget of the ND Program.


Requested from FRI)


Cash Committed

08 / 09

Total Confirmed

Funding


FRI (HWP) 15,000 15,000 Time permitting.


Dr. David Andison - Project lead



None.

- 32 -


128.3 - Natural Disturbance Program – Natural Wildfire Patterns 1. Prepared by


2. Sign off (Current Project Partners)

John Stadt, ASRD _________________________________

George Duffy, Slave Lake Pulp _________________________________

Elston Dzus, Alberta Pacific Forest Industries _________________________________

Jim Witiw, Daishowa Marubeni Int. Ltd. _________________________________

Ed Anderson, Tolko Industries. Ltd. _________________________________

Steve Blanton, Manning Diversified FP _________________________________


The original “Island Remnants Patterns” research project from the NDP work plans starting in 1998 produced a wealth of new insights into detailed natural patterns of wildfires in west-central Alberta. This study captured highly detailed survival patterns of post-fire vegetation for 24 natural historical wildfires in the Alberta foothills using historical aerial photography. Detailed information on pre-burn vegetation conditions was also collected on a subset of 17 of these fires. The spatial overlays were analysed using a wide range of techniques and summarized in a simple format. The complexity revealed by this work strongly suggested that natural patterns at intermediate spatial scales were far more complex, but also far more robust, than anyone had imagined In fact, the project expanded to produce three full research reports, and is the source of information for at least 15 Quicknotes, and the first Integration Note. The original island remnants project is also responsible for developing the new spatial language that is currently folded into the new GIS-based DSS tool, NEPTUNE (project 128.5). NEPTUNE also uses the results of that study to define the Natural Range of Variation (NRV) for its 10 key metrics. As the desire to understand, and defend the use of natural disturbance patterns to regulators, the public, and certification agencies increased, the value of this new knowledge became evident beyond the original partnership base. This project represents the expansion of the original wildfire pattern research to northern Alberta and north-eastern BC. This will be year three of a four-year project. 4. Background Information

The original wildfire database of 24 fires across 56,000 ha was completed in 1999, and parts of the analysis are in fact still ongoing as layers of relationships continue to be discovered (although the original objectives of the project have long since been achieved). From 2001 to 2005, the exact methods for the FRI study were adopted by a research study in Saskatchewan (by Dr. Andison), and the results analysed and summarized in exactly the same way. The Saskatchewan database includes 29 wildfires totalling 76,000 ha. Early in 2006, preliminary discussions occurred with Daishowa Marubeni International (DM) about expanding the wildfire pattern study to northern Alberta, which ultimately led to the support of several other key Alberta partners, including Alberta-Pacific, Manning Diversified, Slave Lake Pulp and Tolko to pursue the project further. Around this same time, the BC

- 33 -

Ministry of Forests contacted the ND Program regarding the potential of using some of the existing wildfires in Alberta as part of a (well funded) historical retrospective study of boreal mixedwood dynamics. After some negotiation, it was agreed that the BC study would adopt the same methods and criteria as the original FRI study in order to allow us to “trade” data from across the provincial boundary, and increase the sample size of each project. At this point, several other industrial partners, including Canfor in both BC and Alberta, are supporting the project, although have not yet committed funding. Based on the high level of support for the project, the NDP applied for, and was successful in obtaining OPEN FRIP funds for three years to cover approximately 60% of the project costs. The existing partners have agreed to provide the remaining funds. 5. Objectives

Objective #1: Complete all pre-fire photo interpretation. Objective #2: Complete all pos-fire photo interpretation. Objective #3: Continue to solicit new partners. 6. Objectives and Deliverables for Communications and Extension

C&E Objective #1: Develop and widely distribute at least one “natural wildfire pattern” project update (the exact form of which is yet to be determined).

7. Links

Intra-Program Links: This project is a continuation of one of the first projects initiated by the ND program back in 1998. It benefits now from the perfection of the methods, criteria, trained personnel, expectations, communications efforts, and spatial definitions developed over the last 10 years. Note also the direct link to the Cultural Wildfire Pattern study (128.11), which will, for the first time in Canada, compare the patterns of wildfires under the influence of fire control activities, to those of “natural” wildfires. Inter-Program Links: None at this time, although the potential links of natural patterns to many other SFM values is relevant to several key FRI program areas. External Program Links: The spatial definitions created by the ND program under the auspices of this program have been adopted by the Saskatchewan government, and the Alberta SRD is fully supportive of the idea of a standardized language.

- 34 -


There are several funding sources for this project, but note that none require financial support from existing ND program partners. Although not listed in the 07/08 FRI budget, funding last year included 125k from FRIAA Open Funds, 10k from Alpac, 10k from DMI, 6.5k from Tolko, 5k from MDFP, 5k from Slave Lake Pulp, and 35k from ASRD. Also note that none of the funding for this project occurs on the same fiscal year as the FRI, so there will be technically be “carry over” March 31, 2009.


Requested from FRI)


Cash Committed

08 / 09

Total Confirmed

Funding


Cash in hand, April 1, 08 200,250 200,250

OPEN FRIP ’08 40,000 40,000

DMI 10,000 10,000

Alpac 10,000 10,000

Tolko 13,500 13,500

MDFP 5,000 5,000

Slave Lake Pulp 5,000 5,000


Dr. David Andison - Project lead 10. Environmental/Occupational Health and Safety/Permits


None.

- 35 -


128.11 - Natural Disturbance Program – Cultural Wildfire Patterns 1. Prepared by


2. Sign off (Current Project Partners)








The original “Island Remnants Patterns” research project from the NDP work plans starting in 1998 produced a wealth of new insights into detailed natural patterns of wildfires in west-central Alberta. The complexity revealed by this work strongly suggested that natural patterns at intermediate spatial scales were far more complex, but also far more robust, than anyone had imagined In fact, the project expanded to produce three full research reports, and is the source of information for at least 15 Quicknotes, and the first Integration Note. The original island remnants project is also responsible for developing the new spatial language that is currently folded into the new GIS-based DSS tool, NEPTUNE (project 128.5). NEPTUNE also uses the results of that study to define the Natural Range of Variation (NRV) for its 10 key metrics. The interest in this work was such that it is now being expanded to include wildfires from northern Alberta and northeastern BC (see project 128.3). Consistent with the concept of taking advantage of “natural” disturbance patterns, one obvious outstanding question is the degree to which, or in what way(s), the spatial patterns of wildfires that we have aggressively fought with modern fire control techniques emulate the patterns of “natural” wildfires. This is the second year of this study, and represents preliminary data gathering, as well as partnership development duties. It is not unrealistic to presume that many different (funding) agencies would be interested in the answer to this question. The FRI program is in the unique position in Canada of being able to answer it. 4. Background Information

This project is a logical extension of the wildfire pattern study (project 128.3), and will take advantage of the same methods, expertise, language, and even some of the same data. However, it will still require a considerable financial commitment over the long term since it involved detailed interpretations of aerial photos (representing the bulk of the expense involved). Some work was completed in 2007/08 to identify eligible wildfires. The budget for this year be used to attract other funding and begin some interpretation work.

- 36 -

5. Objectives

Objective #1: Seek out partnerships, collaborators, and supporting funds to support future phases of the project. Objective #2: Begin the process of photo interpretation of some fires. 6. Objectives and Deliverables for Communications and Extension

None. 7. Links

Intra-Program Links: This project is an extension of one of the wildfire pattern project – the longest running, and perhaps most influential project of the ND program over the last 10 years. It benefits now from the perfection of the methods, criteria, trained personnel, expectations, communications efforts, and spatial definitions developed. Inter-Program Links: None at this time, although the potential links of natural patterns to many other SFM values is relevant to several key FRI program areas. External Program Links: It is not unreasonable to assume that the results of this project would be of great interest to agencies involved in fire control and / or prescribed burn activities such as Parks Canada and ASRD Forest Protection Branch. 8. Funding sources for this period

At this time, only ND base budget funding is available.


Requested from FRI)


Cash Committed

08 / 09

Total Confirmed

Funding


FRI cash April 1, 08 4,000 4,000 4,000

FRI (HWP) 43,000 43,000

FRI (ASRD) 4,500 4,500

FRI (JNP) 2,500 2,500


Dr. David Andison - Project lead 10. Environmental/Occupational Health and Safety/Permits


None.

- 37 -


Natural Disturbance Program – NRV Planning Tool - NEPTUNE (128.5) 1. Prepared by


2. Sign off (Current full NEPTUNE members only)

Dr. Rick Bonar, Hinton Wood Products Ltd. _________________________________

Mr. Daniel Chicoine, Alberta Newsprint Company _________________________________

Mr. Roger Nesdoly, Mistik Management Ltd. _________________________________

Dr. Elston Dzus, Alberta Pacific Forest Industries Ltd. _________________________________

Mr. Herman Stegehuis, Alberta SRD _________________________________


The ultimate goal of the FRI Natural Disturbance Program is to develop simple, universal, value-neutral, and scientifically defendable decision-support tools for managers, planners, regulators, and other professionals within Alberta and beyond. However, such tools require a level of understanding of natural disturbance patterns that did not exist prior to the inception of the FRI ND Program. Towards that, the FRI ND program focused initially on gathering this knowledge, and today has arguably complied the most comprehensive knowledge base of intermediate and fine scale wildfire patterns in all of Canada – including the development of a new spatial language with which to interpret the results. This knowledge has now been captured within a GIS-based decision-support tool that allows existing and future disturbance patterns to be compared to the range of patterns created by natural wildfires. NEPTUNE (New Emulation Planning Tool for Understanding Natural Events) installs as a tool within ESRI’s ArcGIS software and calculates 10 operational-scale pattern metrics from shapefiles and compares the output to the natural range of variation (NRV) for each one. The model accepts up to several thousands of polygons as input, and the output includes a shapefile of the disturbance “events” that NEPTUNE creates, plus an Excel workbook with the associated graphs and tables of all the results. The NRV data for NEPTUNE are taken directly from previous ND research, as well as a parallel research project conducted in Saskatchewan two years ago. To date, the model is calibrated for west-central Alberta and western Saskatchewan. Research is currently underway to expand the calibration of the model to the rest of Alberta and north-eastern BC. Although still being managed by the FRI ND Program and is linked through various projects, the NEPTUNE initiative is funded and managed as an independent entity. In other words, it is self-sufficient with its own terms of reference, objectives, funds, and partnership list. Currently, there are five full partners involved in NEPTUNE; West Fraser, ANC, AlPac, Mistik Management, Alberta SRD. NEPTUNE membership includes training, support, and a voice at the table with respect to upgrade priorities, distribution, training, and new memberships. 4. Background Information

NEPTUNE development began in the fall of 2004 with seed funding from HWP and ANC, and in-kind support from Bandaloop. The model was developed by The Forestry Corp under the direction of the ND Program. Early in 2006, Mistik Management (Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan) and the Alberta SRD joined the partnership, and later in 2006, Alberta Pacific agreed to join the NEPTUNE team. Version 1.0 of NEPTUNE was released in the fall of 2006 and

- 38 -

is now operational at the designated location(s) of each partner. Version 1.0 offers basic functionality, and our focus has largely been dealing with bugs and compatibility issues. As the model developed, and the partnership base grew, a “wish list” of potential model upgrades was tracked and prioritized. Several items remain on this list, and in fact it continues to grow with time. For example, linked with other ND research (see projects 128.3 and 128.11 in this work plan) the model can be calibrated to other geographic areas, and other disturbance types. The ultimate decision of which upgrades to pursue and when sits now with the NEPTUNE members. However, given the need for this type of tool in Alberta (and beyond) it is not unrealistic to presume that over the next several years, as the model is used and demonstrated, and as more research results come on line, that NEPTUNE membership will grow. At this point, there are no immediate objectives for this project during 2008/09 related to model upgrades or improvements. Some marketing will be necessary. 5. Objectives

There are currently no outstanding model development objectives at this time. Any new development objectives during the 2008/09 FRI fiscal year will be decided by the NEPTUNE management partners. Objective #1: Provide a maximum of ten person-days of (GIS, technical, or research) support during the 2008/09

fiscal year to the existing NEPTUNE members. Objective #2: Demonstrate / present / introduce the NEPTUNE model at least 3 times during the 2008/09 fiscal year. Objective #3: Hold at least one meeting of the NEPTUNE partners during the 2008/09 fiscal year. Objective #4: Ensure that any new FRI foundation natural pattern research is consistent with the methods and

language of that already used by NEPTUNE. 6. Objectives and Deliverables for Communications and Extension

C&E Objective #1: Develop and make available to potential new partners across western boreal Canada a NEPTUNE information package during the 2008/09 fiscal year.

C&E Objective #2: Host at least one demonstration of NEPTUNE to FRI staff during the 2008/09 fiscal year. 7. Links

Intra-Program Links: NEPTUNE input relies entirely at this point on the foundation research of wildfire patterns. Both the natural wildfire patterns (project 128.3) and the cultural wildfire patterns (project 128.11) will be conducted using the exact methods and spatial definitions adopted for the previous work, allowing any results to be adopted by NEPTUNE directly. Inter-Program Links: The potential exists for NEPTUNE to link to other DSS models being developed / proposed by other program areas at the FRI. The most obvious links are to various existing spatial models of Grizzly Bear Program and the proposed watershed disturbance models of the Fish and Watershed program. The respective program leads are aware of NEPTUNE and these potential linkages are will continue to be pursued. External Program Links: As part of the natural wildfire pattern project (128.3) the BC Ministry of Forests will be identifying fires and collecting raw data using the same criteria, standards, and resolution as the original FRI NDP research. The Saskatchewan wildfire pattern research completed by Bandaloop in 2006 used the same procedural standards, as well as the same spatial definitions as those developed by the FRI ND Program. The spatial language developed by the ND Program used in NEPTUNE has been summarized in a four-page Integration Note in 2006, and widely distributed across Canada. The issue of a standardized set of spatial definitions of natural patterns is considered to

- 39 -

be one of the main stumbling blocks of adopting a natural pattern strategy in Canada, and until now, no one has suggested a single universal, simple solution. NEPTUNE thus potentially represents a national standard. 8. Funding sources for this period

The funding structure for NEPTUNE was developed and agreed upon during the 2006/07 fiscal year between the funding partners. A NEPTUNE membership as of now sits at $35,000. The total dollar investment in NEPTUNE from the five full partners to this point is $175,000, plus an equal amount by Bandaloop in-kind. The total investment in NEPTUNE to date is thus $210,000. The budget below reflects the anticipated funds that will technically “roll over” from the 2007/08 budget as per the FRI fiscal year. Note that all identified funds are spoken for in terms of future model development and support at the discretion of the NEPTUNE members.


Requested from FRI)


Cash Committed

07 / 08

Total Confirmed

Funding


Cash from Mar 31, 08 48,300 48,300 0

Bandaloop 0 0 7,000

Totals 48,300 48,300 7,000 Support, calibration, upgrades. 9. Program/Project Key Members and Responsibilities

The NEPTUNE structure currently includes three levels of participation. “Members” each have a single voice at the NEPTUNE table, including any changes to the terms of reference, funding structure, model development priorities, and communications. The “project lead” is responsible to the members to manage all aspects of the project including model development, communications, and solicitation (note that Bandaloop is both project lead and member – Bandaloop’s responsibilities to the team take precedent over any voting proclivities). TFC as the software development lead is responsible for specific tasks as assigned by the project lead under contract with the FRI, and with the approval of the membership.

Dr. David Andison, Bandaloop - Project lead, (member-in-waiting). Mr. Brian Maier, TFC - Software development lead Dr. Rick Bonar, HWP - Member Mr. Daniel Chicoine, ANC - Member Mr. Herman Stegehuis, ASRD - Member Mr. Roger Nesdoly, Mistik Mgmt. - Member Dr. Elston Dzus, AlPac - Member



Version 1.0 of the NEPTUNE users’ manual is available upon request.

- 40 -

- 41 -


131 - Aboriginal Involvement Program (“the program”)

1. Prepared by

Bradley Young, Program Manager 130 Reimer Dr. Hinton, AB T7V 1K1 Ph: (780) 740-1493 Fax: (780) 865-1740 Email: [email protected]

2. Sign off Sheet

The Aboriginal Involvement Program steering committee will review the work plan and approve at the next meeting in the spring. The date for the meeting is Feb.11, 2008. 3. Executive Summary

This year’s work plan sets the course for completion of the remaining community research agreements. Two communities agreements have been completed. One is 75% complete. One is 50% complete and one is 25% complete. Budgets have been maintained to work with the outstanding community research programs. The research results to date are outstanding and have translated into a robust data usage/knowledge transfer mechanism, the Referral Process. The Referral Process is being used as a pilot, voluntary consultation notification/mitigation process right now. This year, the committee has decided to push, with industry and government support, the process into being a “one window for notification of consultation pilot” mandated for the Foothills SRD district. In order to do this, the pilot will drafted, approved and then begin operations in fall of 2008. Community training and technical support functions will be maintained. Funding for research expansion continues to be difficult, as political developments around consultation have fluctuated over the last few years. This is frustrating as many other communities want to partner but cannot due to resource levels. Despite this, the program remains one of the top performers in this realm provincially and nationally. 4. Background Information

The program began operations in 2002. It connects back to the FRI 5 year business plan’s strategic objective 3.1 (ii) Partnerships:

Maintain and build upon a varied and active partnership for all program areas, continuing the focus from Phase III on the aboriginal and environmental non-governmental organization (ENGO) areas

Since inception, the program has grown to involve three inter-related sub-program areas. The first program area is the Multi-community Traditional Use Study. Five communities (Aseniwuche Winewak, Nackowinewak, Foothills Ojibway, Sunchild First Nation, Bighorn Stoney First Nation) are conducting traditional use research. 53 elders on a combined basis have been interviewed. Over 1600 significant community cultural sites have been documented through the Multi-community Traditional Use Study.

- 42 -

Building on the Multi-community Traditional Use Study, The Referral Process has been initiated to assist with notification of consultation for partnered Aboriginal communities. The Referral Process has been utilized in a pilot format ten times with four industry partners and one government department, mitigating potential disturbances at 91 cultural sites. Guiding and facilitating both proceeding program areas is Community Training and Technical Support. On a combined basis 24 individuals from industry, government, and community nations have taken part in our committee meetings which guide all aspects of the program. On top of this, 18 technicians from the communities have received gps/gis training. The results for both the Multi-community Traditional Use Study and the Referral Process are Albertan and national benchmarks. Our training and support has operated outstandingly given the fact that the program has been reduced to 1.5 full time equivalents at present, from 3 full time equivalents at the start of the year. 2007-08 Deliverables The driving objective of the Aboriginal Involvement Program was to assist the communities, Foothills Ojibway Society (FOS), Aseniwuche Winewak (AWN), Nakcowinewak (NN), Bighorn Stoney First Nation (BIG), Sunchild First Nation (SUN), with completing the first phase of their studies within the FRI. This was to be completed by Fall 2007. FOS and BIG have completed the first phase of their studies; AWN is 75% complete and is doing quality control review with FRI staff; SUN is 50% complete and is completing their interviews and quality control reviewing their data; NN is 25% complete and has encountered internal administrative difficulties. Given the crush of demands on community study technicians the performance on this deliverable was excellent. The next major objective in priority and importance was to continue to build on and test the Referral Process. This will include automating the process for web access and supporting site visits. To be completed Summer 2008. Staffing changes have forced this deliverable to be modified, with current FRI staff focused completely on active traditional use research, support, and training. Importantly, a team of 3 Fleming Institute co-op students have been retained to conduct the automation and web access programming for the Referral Process. The summer 2008 completion deadline is still targeted. The third major objective was to achieve success in fundraising with the assistance of government, industrial, and community partners. The capstone event for this objective is for success in a sponsorship conference called “SRD, IIA Date Night with the Aboriginal Involvement Program”. It was completed on March 20, 2007. The event was well attended. The energy sector firms who attended are in disagreement with government regarding who funds consultation. In the case of the program their political position is for 100% government funding for Aboriginal needs in this arena. Despite this lack of funding commitment, several major energy firms are working with the program to gain government approval for the ‘one window for notification of consultation’ pilot in the Foothills SRD district. They have said if the government approves this pilot, then they will abide by a service fee schedule for utilizing the process. Revenues will then be directed back to community research budgets and offices. The fourth major objective was to assist the Aboriginal board members with carrying out their duties as FRI board members. Importantly, the Aboriginal board members have consistently been present at board meetings. The fifth major objective was to liaise with additional Aboriginal communities, and as funding permits, partner with them. The three communities identified here, in order of interest, are: O’Chiese First Nation, Mountain Cree (Smallboy’s Camp), and Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation. The additional resources needed to accomplish this have not been forthcoming. This being said, these communities and several other Treaty 6 status First Nation communities are still interested in partnering. All that is needed is additional resources to make this happen. The sixth major objective is to develop and receive approval for a 5 year workplan and 5 year communications plan. To be completed by August 2007. This item was tabled forward until the 2007-8 fiscal year is complete, as a major opportunity in the proposed ‘one window for notification of consultation’ pilot must be decided upon and implemented. The pilot, once configured and agreed to, will alter the 5 yr. workplan and communications plan substantively so it is prudent to wait until it is confirmed before making any further plans.

- 43 -

5. Deliverables and Objectives

Community Acronyms: Foothills Ojibway Society (FOS), Aseniwuche Winewak (AWN), Bighorn Stoney First Nation (BIG), Sunchild First Nation (SUN)

Deliverable Priority / Project

Specific Objectives Funding Source/ Amounts

Timeline

1. Multicommunity Traditional Use Study

A. Complete AWN SUN, 1st phases of studies

Aboriginal Affairs 40,000

March 2009

B. Support BIG, FOS community research programs

As new funding permits; must locate funds

On-going

2. One window for notification of consultation pilot

A. Draft and approve pilot model with industry, government, and community

West Fraser FRIAA 130,000

April 2008

B. Program Referral Process automation and web access features

Fleming Co-op/Aborig. Affairs 20,000

Sept. 2008

C. Discuss notification zones for communities


March 2009

D. Operate pilot Will be a revenue generator

On-going

3. On-going training and technical support

A. Host committee meetings Aboriginal Affairs 30,000

3 steering committee meetings per year with ad hoc meetings as needed

B. Training Jasper National Park 10,000

On-going

C. Technical support Jasper National Park 10,000

On-going

4. Liase with additional Aboriginal communities, and as funding permits, partner with them

A. O’Chiese First Nation, Mountain Cree, Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation

As new funding permits; must locate funds

As funding permits

5. Develop and receive approval for a 5 year work plan and a 5 year communications plan


March 2008

Notes: Deliverable 2, the ‘one window for notification of consultation’ pilot stands a good chance of being adopted for implementation. Currently, the program is working with industry, community, and government representatives to align the pilot with government policy during the development phase so there are no ‘big’ surprises to decision makers when the pilot is presented for formal approval. Also, revenues are forecasted in the operations of the pilot but will not be indicated here as the budget model for the pilot has not been approved of yet. 6. Objectives and Deliverables for Communications and Extension

Due to funding pressures and staff changes, this deliverable will consist of the following deliverables:

a. New website content; Sept. 2008 b. Presentations; Continually redesigned as per audience

When the ‘one window for notification of consultation’ is approved a complete brochure package will be designed.

- 44 -

7. Inter Program Links

The program works closely with GIS and Communications. If there are additional resources, Adaptive Forest Management/History may be approached for selective historical projects. This could involve production of more detailed histories from the communities traditional use data. In terms of administration, the General Manager continues to play an important role in advising on all aspects of program planning, implementation, and administration. Also, subject to approvals, there may be an opportunity for other FRI data layers to be considered along with the traditional use data layers of the communities in the one window consultation notification pilot. More detailed plans will be drafted as the steering committee advises. At this point, however, inter program links, while interesting is secondary to the deliverables focus of this workplan. 8. Funding sources for this period

Aboriginal Involvement Program - 131

Ab. International, Intergovernmental, and Aboriginal Affairs

$100,000 $100,000 IIA personnel attend meetings and advise on program operations as needed

Contribution agreement negotiations successful; Deliverable monies following this Dec.Feb. 19, 2007

West Fraser FRIAA 130,000 130,000 IIA personnel attend meetings and advise on program operations as needed

Jasper National Park 20,000 20,000 Core contribution

Communities 100,000 100,000 In-kind HR secondments

Totals 1,800 $350,000 $351,800 Cash has been constrained this year due to difficult negotiations with Alberta over agreements and deliverables; West Fraser amended their 130k contribution to carry forward between ’07-8 & ’08-9 fiscal years; I’ve indicated it here in ’08-9 for sake of simplicity; detailed budget reconciliation and forecasting is available if requested; Overall at end of ’08-9 fiscal the program will have a slight surplus

Currently, “the program” is carrying a negative balance of –$102,000 with confirmed incoming revenues of $180,000 and incoming expenses of $75,000. The cash carry forward for the ’07-8 fiscal is projected to be approx. $2,000. In the 2008-9 fiscal, our cash budget will be $250,000. After expenses a balance of $21,000 is projected. This budget will enable the program to complete the remaining research as stipulated by agreements with the communities and carry out the deliverables indicated above. Unfortunately, although the program is capable, additional research expansion and partnerships cannot be committed to.

- 45 -


Bradley Young, Contracted Program Lead

Mailing Address: 130 Reimer Dr., Hinton, AB, T7V 1K1 Phone: 780-740-1493/780-865-1699 Fax: 780-865-1740 Email: [email protected] Brad is the head administrator, responsible for supervising Aboriginal Involvement Program Staff, liaising with communities and government as needed, monitoring agreements and budgets, organizing and chairing meetings, and drafting workplans. Melissa Pattison, GIS Analyst Melissa provides GIS related support. This includes maintaining the cultural study database, operating the Referral Process, assisting with community research tasks, training community members in GIS related functions. Also Melissa has taken on administrative support functions such as note taking for meetings and basic office communications. Mailing Address: Box 6330 Hinton, AB, T7V 1X6 Phone: 780-865-8393 Fax: 780-865-8331 Email: [email protected] 10. Environmental/Occupational Health and Safety/Permits

N/A 11. Appendices

(mid term and year end reports, references, review information publications, business case)

- 46 -

- 47 -


Fish and Watershed Program

General = Contribution 150, Riparian Research = 150.4 1. Prepared by

Richard McCleary, Program Manager Foothills Research Institute Box 6330 Hinton, AB T7V 1X6 Ph: (780) 865-8383 Fax: (780) 865-8331 Email: [email protected]

2. Sign off Sheet

Table 1. Activity Team Approval

Name Organization Signature Andrew Schoepf AENV, Water Management

Bob Demulder Alberta Chamber of Resources

Debbie Mucha Foothills Research Institute

Tom Archibald Foothills Research Institute

George Sterling ASRD, Fish and Wildlife Division, Edson

John Diiwu ASRD, Forest Management Branch

Lisa Jones Foothills Research Institute

Mark Schoenberger Hinton Wood Products (HWP)

Marwan Hassan UBC, Dept. of Geography

Elizabeth Patreau Fisheries and Oceans Canada

Ward Hughson Jasper National Park

Wayne Johnson ASRD, Forestry Division, Whitecourt


The Fish and Watershed Program provides leadership in research and stewardship initiatives that help our partners address their specific sustainable forest and land management challenges relating to aquatic resources. Our main research initiative involves riparian management and our two stewardship initiatives are the Foothills Stream Crossing Program and the Hardisty Creek Restoration Project. Partnerships form the foundation of all projects. We use a communication / extension philosophy starting with consultations between scientists and managers during proposal development and include knowledge / technology transfer activities during the course of all projects. The riparian research program was initiated in 2005 with partnerships between the FRI, UBC and FRIAA. ASRD manages riparian areas for multiple goals including maintenance of terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity, maintenance of ecosystem structure and function, and the conservation of water quality. Our program will develop knowledge and tools for a subset of these goals and our work is intended as one component of a larger decision support system for managing riparian areas. In 2006, Alberta Newsprint Co., Hinton Wood Products, Spray Lake Sawmills, Sundre Forest Products and UBC provided additional support for our project. The field research component is extended into the summer of 2008, with tools, publications and extension to follow in the remainder of the 2008/2009 fiscal year.

- 48 -

The Foothills Stream Crossing Program is a partnership driven initiative that integrates environment and road infrastructure management. In 2008/2009, the Fish and Watershed Program Manager will act as Chair of the Technical Committee (Figure 4). In 2007, we worked with the companies to identify two pilot watersheds for remediation. In 2008, the stream crossing program is planning to develop detailed remediation plans for these watersheds and also to add the status of all stream crossings within the FRI into our database so that the environmental benefits from any project can be evaluated at the watershed scale and optimized. In 2007, we finished watershed stewardship demonstration sites at Kinsmen Park for the Hardisty Creek project (Figure 1) and at the Anderson Creek crossing along Robb Road (Figures 2-3). In 2007, the Hardisty Creek Watershed Restoration received the National Habitat Stewardship Award from Wildlife Habitat Canada and the project was also recognized as an important contribution when the Town of Hinton won the Provincial Communities in Bloom Award. The activity team has recommended continue involvement in the Hardisty Creek project to: (1) facilitate completion of additional fish passage remediation projects; (2) continue to monitor improvements to fish population following restoration work; and (3) to identify and rank actively eroding areas (bared areas such as land developments, roads or trails) within the basin that may be impacting water quality. The Hardisty Creek Project will also be an important consideration when Hinton enters the National Communities in Bloom competition in 2008. In Jan. 2009, the steering committee plans to reapply for an Alberta Emerald Award, on advice of the Alberta Emerald Foundation.

Figure 1. Interpretive sign at Kinsmen Park, Hardisty Creek.

- 49 -

Figure 2. Main sign at trailhead.

Figure 3. Signs for trail stops 1 and 2 at Anderson Creek demonstration site.

- 50 -


In 2008/2009, the Fish and Watershed Program will work on priority projects as identified by our supporting partners. This includes delivering on our FRIAA Open Funds contract for Project #OF-04-P13: Evaluating Effects of Various Riparian Management Strategies. Other proposed activities include providing technical support to other initiatives including the Foothills Stream Crossing Program and the Hardisty Creek Restoration Project. In 2008/2009, Richard McCleary, Fish and Watershed Program Manager, will transition from an FRI employee to an FRI contractor. A forecast of manager days available (Table 8) and manager days allocated by project (Table 9) is included Section 8 - Summary of forecast funding and expenditures. The following sections outline the business case for each project and provide an update of deliverables.

Riparian Research Project

Forest managers support a shift towards science-based management and have identified a requirement for improved understanding of key ecological processes in riparian areas to support this shift. The goals of this project are to complete:

1. knowledge creation to address specific knowledge gaps on sediment and large woody debris processes in Foothills streams.

2. tool development to allow forest managers to apply this knowledge in Forest Management Plans and forest operations.

In 2005 the FRI Board of Directors granted approval for the Fish and Watershed program manager to spend 75% of his time on this research project over a three-year period from May 2005 to May 2008. The 2006 field season yielded limited data due to instrumentation issues combined and drought conditions. The instrumentation issues were resolved in 2007, however below normal precipitation resulted in only a small number of runoff events. Activity team members have been kept informed of the difficulties and delays. On Feb. 5, 2008, several of these team members identified priorities and approved a revised plan for project completion. In 2008/2009 we will complete a GIS-based watershed similarity analysis (Cheong 1998) for both the HWP and ANC FMAs. This analysis will be completed by FRI staff. This is an alternative to two separate pilot projects that would have included a contract for GIS analysis, plus field work. This change will help keep the project on schedule, minimize costs and provide knowledge that is required for the upcoming HWP Forest Management Plan. As a result of the fieldwork delays and an increase in scope since the initial proposal, we are requesting continued FRI support into 2009. The initial commitment by the board of $150,000 was essential for securing an additional $242,000 in external funding (FRIAA Open Funds and FRIAA member contributions) and $160,000 of in-kind funding (UBC Department of Geography). In 2007, $52,000 of additional funding was raised to support this project (NSERC and Trout Unlimited Canada). Dr. Marwan Hassan, UBC Geography has agreed to continue his in-kind contributions to ensure the successful completion of the knowledge creation deliverables that are fundamental to the overall success of this project. The large woody debris (LWD) component of this project entails a comparison of field measures of (standing timber and LWD) with predicted values. The project will utilize the growth and yield models developed by Dave Morgan’s ASRD research team and the Foothills Growth and Yield Association. The researchers will produce three tools for riparian area management. First, we will create a field handbook for managing sediment and woody debris in riparian areas. The handbook will link to the existing ecological classification systems for west central and south western Alberta. The handbook is intended to support forest development activities including riparian timber harvest planning, power-line and pipeline right-of-way construction. For the second product, we will produce a watershed scale erosion model for predicting changes in aquatic habitat and water quality from various riparian management scenarios. As the third product, we will develop a stream channel assessment procedure for evaluating actual effects of forestry on stream ecosystems. To ensure the success of the knowledge development efforts, Richard McCleary has been working under the supervision of Dr. Marwan Hassan and Dr. Dan Moore at UBC. Richard is completing his PhD requirements including courses and exams on his own time. Richard has received tuition awards and scholarships to cover course fees, etc. and these costs have not been paid by the Foothills Research Institute. In addition, Richard works for one day per week on his own time (Table 8 and Table 9) on various aspects of the knowledge development deliverables. This will equate to 200 days over a four-year period from 2005-2009.

- 51 -

Foothills Stream Crossing Program The transportation network within Foothills Research Institute presents challenges including infrastructure management and conservation of fish passage and water quality within our stream ecosystems. Hinton Wood Products and the Foothills Research Institute are uniquely positioned to lead the multiple road owners in a coordinated effort to improve the environmental and safety performance of the expanding road network in the FRI. In 2006, we completed the first regionally integrated stream crossing inventory program in Alberta and in 2007, we assisted the companies to integrate the information into their infrastructure management programs and we identified two opportunities for the program members to collaborate on watershed scale remediation projects. Since project inception, the Fish and Watershed Program manager also served as Project Manager for the Stream Crossing Program, reporting to Jerry Bauer. In 2008, these duties for Richard McCleary will be limited to Chair of the Technical Committee. The Stream Crossing Program will be responsible to arrange for adequate project management. This change will be required due to a reduction in time available by the Fish and Watershed program manager in 2008/2009 (Table 8 and Table 9). The Foothills Stream Crossing Program manager will focus on maintaining and expanding the existing partnership of crossing owners, regulators and interested agencies. The Stream Crossing Program and Fish and Watershed Program will be evaluating the options for securing additional professional support based on future project needs and funding opportunities.

Co-Chairs:HWP, Mark Schoenberger

ConocoPhillips, Garth Davis

General ManagerJerry Bauer

Project CoordinatorNgaio Baril

Voting Members(Stream Crossing Owners)

Technical Committee(Non voting members)

1. FMF - Richard McCleary (Chair)2. DFO – Elizabeth Patreau3. ASRD – PLFD, Jamie Bruha4. ASRD – FW, Scott Millar

1. BP Canada Energy2. ConocoPhillips3. CNRL4. Devon5. Petro Canada6. Suncor7. Talisman8. West Fraser

Foothills Stream Crossing Program Organization Chart

Figure 4. Foothills Stream Crossing Program organization chart

- 52 -

Hardisty Creek Restoration Project

In Phase III, the Fish and Watershed Program took an active role in pursuing grants and managing restoration projects. In Kinsmen Park, we completed fish passage remediation and stream bank restoration. These projects are of local interest but also demonstrate innovative approaches to addressing fish habitat conservation challenges that are widespread in Alberta. Since the completion of the work in Kinsmen Park, we have continued to participate as a steering committee member. We will shift our focus from project management to serving in a technical advisory capacity for companies or organizations interested in pursuing their own restoration projects. In 2008, we will attempt to secure funding to compliment the core contributions towards the Hardisty Creek Project to complete a survey to identify any sediment sources that contribute sediment during summer rainfall events. Our findings will be communicated to the respective land management agencies. We will also continue to monitor the response of fish populations following the restoration of fish passage and fish habitat and we will look for additional funds to compliment the FRI contribution.

5. Objectives

In 2008/2009, the program will focus on completing the Riparian Research Project (Table 2 and Table 3) and maintaining continuity with the Foothills Stream Crossing Program and Hardisty Creek Watershed Restoration Project (Table 4). We will also look for an opportunity to collaborate with other Programs on a new research initiative. Riparian project deliverables include both knowledge creation and tool development. Knowledge creation projects have three phases including data collection, data analysis and publication. With their innovative nature, these projects often entail developing original field programs, protocols and instruments. We adopt the best existing technologies and then make changes as required. Ultimately, the weather, instrument performance, and technical abilities of the staff determine the outcome. From a business perspective, these factors present risks and challenges that are unique to the data collection phase of knowledge creation deliverables. The costs and risks decrease once a knowledge creation project has reached the data analysis and publication stages. To illustrate progress towards project completion, the knowledge creation table includes a separate progress breakdown for each phase (Table 2). Managers will ultimately benefit from the tools that are developed from this project, and tool development is much cheaper than knowledge development (Table 3). However, the acceptance of a tool can be contingent upon the quality of the knowledge that it is based upon.

- 53 -

Table 2. Knowledge creation deliverables from the riparian research project (these include field work, data analysis and publication).

Riparian Research Field Projects

% Complete Current expenditure

$ to complete Field work (%

complete)

Data analysis (% complete)

Reporting (%

complete)

Comments

1.Sediment budget 70 $245,000 $105,000

One more season of data required prior to starting data analysis.

2. Wood budget 75 $95,000 $32,000 Field work completed. Analysis and reporting starting.

3. Landscape model / basin similarity analysis 80 $36,000 $9,000

One week of fieldwork required to complete Sullivan Creek project for Spray Lake Sawmills.

TOTAL 72 $376,000 $146,000 Total forecast $522,000 + in-kind Table 3. Tool development deliverables from the riparian research project (these tools build on knowledge creation deliverables).

Riparian Research Field Projects % complete Current expenditure

$ To complete

1. Handbook for managing LWD and sediment. 50 $5,000 $5,000

2. Channel assessment procedure. 20 $1,000 $4,000

3. Communication plan. 0 $0 $700 TOTAL $6,000 $9,700

- 54 -

Table 4. List of projects and deliverables.

Project Deliverable Due Date 1. Report on sources of fine sediment ranked by risk to

water quality in lower 2 km of Hardisty Creek. Oct. 2008

2. Report on changes in fish populations and fish species after fish passage restoration.

Dec. 2008

I. Hardisty Creek

3. Emerald award application Jan. 2009

4. Assist Stream Crossing Program to develop implementation plan.

Mar 2008 III. Stream Crossing Program 5. Attend quarterly meetings as Technical Committee

Chair. ongoing


In 2008/2009 we will request the assistance of the Communications Program to develop communications plans for individual projects. We will identify key messages, target audiences and community strategies. In 2008/2009 we will continue to deliver and promote the extension program that the Woodlands Operations Learning Foundation (WOLF) has developed with our in-kind support. 7. Inter Program Links

The Fish and Watershed Program will work with other FRI programs to obtain the resources to develop a proposal for an integrated project to assist land managers and policy makers to meet the complex social / economic / environmental demands. This includes following up on the 2007 joint submission to the Alberta Water Research Institute prepared by the Natural Disturbance Program, Fish and Watershed Program, Foothills Growth and Yield Association and the Social Science Program. Other funding opportunities may arise through the Water for Life initiative. The FRI program includes leaders from a range of disciplines and our team has a unique opportunity to contribute in this area.

8. Summary of forecast funding and expenditures for this period

Table 5. 2008 / 2009 Forecast Income

Forecast Income Source Amount 1. HWP core contribution $100,000 2. AB ASRD core $52,550 4. FRIAA (final contract payment) $17,950 5. NSERC - IPS $19,000 6. Stream Crossing Program $8,500 7. Trout Unlimited Canada – Coldwater Conservation Fund (pending) $10,000

Total $208,000.00 Table 6. 2008/2009 Forecast Expenditures

Forecast Expenditure Type Amount 1. Wages (1 permanent employee (3.5 months), 1 contract biologist (8.5 months), 1 seasonal employees * 4 months, 1 term employee * 7 months)

$151,660

2. Operating expenses $22,340 3. Vehicle / ATV expenses $24,000 4. UBC contract for lab services and committee travel $10,000

Total $208,000.00

- 55 -

Table 7. Overall Project Budget

Priority Project Area and Code FRI Core Request for 2008/2009

Other Total

1. Riparian Research (150.4) $108,750 $46,950 $155,700.002. Stream Crossings (150) $8,500 $8,500 $17,000.003. Hardisty Creek (150) $14,000 $14,000.004. Admin/Proposals (150) $21,300 $21,300.00

Total $152,550.00 $55,450.00 $208,000.00

Table 8. Monthly Summary of Program Manager Days Available

Month # employee days # contractor days Total FRI Days # of PhD days (own time)

April 22 22 4 May 21 21 4 June 20 20 4 July Annual Leave +

TOIL 4 4 4

August 10 10 4 September 11 11 4 October 12 12 4 November 10 10 4 December 7 7 6 January 10 10 4 February 10 10 4 March 12 12 4 Total 63 86 149 50

Table 9. Monthly Summary of Program Manager Days Allocated by Project

Month Stream Crossing Days

Hardisty Creek Days

FRI Admin/ proposal days

Riparian Project Days

Total Paid FRI Days

# of PhD days (own time)

April 2 0.5 2 17.5 22 4 May 2 0.5 2 16.5 21 4 June 2 0.5 2 15.5 20 4 July 2 0.5 1 0.5 4 4 August 2 0.5 2 5.5 10 4 September 2 0.5 2 6.5 11 4 October 2 0.5 2 7.5 12 4 November 2 0.5 2 5.5 10 4 December 2 0.5 2 2.5 7 6 January 2 0.5 2 5.5 10 4 February 2 0.5 2 5.5 10 4 March 2 0.5 2 7.5 12 4 Total 24 6 23 96 149 50

- 56 -

Table 10. Summary of forecasted in-kind contributions from other FRI Programs.

Program Days Rate Contribution value Admin / Accounting 12 $300 $3,600

GIS 48 $550 $26,400 Communications 50 $300 $15,000

Total 110 $33,000 Communication resources have not been official requested but are anticipated to go towards report production (Fran editing, proof reading), communication plan development, and participating of communications staff on watershed related initiatives (Hardisty Creek, etc.) 9. Program/Project Key Members and Responsibilities

Table 11. Riparian research project key members and responsibilities.

Name Role Contact Dr. Marwan Hassan Co-supervisor Dept. of Geography, UBC Dr. Dan Moore Co-supervisor Depts. of Forestry / Geography, UBC Dr. Uldis Silins Advising scientist Renewable Resources, UofA Dr. Lori Daniels Advising scientist Dept. of Geography, UBC Rich McCleary Field research leader FRI Mark Schoenberger Industry supporter Hinton Wood Products Daniel Chicoine Industry supporter Alberta Newsprint Company Peter Denney Industry supporter Sundre Forest Products Ed Kulcsar Industry supporter Spray Lake Sawmills John Diiwu ASRD advisor ASRD, FMB John Stadt ASRD advisor ASRD, FMB Dr. Lee Benda Project scientist Earth Systems Institute, Mt. Shasta, CA Dr. Paul Arp Project scientist University of New Brunswick Andrew Schoepf Extension participant AENV Regional Services Axel Anderson Extension participant ASRD, FMB, Calgary Bill Tinge Extension participant ASRD, PLFD, Hinton Dave Andison Extension participant FRI, Natural Disturbance Program Ed Wassink Extension participant Sundre Forest Products Kelsey Kure Extension participant Sundre Forest Products Jamie Bruha Extension participant ASRD, Harvest and Renewal Section Rick Bonar Extension participant Hinton Wood Products Wayne Johnson Extension participant ASRD, Senior Forester

For Foothills Stream Crossing Program key members and responsibilities see SCP workplan.

Table 12. Hardisty Creek Restoration project key members and responsibilities.

Name Role Contact Rich McCleary Technical advisor FRI Rick Bonar Industry supporter Hinton Wood Products Connie Bresnahan Education / outreach West Athabasca Bioregional Society Elizabeth Patreau DFO advisor Fisheries and Oceans Canada Dave Robson Steering committee Hinton Fish and Game Assoc. Jean Anne Fraser Steering committee Town of Hinton Dana Becker Steering committee AB Transportation Karl Hunt Steering committee Public representative vacant Steering committee ASRD - PLFD

- 57 -


Table 13. List of permits required by research project.

Project Permit 1. Riparian research project Parks and Protected Areas Research Permit –

in place for 2006 - 2007 Permission from Beaverbone family to conduct

research near Jochiam Valley aboriginal cultural site.

Policy – revisiting working alone policy after disappearance of Ms. Stewart from Athabasca Tower within riparian research watershed.

2. Hardisty Creek Restoration Project Property owners apply to AENV, ASRD, DFO as required for restoration permits.

11. References

Cheong, A. 1998. Hydrological assessment of basin types, Fisheries Inventory Section, BC Fisheries, Victoria, BC.Available from http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/library/Frbc1998/FRBC1998MR168.PDF

- 58 -

- 59 -


150.3 Foothills Stream Crossing Program

1. Prepared by

Jerry Bauer, Program Manager Box 544 Sta Main Grande Prairie, AB T8V 3A7 Ph:(780) 532-0851 Email: [email protected]

2. Sign off Sheet

Table 1. Activity Team Approval (Representatives from contributing member organizations that own stream crossings within the Foothills Research Institute).

Name Organization Approval

Terry Forkheim Talisman Energy Inc.

Ken Bisgrove Petro Canada

Garth Davis ConocoPhillips Canada

Mark Schoenberger West Fraser

Sandy Russell Suncor Energy

Gerry Symonds BP Canada Energy

Brad Braun CNRL

Peter Millman Devon Canada Corporation

3. Executive Summary The Foothills Stream Crossing Program is an independent, partner driven program that has the main objective of improving the management of stream crossings in the Foothills Research Institute. The Foothills Research Institute is the coordinating agency for the program and has established a close working relationship with the Stream Crossing Program. In 2008, the main focus of the program will be to expand membership to include all crossing owners in the FMA, to complete all crossing inspections in West Fraser’s FMA and to implement remediation work on two test basins. 4. Background Information The initial concept of an integrated approach to managing stream crossings was developed jointly by West Fraser and the Foothills Research Institute in 2004. This led to the first official meeting of the Steering Committee on April 5, 2005 in Calgary. The initial meeting was attended by West Fraser, Foothills Research Institute, Department of Fisheries and Ocean (DFO), Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD), Alberta Environment and a number of resource based companies.

- 60 -

A manager for the program was hired and a Memoranda of Agreement (MoA) was developed and approved by the Steering Committee in June of 2005. The MoA basically outlines the rules for membership, roles and responsibilities of the Steering Committee, relationship with the Foothills Research Institute and the roles of the Provincial and Federal Government. Goal of program:

“………. to help companies and crossing owners manage stream crossings in the long term……..” Objectives of program:

Develop an industry driven approach Establish a standardized stream crossing inspection process and protocols Establish a system to identify priorities for maintenance and replacement Improve the quality or performance of stream crossings Proactively address the risk

5. Objectives

Table 2. List of projects and deliverables. Project Category Deliverable* Due Date

Knowledge creation

1. One page summary to promote the program Dec. 20, 2007

2. Communicate progress and achievements of the Stream Crossing Program

On-going

Policy Support 3. Work with Regulators to influence non-members to join. On-going 4. Update and inform key government people about the

program, progress, achievements and needs On-going

5. Seek additional, third party funding for non-members inspections

On-going

Management/ Administration/Communications

6. Finalize a long term (5-year) work plan Sept. 30, 2008 Demonstration 7. Identify all crossings in the two test basins Jan. 31, 2008 8. Get non-members support of test basins Feb. 15, 2008 9. Prepare remediation plan for test basins including timing

of work and draft budgets Feb. 22, 2008

Test Basins

10. Finalize and review plan with Regulators; get approval for work to be carried out in 2008

March 14, 2008

11. Establish base line for the presence of fish to demonstrate improvements after remediation

June 30, 2008

12. Complete initial inspections on all remaining crossings May 30, 2008

13. Summarize results of findings When work completed

Knowledge Creation

14. Form subcommittee to provide direction on data base requirements

Jan. 22, 2008

15. Subcommittee to finalize recommendations on data requirements

May 2, 2008

16. Prepare master list of crossings March 30, 2008 17. All owners report on status of their 2006 inspections April 30, 2008 18. Get remaining crossing owners on board as members On-going 19. Draft policy for owners with 10 or less crossings to

participate in the program as a non-voting member Feb. 15, 2008

FMA/Research Institute Area

20. Complete initial inspections of remaining crossings Sept. 30, 2008 21. Develop protocols for re-inspections Sept. 30, 2008

22. Complete habitat assessments for high risks or high cost crossings

Sept. 30, 2008

Policy Support 23. Develop framework and time line on how the program will ramp up to address high risk crossings

On-going

* see Appendix 1 for details on the 2008 work plan and all deliverables.

- 61 -


In 2008/2009 we will continue to work with Communications to promote the program both to existing and potential members and to key people in the Provincial and Federal government. Support from senior management in both industry and government is essential to the long term success of the program and expanding its use across Alberta. This should be done through existing communication programs (Research Institute publications, website, etc.) and direct communication with key managers.

7. Inter Program Links

We will continue to work closely with the Fish and Watershed Program. 8. Funding sources for this period

Table 3. 2008 / 2009 Forecast Income

Forecast Income Source Amount 1. Crossing Owners $251,500 Total $251,500

Table 4. 2008/2009 Forecast Expenditures

Forecast Expenditure Type Amount 1. Consulting $52,520 2. Wages (Rich, Ngaio, helper, GIS) $123,700 3. Travel $8,000 4. Supplies (field equipment, quad, office, fuel, repairs) $40,000

5. Vehicle $24,500 6. Contingency $2,780 Total $251,500

Table 5. Overall Project Budget See detailed budget in Appendix 2.

Table 6. Summary of requested in-kind contributions from other FRI Programs.

Program Days Rate Contribution value

Fish and Watershed 12 $600 $7,200 Admin / Accounting unknown $300 unknown

Communications unknown $300 unknown Total 12 $7,200 + unknown


For Foothills Stream Crossing Program key members and responsibilities see SCP work plan.

- 62 -

10. Environmental/Occupational Health and Safety/Permits Only required for fish inventory work; to be handled by Fish and Watershed Program.

11. Appendices Appendix 1: Work Plan for 2008 Appendix 2: Budget for 2008 (Jan. 1, 2008 to Dec. 31, 2008)

- 63 -

Appendix 1: Work Plan for 2008 January 23, 2008

Item Responsibility Timing Status

Management/Administration/Communication

1. Prepare first draft of work plan and budget for 2008 and distribute to Steering Committee

Jerry By Dec. 20, 2007 Done; emailed to members

2. Produce one page summary or hand out for use by the Steering Committee to promote the program

Revise and finalize based on input from committee

Jerry

Steering Committee, Jerry

Dec. 20, 2007

February 8, 2008

Done, emailed to members

3.

Obtain approval in principle of work plan and budget for 2008

Revise work pan and budget based on feedback from committee

Members

Jerry

January 22 S.C. meeting

January 25, 2008

Done

4. Prepare and send out initial invoices for 2008 (administration cost only)

Jerry, Research Institute Jan. 25, 2008

5.

Work with the regulators to influence non-members to join the Stream Crossing Program:

Need to discuss with the regulators (DFO, SRD, Environment) for their input and thoughts on this approach

Write up a strategy or approach

Jerry, Bob

Jerry

Jerry

On going

January 31, 2008

February 8, 2008

6. Communicate progress and achievements of the Stream Crossing Program

Jerry, Research Institute, members as needed

On going

- 64 -

7.

Update and inform key government people (SRD, Alberta Environment, DFO) about the program, progress, achievements and needs of the Stream Crossing Program

Obtain clarification from the Regulators on compliance as its relate to the work of the Stream Crossing Program

Review the concept of “blanket approval” with the Regulators

Jerry, Bob, members as required

Jerry

Jerry

On going

February 8, 2008

February 8, 2008

8. Seek additional, third party funding to support the Stream Crossing Program

Jerry, Ngaio On going

9. Develop and finalize a budget for field work for 2008 including inspections and fish inventory work

Jerry April 18, 2008

10. Invoice members for proposed field work (second invoice for 2008); on a cost recovery basis

Jerry, Research Institute May 16, 2008

11. Finalize a long term (5 years) work plan; include priorities based on high risk crossings and maximizing benefits; include list of crossings and proposed timing of remediation (by year)

Jerry Sept. 30, 2008

- 65 -

Test Basins

12. Identify (by owner, location, risk factors) all crossings in the two test basins including non-members; prepare master list (one data base) including map

Ngaio, Jerry Jan. 31, 2008

13. Contact non-members in the test basins to get their support and participation (including their participation in the planning process outlined in Item 14 below)

Jerry, Bob and crossing owners

Feb. 15, 2008

14. Crossing owners (BP, CNRL, Devon, West Fraser, Suncor, ConconPhillips, Talisman) in the two test basins to meet and prepare a remediation plan including timing of work and draft budget

Jerry, Ngaio, Bob and crossing owners

Feb. 22, 2008

15. From Item 14, determine what work can be reasonably carried out in the summer of 2008

Jerry, Ngaio, Bob and crossing owners

Feb. 22, 2008

16. Finalize and review plan with Regulators including getting approval (blanket) for work to be carried out in the summer of 2008

Jerry, Ngaio (may require reps from crossing owners)

March 14, 2008

17. Complete initial inspections on all remaining crossings in the two test basins (note: approximately 2/3 have been done; subject to funding)

Ngaio May 30, 2008

18. Establish base line for the presence of fish in key areas or high risk crossings in test basins (to help determine or demonstrate improvements in fish habitat and water quality after remediation)

Ngaio June 30, 2008

19.

Upon completion of the two test basins, summarize the findings for the Steering Committee and the Foothills Research Institute; include level of remediation completed, before and after results, any research findings, successes, challenges.

Jerry, Bob When work is completed (as per approved plan)

- 66 -

FMA/Research Institute Area

20. Form a subcommittee (Mark, Sandy, Garth, Terry and Bob) to provide direction on how to proceed with the development of a data base (develop criteria and process to develop)

Jerry and Sub-committee Jan. 22, 2008 Done

21. Subcommittee to finalize recommendations on data requirements for the Stream Crossing Program including where the data will be housed

Sub-committee, Jerry, Ngaio

May 2, 2008

22. Identify (by owner, location, risk factors) all crossings in the FMA including non-members; prepare master list (one data base) including map

Ngaio March 30, 2008

23. All owners to report on status of their 2006 inspections

Crossing owners April 30, 2008

24. Get remaining owners including government on board as voting members (concentrate on those with 10 or more crossings)

Jerry, Bob D, Members On going

25. Draft a policy or procedures for owners with 10 or less crossings to participate in the program as a non-voting member (charge out rate for completing inspections, but no administration charge)

Jerry February 15, 2008

26. Complete initial inspections of remaining crossings in FMA/Research Institute (rough estimate of 450 additional crossings)

Ngaio and summer field crew

Sept. 30, 2008

27. Develop protocols for follow up or maintenance inspections (for both normal and high risk or sensitive crossings); may also want to consider “after major storm or flood events”

Members Sept. 30, 2008

28. Begin to develop a management framework and time line with the members and regulators on how the program will ramp up to address the high risk crossings over a defined management period

Jerry, Members, Regulators

Ongoing with completion in 2009

- 67 -

Appendix 2: Budget for 2008 (Jan. 1, 2008 to Dec. 31, 2008) January 23, 2008

Rate per

day No.

Days Total Comments

Administration Program Manager

Jerry Bauer 742 60 44,520 Travel 5,000 cover travel expenses for meetings, recruiting, promoting with regulators

Technical Support Rich McCleary 600 12 7,200 includes all cost: office, vehicle, travel; 24 days in total including 12 days paid for by the Research Institute

Ngaio Baril 300 135 40,500 full time for 6 months (other 6 months covered by field work) Travel 3,000 travel for Ngaio

Supplies 5,000 Vehicles 175 20 3,500 vehicle cost outside of field season

GIS Support 500 20 10,000

Contingency 2,780

Total Cost $121,500 to cover the cost of running the program and to implement work plan

Revenue 13,500 9 $121,500 cost per voting member for 2008 = $13,500; assumes 9 voting members

surplus/deficit $0

Field Work Rate per

day No.

Days Total Comments Inspections

Ngaio 300 90 27,000 Helper 250 90 22,500

Vehicle 175 90 15,750 Supplies 21,000 field equipment, field supplies, quad rental, office supplies, fuel, repairs sub-total $86,250 to inspect the remaining crossings in the FMA

No. of inspections 450 Cost per inspection $191.67 to be charged out to owners on a cost recovery basis; also to seek third party funding if available

Fish Inventory

Contractor 800 10 8,000 professional services to help Ngaio with fish inventory work Ngaio 300 30 9,000

Helper 250 30 7,500 Vehicle 175 30 5,250

Supplies 14,000 field equipment, field supplies, quad rental, office supplies, fuel, repairs

sub-total $43,750 to be charged out to owners on a cost recovery basis

Total Field Work $130,000

Total for 2008 $251,500 total proposed budget for 2008 including administration of program and field work as per work plan

- 68 -

- 69 -


202.1 Caribou Landscape Management Association (CLMA)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Prepared by...................................................................................................... Page 71

2. Executive summary......................................................................................... Page 71

3. Background...................................................................................................... Page 72

4. Highlights and Accomplishments ................................................................. Page 74

4.1 Integrated Industrial Access Plan (IIAP) ....................................... Page 74 4.2 Mitigation Audit................................................................................ Page 75 4.3 Adaptive Management..................................................................... Page 76 4.4 Report: Integrated Land Management “Moving Forward” .......... Page 77

5. CLMA Objectives ............................................................................................. Page 78

6. Objectives/Deliverables for Communications and Extension .................... Page 82

7. Inter-program links.......................................................................................... Page 84

8. Funding sources for this period .................................................................... Page 84

9. Program/Project Key Members and Responsibilities.................................. Page 86

10. Environmental/Occupational Health and Safety/Permits ............................ Page 86

11. LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Co-chair sign off sheet...................................................................... Page 87 Appendix 2 Map of CLMA area ............................................................................. Page 89 Appendix 3 Imagery interpretation Summary Pilot ............................................ Page 91 Appendix 4 ILM Moving Forward July draft 2007 report is available from the Foothills Research Institute at R:/CLMA/WorkPlan/ILM.doc

- 70 -

- 71 -

202.1 Caribou Landscape Management Association 1. Prepared by

Wayne Thorp, Project Manager Box 7352 Peace River, AB Ph: (780) 625-1732 Fax: (780) 624-3489 Email: [email protected]

2. Executive Summary Several industrial companies operating in the Hinton, Alberta area discussed the concept of developing a caribou management association in November of 2004. In May, 2005 the concept came to fruition as the Caribou Landscape Management Association (CLMA) and included one aboriginal representative. The Foothills Research Institute (FRI) agreed to provide administrative support for the association as a pilot project for Integrated Land Management (ILM). The CLMA currently represents 12 energy and forest industry companies and 1 aboriginal community in the Little Smoky and A la Peche caribou ranges in the West Central region of Alberta. The CLMA operates under the “umbrella” of the FRI and is self-funded. Since May, 2005, the CLMA completed an iterative Integrated Industrial Access Plan (IIAP) and monitoring program, performed an audit of mitigation practices, produced an Integrated Landscape Management (ILM) review, and was instrumental in developing an adaptive management plan for the west central caribou region of the province. The 2007 IIAP submission has evolved into more of a management plan for industrial footprint. In the spring of 2007, the CLMA agreed to provide support and management to the Caribou Range Restoration Project (CRRP) which will complement the CLMA in its efforts to implement strategies to ensure industrial development and caribou can coexist. The development of a comprehensive restoration plan and implementation plan for caribou recovery in the CLMA area has been delayed awaiting the completion of the West Central Recovery Plan. The original completion date was March 31, 2007 but many issues took longer than anticipated and the plan is now expected to be complete in early 2008. Specific strategies and recommendations are anticipated from Sustainable Resource Development’s (SRD) response to the plan which will provide the direction the CLMA requires for the 2008/09 fiscal year. Objectives for the term of this plan will be to support the FRI vision and goals, provide ongoing support to its industrial partners, and support efforts of SRD and industry to recover caribou in the Little Smoky and A la Peche caribou ranges. This plan is consistent with the 5 year work plan (2007-2012) prepared and submitted in August, 2007. Specific objectives are detailed in the work plan in the following areas:

• Provide and enhance business value to its members • Improve provincial Integrated Land Management (ILM): • Improve on the Integrated Industrial Access Plan (IIAP) annually • Develop an adaptive management implementation plan for the CLMA area by March 31, 2008 • Continually support government population management projects • Technology transfer and communication

In addition, a key deliverable for the CLMA will be to provide and/or support government over the time frame of this plan in the implementation of effective tactical and operational level strategies as developed and recommended by government processes. This will be accomplished by the development of a landscape level range restoration program, monitoring, and an up-to-date inventory of vegetation (caribou habitat) and industrial footprint. While the CLMA is self-funded, sustained FRI support is key to the continuation and ongoing development of the CLMA as an ILM model that will undoubtedly be used in other areas of Alberta and beyond. The value of the CLMA is that it is becoming a credible and strongly supported working example of landscape level ILM with a commitment to continuous improvement.

- 72 -


The CLMA is a partnership between forest and energy sector companies operating in the Little Smoky and A la Peche caribou ranges (Appendix 2). Since its inception in May of 2005, the CLMA has successfully established itself as a leader in the province in ILM work between the energy and forestry industrial sectors. The government has supported many of the CLMA activities and specifically, SRD ADM’s have expressed a strong desire for the continuation of CLMA providing solutions and leadership.

The current members of the CLMA are: • Foothills Forest Products Inc. • Canfor (Canadian Forest Products Ltd.) • Hinton Wood Products, a division of West Fraser Mills Ltd. • Alberta Newsprint Company (ANC) • ConocoPhillips Canada Resources Ltd. • Suncor Energy Inc. • Encana Corporation • TransCanada Pipelines Limited • Devon Canada Corporation • Talisman Energy Inc • Husky Energy Limited • Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. • Aseniwuche Winewak Nation of Canada (Grande Cache)

The most important aspect of the CLMA is the recognition of the value of relationships and communication to accomplish common goals. The industrial partners also agreed that there would be significant value in bringing Aboriginal participation into the CLMA. David MacPhee, President of the Aseniwuche Winewak Nation of Canada, agreed to participate on the steering committee and has provided valuable advice and support for the CLMA. Relationship to provincial caribou recovery processes: The CLMA was established in May, 2005 before the development of the governments’ West Central Caribou Landscape Planning Team (WCCLPT), which had its first meeting on March 30, 2006. By the time the West Central team held its first meeting the CLMA had submitted and amended the original IIAP as a guiding tool for access development. It has always been recognized that changes to plans may be necessary to accommodate recovery strategies as they are developed. It was determined by the west central industrial representatives who were also CLMA members, that the provincial recovery process lacked a clear mechanism for the industrial sectors to provide meaningful input into the WCCLPT. Since the CLMA was well established in providing a forum for both of the primary industrial sectors, the CLMA provided support and expertise in the development of an industrial working group along with other partners outside the CLMA. The industrial working group facilitated by the CLMA was recognized as the primary mechanism to be used by the industrial representatives from forestry and energy on the WCCLPT to gather input into West Central Plan development. The CLMA will be involved in assisting the government in implementation as shown in Figure 1.

- 73 -

Figure 1. Relationships.

Using this structure, the industrial partners have concentrated on several key habitat issues and indicators regarding forest age class, industrial footprint and forest pattern as shown below as 4, 5 & 6 to input the West Central plan development. For information only: the WCCLPT is using the Key Indicators as follows:

1. Caribou – Caribou population trend must be stable or increasing, and population size must be large enough to reduce the chance of herd extirpation.

2. Wolves – Wolf density must be low enough to enable stable or increasing caribou population trend. 3. Primary Prey Species (moose, elk, deer, beaver) – Primary prey density must be low to contribute to low

predator abundance, and hence reduced levels of predation on caribou. 4. Forest Age Class and Type – Forests with more late seral stage coniferous (pine and black spruce) habitat,

and especially less young seral stage habitat and less deciduous forest cover, provide better habitat for caribou and poorer habitat for primary prey and predators.

5. Anthropogenic Footprint – Forests with more footprints are poorer for caribou and are better for primary prey and wolves.

6. Pattern – Forests with large habitat patches (defined by age class, type and anthropogenic footprint) are better for caribou and poorer for primary prey and wolves.

Since June of 2006 the CLMA has spent considerable time on the industrial working group providing direct input into the province's West Central Recovery Plan for woodland caribou. Although this industrial working group is outside of the original scope of the CLMA (it includes the Narraway and Red Rock caribou herds north of the Little Smoky River) it was considered a priority. During this time, the CLMA continued to develop and refine the Integrated Industrial Access Plan (IIAP) and other projects specific to the Little Smoky and A la Peche caribou herds. All of the work planned for the CLMA is in support of existing processes such as the Alberta Caribou

Minister

Deputy Minister

Alberta Caribou Committee (ACC)

West Central Caribou Landscape Planning Team

CLMA/Industrial working group Industrial input into West Central & joint development of implementation

Implementation Recommendations

- 74 -

Committee (ACC) and the West Central Caribou Landscape Planning team (WCCLPT) and is designed to complement and add value. This ongoing effort will be invaluable for support of caribou recovery. Relationship to government and policy development: The CLMA recognizes the importance of partnerships not only between industries, companies and sectors but also with government as the land manager. The management and operating structure of the CLMA is through steering and technical committees, which has government representation from the department of Energy and SRD in an advisory role. The government members play a valuable role in providing advice and insight into government objectives and needs. In addition, the CLMA executive meets regularly with the three Assistant Deputy Ministers of SRD to update them, seek clarification from, and provide advice back to government on communications and ILM. The IIAP and associated data sets will be improved on throughout each year to provide value to the CLMA members and guidance for development of provincial resources. All deliverables identified for the previous year have been met and next year we will concentrate on improvements to provincial ILM policies. 4. Highlights/Accomplishments in 2007/08 4.1 Integrated Industrial Access Plan (IIAP) Increasing road access in the ranges of these two caribou herds is needed to support allocated resource extraction and associated economic and social benefits. The government endorsed the 2006 access plan as a guiding tool on June 23, 2006, which reinforced the need to integrate and coordinate the access requirements of the forest and oil and gas sectors, and to develop a monitoring and reclamation plan. The CLMA believes that upfront road planning will reduce the road footprint resulting from the current “plan as you go” approach. Minimizing the footprint from long-term access through a coordinated approach will benefit the caribou herds, other species, sustainable forest management, and the environment. The first road (Route 506 Upgrade) under the IIAP was submitted for approval on March 5, 2007 (although it was in the works in various forms for almost two years). Subsequent negotiations to “get to approval” resulted in a unique process that will undoubtedly set the stage for the future and most importantly will provide member companies with clear direction how future LOC’s will be dealt with for the CLMA area. The Route 506 approval is a first step in moving away from past “one off” approvals which included comprehensive LOC conditions and to a system that deals with appropriate landscape management conditions under the IIAP. This is a significant improvement over past approval processes in that there were attempts to include conditions on individual dispositions that were not appropriate in time or in scale to the project. The conditions now in LOC’s should only be as it relates to the standard, use, and construction of the road itself. Other more management level conditions will be included in the CLMA IIAP requiring approval at the landscape level such as monitoring effectiveness, reclamation and management. This will allow for adaptive management for the benefit of caribou to truly work along with a continuous improvement program based on monitoring. Provided the adaptive management commitments are followed through by the CLMA partners, the LOC applications should become more stream-lined and easier for SRD to approve. Project status: Submitted annually (last submission October 2007), continual update of disturbances Products: IIAP report and map products, up-to-date road layer, web-based mapping tool linked through the FRI website. Partners: All CLMA members

- 75 -

4.2 Mitigation Audit Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) was retained by the Caribou Landscape Management Association (CLMA) and the Forest Products Association of Canada (FPAC) to complete an audit of industrial operating practices and mitigation measures with respect to woodland caribou. Of particular interest was gaining an understanding of the effectiveness of current mitigation measures employed by the oil and gas and forest industries when operating within woodland caribou ranges in Alberta and across Canada. This report builds from an existing draft document entitled “Audit of Oil and Gas Mitigation Measures Employed within Woodland Caribou Ranges”, which was prepared by Golder Associates for the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers Caribou Working Group in April 2005 (CAPP 2005). The objectives of this report are to: 1) conduct an audit of current mitigation measures and operating practices specific to the oil and gas and forest industries employed within Alberta and surrounding jurisdictions for woodland caribou; 2) based on a literature review and expert opinions from industry, academic and government respondents, develop a preliminary effectiveness assessment of mitigation measures and operating guidelines for woodland caribou; and 3) provide a basis for conducting further analysis and refinement of mitigation measures. The effectiveness of measures provides direct input into an adaptive management model for woodland caribou. An adaptive management model will subsequently become part of the CLMA’s recommendations for input into the Alberta Caribou Recovery Planning process within the West Central Caribou Landscape Planning Team. This audit of operating practices and mitigation highlights four key messages: 1. Despite having a large number (over 70+) of operating practices and mitigation measures applied within woodland caribou ranges over the past 10 to 15 years, woodland caribou population numbers are still declining. Blanket prescriptive operating practices are applied on an individual basis, rather than integrated into an overall landscape plan or adaptive management plan. 2. Even though operating practices and mitigation measures have been used for a long time, there has been no monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of these measures in terms of their value for achieving caribou recovery goals. The results of the mitigation effectiveness rating indicate that the majority of mitigation measures applied by resource use industries provide an overall moderate benefit to caribou recovery. This ranking is most likely a result of the lack of monitoring and empirical data to push these measures into either a low or high rating. Another explanation is that there is an underlying assumption that current practices have been employed for the right reasons. 3. Given the lack of monitoring and the importance of monitoring, this audit was inconclusive when ranking the effectiveness of mitigation and operating practices. As a result, implementation of an adaptive management plan with experimental trials to test mitigation is identified as a next step to be implemented by caribou managers and resource industry managers. The need to monitor responses of caribou, primary prey and predators to land management experiments is stressed. Additionally, a recommended landscape plan is discussed and involves an active adaptive management planning approach where intact habitat areas would become temporal and spatial caribou refuge areas, surrounded by areas which would be recruited as future intact habitat areas. This land use plan could also be used to focus restoration efforts and site-specific access control measures. 4. Although the ranking of effectiveness of mitigation and operating practices was inconclusive, it is suggested that with limited time and resources, managers should focus the adaptive management plan and experimental trials around those measures rated as being highly effective. Examples include minimizing development footprints and subsequently reducing the need for future restoration work, as well as coordination and integration of resource sectors to minimize cumulative effects. It is also recommended that measures rated as providing only low effectiveness for caribou recovery at a high cost, including reducing traffic and road standards, become less of a priority. This would allow time and resources to be redirected to those measures most likely to be effective for caribou conservation. Shortcomings and research gaps in rating effectiveness of the current measures were identified and include: a lack of managing cumulative effects, a lack of monitoring and a lack of systematic implementation of mitigation measures to understand effectiveness of mitigation, a lack of an adaptive management approach, ad hoc nature of mitigation implementation, the need to manage not only the industrial footprint but wildlife populations, such as predators and primary prey at the same time, the need for regional planning, unclear goals for caribou conservation, unwillingness by Alberta government to close the door on future development within

- 76 -

caribou ranges, First Nations and Métis not involved in the process, and lastly, an imbalanced focus on ‘perceived’ higher priority herds while other herds unduly await any collaborative or integrated actions. A number of “next steps” are identified and include: moving away from blanket prescriptive operating practices with the implementation of prioritized and effective guidelines under a broader landscape plan, having a critical expert panel review this document and rank mitigation based on critical pathways for caribou recovery, managing the pace of development, taking inventories of primary prey and predators and implementing wildlife management controls to bring these numbers down to a density that will maintain caribou populations, implementing public awareness programs on the ecological need to manage wildlife populations through direct and indirect measures, continuing growth of collaborative planning processes both within and between resource use industries using a revised caribou protection planning process, engaging Aboriginal communities in caribou recovery, developing a research-based habitat restoration program that has a long term objective of replacing habitat that has been lost to industrial disturbance, developing standards for reclamation within caribou ranges, advancing resource extraction technologies that minimize project footprints, completing a risk management model for climate change impacts on caribou, and lastly to theoretically test and assess if certain mitigation and management measures are working (e.g., habitat manipulation to increase caribou forage and decrease primary prey forage). It is identified that the majority of the next steps recommended must be implemented and supported by government agencies (the land managers) as they go beyond the role of industrial operators. However, several obstacles facing both government and industry are recognized including a lack of available mapping and caribou data for industries to make effective planning decisions for reducing the impacts from developments and contradictory government policies and hard decisions which must be made on trade-offs between economic costs of lost opportunities and woodland caribou management options. Lastly, it is stressed that the success of management actions and mitigation / operating practice strategies will ultimately be determined by the presence or absence of woodland caribou populations. Project status: Complete May 2007 (in circulation within government, industry and WCCLPT) Products/Tools: Report and recommendations Project partners: Led by Golder (Paula Bentham) CLMA member companies, Forest Products Association of Canada (Andrew DeVries) 4.3 Adaptive Management The caribou management problem suffers from a historical record of silo management, where various agencies have addressed the issue in isolation without integration of other agencies and stakeholders. This situation has lead to few effective solutions. Populations continue to decline and forest management activities continue to be hampered. Most agree that the solution to the problem lies in a multi-agency, multi-stakeholder approach with integration and cooperation among all parties involved, and in particular government, forestry, and oil and gas. The simultaneous application of management plans for each limiting factor for each herd requires a high level of integration among agencies. This project will provide a forest habitat management framework as the basis of an adaptive management plan for the west-central woodland caribou herds. The objective of the project is to develop such a plan in a cooperative and integrative atmosphere where government, the forest industry, and oil and gas industry feed into one common plan and objective: conservation of the west-central herds while maintaining the trade-offs associated with socio-economic benefits from the forest and other associated industries. Restoration can play an important role in the management and recovery of caribou habitat. However, it must also be integrated with the limiting factor conceptual model and the intactness priority map and plan. To date, restoration planning has not been focused on objectives or a planning framework. Thus, the process has been a random, more homogeneous approach to recovery planning. Restoration planning must focus on funding, planning and implementation around intactness planning and priorities. Development of a restoration program and a set of operational guidelines will be addressed through the implementation plan of the WCCLMP recovery plan. In each case, both objectives and priorities must be identified, developed and addressed in order to make these programs effective.

- 77 -

The WCCLMP will provide the context for restoration and guideline planning, through a set of strategic, tactical and operational assessments. These cross-scale assessments and options will provide a range of outputs using modeling scenarios, assumptions and GIS comparisons of ecological and anthropogenic data. Implementation strategies will be developed and assessed during the Phase I analysis of age and size class distribution, leading to a description of intact habitat. GIS analysis of ecological and disturbance overlays and a modeling analysis of variation & sensitivity in several limiting factors will identify outcomes and options. The prioritization of a range of intact habitat patterns and size classes will allow restoration programs and guidelines to be focused on the most important habitat components. Spatial and temporal refugia dynamics will be examined to see if habitat can be maintained. An important consideration in the development of the adaptive management approach is to have an up to date and accurate data set for planning purposes. One of the key information gaps is the recovery rates of lineal disturbances (natural and artificial) which is being addressed by the CRRP program under the CLMA. The CRRP conducted a pilot study of the effectiveness of remote sensing for inventorying lineal disturbances which if successful will reduce the cost of future inventories (Appendix 3). Project status: This project will be completed in late February 2008 and will form part of the West Central Recovery plan. Project collaborators: Led by: Dr. Daryll Hebert Encompass Strategic Resources Inc., CLMA member companies, Weyerhaeuser Canada, Shell, West Central Landscape Planning Team, Silvacom consulting, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. Tools available: Blue print for limiting factors for caribou, adaptive management model, implementation / restoration plan, Planning and Management framework. 4.4 Report: Integrated Land Management “Moving Forward” The program manager of Alberta Chamber of Resources ILM and the managing director of the CLMA collaborated to produce a report on ILM. The original intent of this was to review and make recommendations for improvement to ILM in the province. The objectives of the paper were to:

• Demonstrate industries leadership in developing practical solutions for ILM; • Identify key attributes that contribute to the success or failure of ILM and consolidate our findings and

learnings; • Document the evolution of ILM and ultimately define its relationship to the governments resource

management system and current policy initiatives; • Develop a suite of recommendations that can be used by industry and / or government to further develop

ILM as a practice on the landscape; and • Provide a common reference document to assist the resource industry in influencing the development of the

resource management system and relevant public policy. Project status: The project is complete (June 2007) and is under review by the industrial associations Alberta Chamber of Resources (ACR), Alberta Forest Products Association (AFPA) and Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP). Project authors: Bob Demulder, ACR Integrated Landscape Management Program Manager Wayne Thorp, Caribou Landscape Management Association Manager Tools Available: Review of existing practices, recommendations for successful ILM, the report and recommendations to “move forward”.

- 78 -

5. CLMA Objectives The CLMA has five strategic objectives for the next workplan: 5.1 Consistently and continually provide and enhance business value to its members

a) To maintain and serve via web server up to date data layers for all roads b) To review and influence policy with respect to approval of members access and development plans c) To develop revisions as necessary to improve effectiveness of best practises (mitigation measures) and

provide industry with clear goals for development of plans. d) To review and annually conduct an audit of the operational mitigation practises to test effectiveness of

meeting objectives as follows: For the most part current mitigation measures are untested guidelines which have been utilized to replace effective strategic and tactical planning. Many of the guidelines and conditions imposed on industry have no clear objectives associated with them. It is the intention of the CLMA to assist government in moving to objective-based management and away from prescriptive management.

Operational planning has three requirements: a) Identification of the procedures most likely to be effective. b) Testing and validation of these procedures. c) Integration within a strategic and tactical planning framework and prescribed application within core and

general habitat areas. The first step will be to have SRD identify the objectives for each of the guidelines and then to conduct a process of validation and assessment of the effectiveness of meeting the objective.

Two mitigation strategies currently employed in the caribou ranges are gates (manned and un-manned) and rig matting which should be objectively assessed and validated for effectiveness. The first step will be in asking SRD to provide measurable objectives for these requirements so that assessments can be completed. Other considerations should include how these may affect other objectives such as primary prey control. Other conditions that should also be assessed in the future are speed limits and timing of operations.

5.2 Improve provincial Integrated Land Management (ILM):

a) By February 28 of each year: conduct a review of progress in ILM, identify barriers for success, partner with other associations and chambers, and influence members and government policy development to improve effectiveness (Appendix 4).

5.3 Improve on the Integrated Industrial Access Plan (IIAP) annually.

a) The CLMA will re-submit the IIAP whenever there are significant updates or at least annually by

September 30 of each year. In the 2007 submission, the IIAP has evolved from an access plan to more of an industrial footprint management plan. The next step will be to assist the energy sector in development of a pipeline plan as well as a secondary road plan for both sectors. This will further reduce the future industrial footprint on the landscape as compared to non-integration.

b) The CLMA will continue to improve and maintain the data sets for resource managers use in the A la Peche and Little Smoky caribou ranges (CLMA and Government)

c) The CLMA will initiate a linear vegetation survey program in the summer of 2008 (as per the West Central Interim guidelines) of historical linear disturbances to assist in prioritizing restoration plans (Appendix 3). Based on the results of this pilot project the CLMA/CRRP program submitted a FRIAA proposal to complete a full vegetation inventory of the CLMA area that will form the basis of a landscape level restoration program. This data set will be stored at the FRI for all industrial and government managers.

- 79 -

5.4 Develop an adaptive management implementation plan for the CLMA area by March 31, 2008 (FRIAA project #FOOMOD-01-05 and SRD grant to the FRI) The West Central Caribou Landscape Planning Team is not responsible for implementation of the recovery report. The government has advised that implementation will best be done jointly by government and industry once the recovery report is complete and accepted by government. Regardless of the current status of the recovery plan, it was determined by the CLMA and government that appropriate measures be developed and implemented. Early in 2008, SRD supported a grant to the FRI for the CLMA to begin working on it.

The proximal objective of this project is create a multi-agency and stakeholder partnership of industrial, governmental, and academic partners, which will utilize an adaptive management planning process for management of the west-central caribou herds. It will assess limiting factors and develop planning and management options that consider both ecological and socio-economic benefits and consequences while increasing knowledge of the west central caribou herds.

The role of the CLMA will to be to provide a mechanism for implementation of the recommendations that will come from the WCCLPT. Woodland caribou populations across Canada are experiencing difficulty due to industrial expansion, predation and climate change. The impacts, although variable in each region, have remained largely irresolvable due to:

a) A lack of understanding of the cause and effect of the three main variables: habitat quantity, quality and predation, and their proportionate effects on woodland caribou populations

b) An inability to implement a systematic, multi-scale range of variables simultaneously which are necessary for the maintenance or recovery of woodland caribou populations.

The WCCLPT has proceeded to a point where the process, with resulting recommendations has been reasonably outlined. Understanding the cause and effect relationship among the habitat and predation variables can be addressed through an adaptive management program in conjunction with the systematic implementation of a range of recommendations. The implementation framework will initiate planning on a variety of topics specific to the recommendations, however, additional time, energy, planning and funding will be required to fully complete an integrated implementation package. The implementation framework will identify and initiate projects that are the responsibility of government, the forest industry, and the oil and gas industry. In almost all cases, each project will require shared responsibility for planning and funding. The following general framework identifies the topic, sequence and relationship among implementation projects. Each partner must have access to all of the data required to manage caribou. The development of a data management system, independent of government, is necessary to meet the needs of future LPT’s, modeling requirements, confidentiality and ongoing modifications and retrieval for up front tactical planning by the industry. The data system will be designed to meet the needs of an adaptive management framework, a landscape planning framework among government, the forest industry and the oil and gas industry, an access (road, seismic, pipeline) planning framework (IIAP), a restoration program and ongoing inventory needs.

- 80 -

An adaptive management program is necessary in order to expand the understanding of the impact of the industrial footprint. The WCC area presents a unique opportunity to control and measure two key variables (habitat quantity and predation –LS, ALP) while assessing, reducing and monitoring the third variable (habitat quality). An integrated landscape plan utilizing current CPP’s, DFMP’s and IIAP’s will allow coordination within and between industries and reduce independent, ad-hoc operations across the landscape. It will allow prioritization of restoration and aggregation activities and allow long term planning to reduce and/or recover the footprint.

Data Management/Gaps

Adaptive Management

Landscape Planning (CPPs, DFMPs,IIAPs)

Forest Industry Government Oil & Gas Industry

Intactnes

Maintain Hab. Quant.

2007 – 2017 Bus. Plan Options Bl Sp/Wetlands

(MPB) Silviculture

Restoration

Inventory Wolf Mgmt Prey Mgmt Habitat Mgmt IIAP Monitoring

Aggregation Tactical Planning Access • Coord. Access • Increase use of existing access

Pipeline Plan Mitigation/Operational IIAP

Education, Training, Communication

Sustainable Funding

- 81 -

Implementation Assignments Oil and Gas Government Forestry

1. Data Management R. Staniland A. Higgins

To be determined To be determined

2. Landscape / Footprint Plans Yearly (old CPP’s)

S. Grindal G. Davis

3. Restoration Planning M. Sherrington T. Wolsey

4. Mitigation Strategies / IIAP D. Janko R. Gibb A. McLellan

5. Intactness Implementation Strategy

D. Janko R. Gibb A. McLellan

6. Pipeline Plan H. Bishop 7. Adaptive Management A. Saxena

8. Monitoring Program A. Saxena S. Grindal

9. Sustainable Funding Mechanism S. Watts

The list of activities and deliverables will require participation from key individuals from government, the forest industry and the oil and gas industry. Each activity will require a series of meetings and/or workshops in order to identify a workable, integrated process with specific tactical and operational guidelines and targets. Indicators and measures must also be identified. Ideally, policy changes at the strategic level should be identified and implemented in order to assist implementation of an integrated framework. This has not been included in this program but could be outlined by the Director committee. In addition, the transition from individual referrals at several scales to an organized implementation framework, including landscape plans, up front tactical plans, intactness plans, and restoration planning, will require an extensive education, training and communication process for all three participants. Deliverables of 5.4 The deliverables associated with this framework include:

a) Identify, through an independent contractor and expand with the data team, a fully integrated data set, including caribou telemetry information, AVI data, restoration data, and anthropogenic data. This includes confidentiality and frequent data retrieval that can be used for planning purposes. Initiate the development of a data bank for all restoration and inventory information.

b) Provide guidance on a front-end planning framework, utilizing an integrated data management system that supports coordinated landscape planning among the oil and gas companies, in particular, but between industries where applicable.

c) Develop an integrated planning (referral) process that allows the transition from review of independent, ad-hoc activities to coordinated use of front-end planning, landscape plans and prioritized restoration plans. Identify targets, timeframes and indicators.

d) Identify an adaptive management process, utilizing industrial activities (DFMP’s, CPP’s) and the implementation of the various limiting factors as treatments.

- 82 -

e) Develop an intactness implementation strategy that includes tactical planning among a coordinated set of companies and areas, for each range, including an assessment and possible solution(s) to the problem of an unequal impact on a particular company (forest and/or energy tenure holders).

f) Develop an effective set of operational guidelines that removes redundant, confused and cost ineffective guidelines and is based on objectives, is prioritised and designed to increase effectiveness for caribou. Validation of both vegetative and animal response should be confirmed in the future.

g) Develop a restoration program that is based on inventory, silvicultural and site series prescriptions and can be implemented as soon as possible. Identify a coordinated funding process.

h) Develop a restoration process that is based on objectives of early seral stage reduction and achievement of long term successional pathways, for intactness areas, is prioritized and integrated with industrial landscape plans and tactical planning procedures. Identify a coordinated funding process among companies and government.

i) Develop a “Stewardship” reporting process and key attributes for monitoring and reporting. Specifically identify the indices for footprint management in the adaptive management program.

j) Identify and outline a monitoring program to assess the effectiveness of specific guidelines and targets (outcomes) for limiting factors and to assess the contribution of habitat restoration to the overall landscape, adaptive management process. Explore the possibility of integrating monitoring for the WCC program with the provincial bio-monitoring program.

k) Develop an education, training and communication process between industry and government to allow a transition from independent, ad-hoc review of operational activities to coordinated use of strategic, landscape and tactical procedures.

l) Recommend a sustainable funding mechanism, including a projected budgetary estimate for a process that will integrate the conservation intactness program for the WC caribou herds, with a guideline and habitat restoration program that supports a sustainable adaptive management program.

5.5 Technology transfer and communication The CLMA will work with the FRI to provide updates, educate government, public, and industry on progress of the CLMA. The CLMA will:

a) Support and participate in the FRI executive series. b) Make presentations to government agencies, ILM practitioners and energy and forest sector groups as required. 6. Objectives and Deliverables for Communications and Extension

6.1 PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS Communications Goal: The partners of the Caribou Landscape Management Association will communicate consistent messages relating to the association and the IIAP. The CLMA will abide by the Foothills Research Institute Media Policy: There are opportunities for the Foothills Research Institute to work with the media in a proactive manner. Similar to reactive media inquiries the communications and extension manager will manage these dealings with the media. Earned media opportunities may focus on achievements, milestones or community-based involvement. Furthermore, knowledge transfer activities may be significantly more effective if Foothills Research Institute

- 83 -

engages the media in a proactive manner. Proactive media events will be included in the communications plan for individual projects and approved by the appropriate activity teams. Cooperation between the program lead and communications and extension manager is necessary. Roles and Responsibilities: The Foothills Research Institute Communications and Extension Program will be the lead in initiating and responding to all media contacts. This will be done in consultation with the general manager, communications steering committee and program leads. The Foothills Research Institute communications and extension manager should be the first point of contact for the media. The Foothills Research Institute communications and extension program will respond directly to media inquiries relating to research projects, provide background information and refer calls to other spokespeople as appropriate. In addition to this document, spokespeople from partner organizations will be identified for each program area. Communication Objective: Quarterly “Quicknotes” will be sent to the partners of the Caribou Landscape Management Association. The Director of the Caribou Landscape Management Association will write and distribute four Quicknotes each fiscal year. Quicknotes are one to two page documents that summarize initiatives or research findings that are distributed key parties and are posted on the Foothills Research Institute web site. For the past year, the CLMA has not produced a quick note because efforts have concentrated on the development of the WCCLPT which has yet to be completed. It is expected that once the WCCLPT is complete that the quick notes will continue as the implementation plan is developed. Responsibility:

• Wayne Thorp and Lisa Jones (Communications and Extension Manager Foothills Research Institute) to coordinate and support delivery of messages and products.

• Members in Association must commit to and be involved in delivery of messages. Timeline: Produced quarterly starting in March, 2008. Deliverables: Four Quicknotes 6.2 EXTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS Communications Goal: The CLMA will communicate with stakeholders about the Integrated Industry Access Plan during its development. Communications Objectives: During development of the IIAP external communications was conducted with key stakeholders to ensure they were aware of CLMA activities and support. Communications Objective: Maintain a website for the Caribou Landscape Management Association- ongoing Strategy and Tactics: A website will be maintained for the Caribou Landscape Management Association was developed through the Foothills Research Institute. A portal to the site is on the Foothills Research Institute homepage, which accesses the CLMA sub site. The IIAP will be posted on the FRI web site with the latest datasets and map products. Communications Objective: by January 31, 2007 the FRI will implement a web based referral product. The FRI GIS group will maintain and provide GIS data to CLMA members via the Internet using Internet Mapping technology. This will provide access in a true mapping framework to not only existing and planned roads data but also supplementary data such as Caribou RSF’s and terrain datasets. This data will be updated on a continual basis to provide members with the most current versions of all planning related spatial data. The data will be provided from an Internet server located and maintained at the FRI in Hinton.

- 84 -

7. Inter Program Links The CLMA will provide support to many of the programs already underway at the FRI such as the Stream Crossing Association, Natural Disturbance (Highway 40 project), Grizzly Bear research, and Aboriginal Involvement. The primary support will initially come from sharing the up-to-date data sets that are maintained by the CLMA that can be used by the other programs to assist in their success. Starting in December, 2007, the program leads will meet to develop more formalized linkages between the programs. The linkages between programs will become more valuable over time as they mature. In the longer term, the success of the CLMA as a model of integration of the energy and forestry sectors will be invaluable for the sustainable management of Alberta’s forests. 8. Funding sources for this period The Foothills Research Institute (FRI) does not provide any funding for the CLMA. The CLMA is self-funded from membership dues exclusively. The membership dues are invoiced annually which provides funding for the management of the CLMA and associated projects. The CLMA provides support to the Foothills Research Institute when required (i.e. when it exceeds more than 5% administration in areas of accounting, GIS, communications and administration)

The members represent all of the forestry companies and a majority of the larger energy companies in the target area. The membership is also comprised of a local Aboriginal community that is not subject to providing funding. Table 1 shows source of funding: Table 1. Annual Financial Projection (Excerpt from the 2007- 2012 plan)

Activity Annual Cost ($)

CLMA management and expenses 135,000

Administration FRI 700

GIS FRI (license fees, computer supplies) 12,100

FRI Data maintenance and expenses 48,200

FRI Communications 5,000

Projects (includes GIS support) 44,000

*Total $240,000

* Special projects beyond the general management of the CLMA will be funded under special requests (such as the SRD grant for implementation planning). A more detailed budget within the above amounts will be prepared in February for the fiscal year April 1, 2008 - March 31, 2009 for CLMA steering committee approval as there are many variables outstanding which prevent this at this time primarily as a result of the WCCLPT not being complete.

- 85 -

Table 2. CLMA Sources of Funding.

Company Payment required Annual dues Source of funds

voting member ($ per year) ANC yes $ 20,000.00 FRIAA West Fraser yes $ 20,000.00 FRIAA Canfor yes $ 20,000.00 FRIAA Foothills Forest yes $ 20,000.00 FRIAA Suncor yes $ 20,000.00 Operating ConocoPhillips yes $ 20,000.00 Operating Husky yes $ 20,000.00 Operating Talisman yes $ 20,000.00 Operating Devon yes $ 20,000.00 Operating CNRL yes $ 20,000.00 Operating AWN yes n/a n/a Encana yes $ 20,000.00 Operating TransCanada Yes $ 20,000.00 Operating SRD No 0 n/a Energy (gov’t) No 0 n/a Total 13 $240,000.00

Table 3: Caribou Land Management Association In Kind support 2008/09 Projected # hours Value

Suncor 80.0 $9,600.00

CNRL 80.0 $9,600.00

CANFOR 80.0 $8,000.00

Foothills Forest products 64.0 $6,400.00

Talisman 96.0 $11,520.00

AWN 50.0 $3,750.00

Devon 80.0 $9,600.00

ANC 96.0 $9,600.00

Transcanada Pipelines 40.0 $4,800.00

Encana 96.0 $11,520.00

Husky Energy 80.0 $8,000

AB Energy 40.0 $2,500.00

SRD 176.0 $11,000.00

ConocoPhillips 80.0 $9,600.00

Hinton Wood Products - West Fraser 96.0 $9,600.00

FRI GIS, Admin, Accounting, communications 120.0 $12,000.00

Sub - total *1354.0 $137,090.00 * Based on past support

- 86 -

9. Program/Project Key Members and Responsibilities CLMA management: Provided by Wayne Thorp (Management consultant) Contractors: Data management and GIS support: Chantelle Bambrick FRI support: Lisa Jones: Communications manager Denise Lebel: Financial Heather Daw, Debbie Mucha: GIS support Fran Hanington: General administration


FRI staff is covered by the Research Institute OH&S requirements and all contractors are required to carry their own WCB and insurance policies.

11. Appendices Appendix 1 Co-chair sign off sheet..........................................................................................................87 Appendix 2 Map of CLMA area ..............................................................................................................89 Appendix 3 Imagery Interpretation Summary Pilot .................................................................................91 Appendix 4 ILM Moving Forward July draft 2007 report is available from the Foothills Research Institute at R:/CLMA/WorkPlan/ILM.doc

- 87 -

APPENDIX 1 Sign off sheet: CLMA Co-chairs This is to advise that I have read the 2008/09 Work Plan and proposed budget and hereby endorse it as submitted. *Per___________________________ Co-chair Rob Gibb Talisman Energy *Per ___________________________Co-chair Greg Branton (Not available) *Subject to final sign off by the steering committee at the next meeting January, 2008.

- 88 -

- 89 -

APPENDIX 2 Map of the CLMA boundary (Little Smoky and A la Peche caribou ranges)

- 90 -

- 91 -

APPENDIX 3 CLMA / CRRP Imagery Interpretation Summary Sept 19, 2007

Line Classification and Inventory Pilot Using Aerial Imagery

General Summary to September 19th, 2007

Background Before a landscape level restoration plan can be developed, an inventory of the re-vegetation status of the linear corridors needs to be done. The CLMA decided to explore the use of aerial imagery and/or LiDAR to assess whether or not inventories can be accurately collected in the office, as opposed to costly and sometimes intrusive ground truthing by helicopter or ATV. The benefits to using remote sensing technology are thus:

• Cost effective if an accurate product is delivered that substantially limits the amount of lines that would need to be assessed by helicopter, ATV or pick-up.

• Lower health and safety risks by reducing the field time required to assess line re-vegetation status. • Time spent collecting inventories would be reduced and can be completed in the office year round,

regardless of the field season. Initial investigation was spent determining whether or not products currently being collected by forestry companies would suffice for collecting inventories. Preliminary viewings of different resolutions of aerial imagery were assessed, and it was determined that Color IR 1:30,000 Leaf-on showed enough promise to justify proceeding with a pilot project. 1:40,000 Black & White imagery did not appear to deliver the required detail that needed to be collected. From examinations of LiDAR maps, and discussions held with consultants who have been working with LiDAR, it was determined that LiDAR probably wasn’t going to be able to deliver the detail required for our purposes. The availability of acquiring the newest LiDAR technology in a cost efficient manner has also recently come into question. The focus for now has remained on aerial imagery products. The CLMA decided to award a contract to Greenlinks Forestry Services to conduct a pilot of a township within the CanFor FMA that was within the Little Smoky Caribou Range. CanFor all ready had a product that showed a lot of promise from preliminary viewing. Pilot Methodology T61 R26 W of 5 was chosen as the first township to study. Greenlinks used Diap Softcopy software to view the township in 3D on Microstation1. CanFor provided the aerial imagery which had all ready been scanned. This was done at no charge to the CLMA as a form of in-kind support from CanFor. Before viewing began, discussion revolved around the objectives of the pilot, and what variables needed to be collected to meet those objectives. A ‘hot key’ classification code was developed which would allow the imagery interpreter to quickly assign a classification to a given segment of line. These ‘hot keys’ were expected to be refined over the course of the pilot as interpretation proceeded and more was learned as to how effective these preliminary keys would be. Objective: To assign a classification code to linear disturbances that would help the CLMA develop a restoration plan should one be deemed appropriate for a given area.

Which lines would be deemed ‘grown over’ (consistent coverage of >1.5m trees and shrubs)? Which lines look ‘open’ from the air but actually have consistent tree growth of <1.5m that would make

restoration efforts redundant? Is there a high presence of shrub dominated features? How prevalent are ATV trails within the study area?

1 See the Appendix for a summary of Softcopy Photogrammetry as provided by Greenlinks

- 92 -

How much of an area is covered in pipeline corridors seeded to grasses, clovers and other erosion controlling vegetations?

How prevalent are high grade abandoned lease roads? Initial Hot Key Classifications Used:

Level 1: Fully Stocked (vegetated trees/shrubs)(line of sight broken)

Level 2: Sufficiently re‐stocked (vegetated)(line of sight not broken: vegetation < 1.5 m avg)

Level 3: Not sufficiently re‐stocked (NSR): Further investigation required

Level 4: Dominant shrub (alder) Sufficient re‐stocked (SR)

Level 5: Dominant shrub (willow) Sufficiently re‐stocked (SR)

Level 6: Vegetated quad trail or other trails

Level 7: Pipeline > 20m: Not sufficiently re‐stocked (NSR)

Level 8: Not sufficiently re‐stocked (NSR): Lower quality habitat target (treed wetland)

Level 9: High grade abandoned lease road (gravel and clay) NSR

Level 10: Line running through recent cut‐block Initial interpretation produced the map found in the appendix. The next step was to conduct ground truthing on a number of the lines in order to compare what the interpreter determined was on the line to what was physically happening on the ground. A day was spent in the field taking photos and notes of different lines, in order to see if the pilot project was indeed accurate enough to proceed with more township interpretations. Over the course of the day, it was agreed that the interpreter was generally correct in their assessments, although some refinements needed to be made on some classifications, particularly on those lines that has sufficient re-growth but had been re-cleared by a mulcher sometime in the last several years. The clearings by the mulcher had impacted an area of ~ 3 metres wide, often leaving heavy re-generation on the edges, which was difficult to pick up by the interpreter because of shadows and the angle of the photo. The cost of conducting the pilot project on one township came in significantly below the contract budget, so another 2 townships adjacent to the one studied were added to the pilot for further interpretation and refinement of the hot key classication. More time is planned in the field to ground truth these additional areas to provide additional evidence to defend the results of the office interpretation. Greenlinks is very confident in the product they have produced thus far. Initial Results Based on the hot key classification provided above, the following amounts and percentages were generated in the initial interpretation (there were 455 linear km within the township):

Line Classification

Total km (~)

% of km within the township

Level 1: Fully Stocked (vegetated trees/shrubs)(line of sight broken) 102 22.5 Level 2: Sufficiently re‐stocked (vegetated)(line of sight not broken: vegetation < 1.5 m avg)

136 30

Level 3: Not sufficiently re‐stocked (NSR): Further investigation required 41 9 Level 4: Dominant shrub (alder) Sufficient re‐stocked (SR) 31.5 7 Level 5: Dominant shrub (willow) Sufficiently re‐stocked (SR) 2 .5 Level 6: Vegetated quad trail or other trails 71 15.5 Level 7: Pipeline > 20m: Not sufficiently re‐stocked (NSR) 11 2.5

- 93 -

Level 8: Not sufficiently re‐stocked (NSR): Lower quality habitat target (treed wetland)

30 6.5

Level 9: High grade abandoned lease road (gravel and clay) NSR 5.5 1 Level 10: Line running through recent cut‐block 30.5 6.5

These numbers may vary slightly as the hot keys are further refined with information gathered from the field ground truthing. Preliminary Analysis Based on these figures, the following may be of interest:

Km of line not deemed in need of any re-vegetation initiatives (Levels 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 10) o 373 km or 82% of the linear km within the township

NSR or further investigation required, abandoned lease road (Levels 3 and 9)

o 46.5 km or 10%

NSR Treed Wetland (Level 8) which may or may not be candidates for restoration given that solid objectives for restoration targets are not yet in place.

o 30 km or 6.5% It is also important to point out that the following when assessing whether or not an actual restoration plan could be written for the given township:

~ 30% of the NSR km have been used for winter lease roads by CanFor, of which they are still likely to use in future logging plans for the area

The vast majority of the other 70% of NSR lines are surrounded by lines deemed to have sufficient re-

vegetation, making access difficult or destructive should site preparation be needed before vegetation introduction could occur

Most of the vegetated quad trails are along waterways and likely created overtime by the local trapper

Costs Greenlinks has provided the following cost estimates for future interpretation initiatives, based on ~ 455 km of lines within a township.

Item Cost CanFor In‐Kind Aerial Photos $ 0 $ 900

Scanning/ Aerial Triangulation $ 0 $ 520 Photo Interpretation $ 1,560

GIS Clean‐up $ 560 Field work (ground calibration) $ 355 Final Processing and Delivery $ 70

Total Cost per Township $ 2,545 $ 1,420 Steps Forward If there is general consensus amongst the CLMA Technical Committee and other affected stakeholders that the product delivered to date by the Pilot Project is satisfactory, then further townships should be interpreted until the entire Little Smoky Range has been assessed and classified. Once a complete inventory has been completed, this information can be used by the CLMA to start working on a landscape level restoration plan. This will require discussion with all affected land users and other affected stakeholders.

- 94 -

The cost to interpret the entire Little Smoky Range, based on the results of this pilot is:

~ 52 townships @ ~ $2,600/township = $135,2002

Softcopy Photogrammetry Softcopy photogrammetry is a relatively new technology (1998) that takes conventional aerial photography (uncontrolled/unrectified), and through a series of advanced computer manipulations, converts the aerial photographs into digital models that are geometrically correct. Using the DiAP, Datem or Purview Viewer systems (specialized software packages), these digital photographs can be viewed in three dimension (3-D) on-screen in Microstation SE, V8 or ArcMap environments. This application allows all classification and digitizing to be completed on-screen. All digital data is projected in a NAD 83 media. For the Imagery Interpretation Pilot Project, September 2006 1:30,000 Color IR Leaf-on aerial photography was acquired from CanFor. This photography was scanned, aerial triangulated and ortho-rectified for input into the DiAP Viewer system. Existing linear features were superimposed onto the digital photography as a guide. Working on-screen in 3-D, linear corridors were classified using a specially designed (client specific) ‘hot key’ classification system.

2 This figure is given under the assumption required aerial imagery would be provided as a form of in-kind support towards the CLMA. Photo acquisition and scanning costs will need to be included in the price should required photo type not be available.

- 95 -

- 96 -

- 97 -


FRI Grizzly Bear Research Program

Project codes 204-204.13 _______________________________________________________________________________________________

1. Prepared by: Gordon Stenhouse, Grizzly Bear Research Program Manager Foothills Research Institute Box 6330 Hinton, AB T7V 1X6 Ph:(780) 865-8388 FAX: (780) 865-8331 [email protected]

2. Sign off Sheet: This research program has over 50 funding partners that contribute to all aspects of this program, including funding, and as part of this program’s communications and partner involvement strategy annual partners meeting. Currently our program has this partner meeting scheduled for the spring of 2008 (prior to field season) at the University of Calgary. At these meetings a review of planned activities for 2008 will be presented along with status updates from the principle investigators. Following discussion of progress and planned activities, we will seek endorsement of the annual work plan, which will include agreed upon amendments. This program partner endorsement will be noted in the minutes to this meeting and will serve as the sign off sheet for this program.

3. Executive Summary: The 2008 program year the FRI Grizzly Bear Research Program will mark a major turning point and the next phase within this program. The endorsement of the provincial grizzly bear recovery plan by the government in October 2007 has provided additional direction and impetus for our research program. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development has recently (November 2007) given our research group direction that they would like us to serve as the key data/science/knowledge group to assist the government with the implementation of grizzly bear recovery actions in Alberta. Discussions are now underway within SRD to clarify what data is required from our team. Along with these decisions funding commitments for longer term program planning will be addressed. Until these discussions have been concluded our research team can only provide an outline of what activities are intended and suggested for 2008. By the spring of 2008 we will have completed the mapping of grizzly bear habitat in Alberta, and we will be working on the final model products. The program team continues to face challenges with data collection in the NW Alberta study area and will seek direction from partners on what they would like to see undertaken in this low density grizzly bear area. This remote sensing mapping effort is being conducting by team researchers at the University of Saskatchewan and the University of Calgary. With the delivery of new map products, GPS data, and GIS coverages we will prepare new resource selection function map products for portions of the mapping area along with other products that will include; mortality risk surfaces, safe harbour surfaces, and grizzly bear movement corridors. In NW Alberta these new products will be created using a combination of seasonal food based models and GPS data sets. Our team will deliver these final products and updates, along with GIS applications, to allow program partners to understand current conditions for grizzly bears and to also allow evaluation of land use activities on current and future landscape conditions on grizzly bears. The remote sensing team has also assembled annual landscape condition map products for two grizzly bear management units where we feel that we have the most extensive grizzly bear health data sets. Our program has now developed new techniques and technologies to allow the evaluation of grizzly bear health along the eastern slopes of Alberta. This work is funded through an existing grant with Alberta Innovation and Science and

2008 FRI Grizzly Bear Project Work plan

- 98 -

laboratories at the University of Saskatchewan and University of Waterloo are carrying out the laboratory components of this research effort. Our laboratories are now conducting detailed analysis of existing specimens to quantify the biomarkers of chronic stress in each bear handled. With the currently available data sets on grizzly bear health that have been assembled over the past 8 years, we have also developed a health assessment scoring system that will be useful in long term monitoring programs and to establish baseline conditions at a given point in time. Our research team will be completing the analysis and final report on the relationships between landscape conditions and grizzly bear health in the last quarter of 2007-2008 and will deliver these reports according to the schedule within the Innovation and Science research grant. Preliminary analysis suggests that relationships are apparent. In 2008 our team has proposed to use a new technique (biopsy darting) to gather samples from grizzly bears in each population unit in the province to relate these samples (and health data from them) to the 2008 landscape condition to serve as the benchmark for reporting on grizzly bear health status in the province. The 2008 field season will mark the second year of our work to investigate possible impacts of mountain pine beetle (MPB) on grizzly bear habitat use and movements. This work has involved building upon existing data sets gathered between 2005-2007 years in the Kakwa area and will utilize the new approaches our team has developed to monitor and measure landscape change. For this research landscape change will be measured at a much finer resolution than ever before. Our existing grizzly bear movement data that was collected prior to MPB outbreak is extremely valuable in determining if movement patterns and habitat use have been affected as MPB spreads. A pilot program was launched in 2007 to determine if we can conduct silviculture treatments that will encourage grizzly bear use of abandoned gas well sites while also reducing mortality risk for grizzly bears. Planting of known grizzly bears foods was undertaken along with a program to close/restrict motorized access into the selected pilot study sites. The program partners supporting this initiative would like us to continue this work in 2008 and have provided funding for this program. Our program proposes to continue research on the possible relationships between grizzly bear denning behavior and environmental (weather) parameters using new data and the data sets from 1999-2007. This work is based on the successful pilot project undertaken in 2007 and will contribute new and important information between possible impacts of climate change and grizzly bear ecology. Our research team has also been contacted by an international bear project based in Scandinavia for possible research collaboration. This development supports the recognition of what our research team has accomplished over the past 9 years of applied research. If funding can be secured we believe that a partnership of this nature would be greatly advantageous to both research teams. Finally our research team continues to work with ENFORM in the development and delivery of a new training program to move our research results and products out to a wide audience of end users thereby allowing informed use and understanding of the program deliverables. We are on schedule to deliver the first training programs in the spring of 2008. It is expected that ENFORM will hold at least 4 training sessions for our partners in 2008. Ongoing communication and outreach work will continue with a focus on program presentations aimed at broadening our partner base and explaining research results to a wider cross section of Canadians. This will be achieved by working with various media outlets and fostering key contacts within these organizations. The success of this program over the past 9 years has been based on tremendous partner support along with the formation of a team of specialized research scientists who work in a collaborative manner towards a common goal. To continue meeting program objectives new partnerships and scientific collaborative opportunities will be pursued both at the national and international level. The results of our research have enabled the provincial government to move forward with management actions within grizzly bear habitat in Alberta and to have sound scientific data to support decisions on grizzly bear recovery.

4. Background Information Over the past 9 years the Foothills Research Institute Grizzly Bear Program has made significant advances in improving our understanding of how grizzly bears use forested landscapes within their range in Alberta. Our program


- 99 -

partners see this new knowledge as important to aid in achieving sustainable forest and land management in areas of Alberta where grizzly bears still occur. This research program has developed products (new tools and models – see Appendix 2) to assist with this goal of sustainable management and with the concurrent long-term conservation of grizzly bears. These products include:

• A satellite image classification and landscape classification protocol for large areas and the ability to standardize products with multiple temporal scales.

• Remote sensing tools to map and identify grizzly bear habitats and human use features at the landscape level. • The use of resource selection function models (RSF) to predict probability of grizzly bear occurrence at the

landscape level. In addition this RSF approach has generated new models to indicate areas of mortality risk and “safe harbours” for grizzly bears.

• The development of new GIS applications to assess grizzly bear response to forest harvesting, regeneration, and access development.

• Providing new provincial scale maps to identify high, medium and low probability of occurrence landscapes for grizzly bears. New research results (DNA provincial grizzly bear population census work 2004, 2005, and 2006) suggest that these new maps correlate well with actual bear occurrence on the landscape.

• The use of graph theory models to identify grizzly bear movement corridors at both the home range (watershed) and landscape level. These models also identify where current landscape conditions may make it more difficult to move between important habitat patches.

• A detailed understanding of grizzly bear habitat use in relation to current forest management practices and landscape conditions along the eastern slopes in Alberta.

A multi-disciplinary team of researchers from the Foothills Research Institute, the University of Alberta, University of Calgary, University of Saskatchewan, and Wilfred Laurier University have developed these tools and models. These products have now been tested and validated in a 190,000-km2 study area along the east slopes of Alberta from the area south of Grande Prairie to the Montana border (see figure 1). The 2007 program deliverables from this work will be provided to all program partners in the spring of 2008. Findings from this collective body of work have been peer reviewed and published in the scientific literature (Total publications to date = 52, see Appendix 1). There are now proven models and tools to apply in the planning and management of forest resources to support the management and conservation of grizzly bears in a large portion of key grizzly bear range in Alberta. The results of this program are now being used to assist SRD with the identification and delineation of Grizzly Bear Priority Areas along the eastern slopes. This research project has met all annual program deliverables since 1999. In 2006 the FRI Grizzly Bear Project was successful in securing funding from Alberta Innovation and Science and NSERC/CRD to develop new techniques to measure and monitor long term stress in grizzly bears with an aim to understand possible linkages between grizzly bear health and landscape conditions. This development of these new techniques has now been largely completed and work is underway to complete the analysis of all current samples (1999-2007). This research effort will be completed and report provided in the first half of 2008 as per the research contract. Our knowledge of grizzly bear response to mountain pine beetles and associated management actions are not currently at this same level as no research or monitoring of these relationships have occurred to date in either Alberta or British Columbia. Yet understanding the possible response and impacts of any new forest harvesting strategy on this important indicator species is a key component of sound sustainable forest management practices. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development has asked our research team to assist in learning more about grizzly bear response to MPB outbreaks and management response. The second year of this research initiative in planned for 2008 in the Kakwa area. During the past 4 years, our research team has been testing and developing a new multi-sensor camera unit for the collection of detailed data on grizzly bear habitat use and movements. This work has met with some success however limited resources remained a key problem in moving this initiative forward. In 2006 we were successful with a NSERC/CRD application with the University of Calgary Geomatics Department and Elk Valley Coal to pursue this research area for a 3-year term. We have now completed the second year of this research grant and have moved this initiative forward with significant progress. Our final year of this NSERC grant will allow some additional work to be completed but we are seeking additional support to address some outstanding issues related to data process and device testing on captive bears. We believe that data from these new systems will be extremely


- 100 -

important in aiding the construction of new food-based RSF models in north western Alberta and in understanding underlying characteristics relating to grizzly bear movement and habitat selection.

There are more than 28,000 well sites and 18,400 kilometres of pipeline in Alberta that are no longer in production and require reclamation certificates. Current reclamation standards require that abandoned well sites be decontaminated, re-contoured, and re-vegetated, but they need not be restored to their previous state in terms of bear habitat quality. Areas occupied by abandoned oil and gas facilities within high-value grizzly bear habitat could be reclaimed as resource-rich “safe havens” for grizzly bears, by limiting motorized access and cultivating bear foods. In the summer of 2006, Shell Canada and Husky Energy established the Moose Mountain Environmental Enhancement Fund (MMEE) for the purpose of restoring, enhancing and protecting the ecology of the Moose Mountain area in Kananaskis. IN 2007 we were successful in obtaining support from this environmental fund to initiate a new pilot study, which we have identified as the Grizzly Bear Habitat Enhancement Trial. In 2007 we began work to attempt to restore habitat security and food resources for grizzly bears on non-productive disturbed sites on the eastern slopes of Alberta. Known grizzly bear foods were planted on selected sites and access restriction measures were implemented. Site selection for our trials was made using the research results and product deliverables from the research data collected in this area to date.

The FRI Grizzly Bear Research Project began delivery of research products to program partners in 2005. These products consisted of remote sensing based landcover maps (with leaf area index (LAI), crown closure, and leading species layers), and resource selection function maps for the areas mapped with the remote sensing work. The intent of this delivery was to ensure that the knowledge and tools that our team had amassed was put to use in making land management decisions related to grizzly bear conservation. In 2006 our second set of program deliverables was sent out on DVD to program partners along with new products and updated map layers. A full list of deliverables by years is provided in Appendix 2. Since we began delivering these products to our program partners it has become clear that although they now have the models, tools and GIS applications necessary to conduct their own assessments of proposed land use activities, few users have the background knowledge and expertise to understand the results of the analysis. To address this problem we recognized that additional structured training is required to improve the understanding of these research products and thereby allow more informed use of our products. During 2007 we have formed a working partnership with ENFORM in Calgary to work with our team of research scientists in the preparation and delivery of a structured two-day training program. This completion of this training program is scheduled for the first quarter of 2008, with the first courses to be advertised to our program partners by the spring of 2008.. Research Projects within the Grizzly Bear Program for 2008: The FRI Grizzly Bear Research Program has a primary research goal of:

1. Providing habitat maps and models for all currently identified grizzly bear range in Alberta. (This research goal provides both knowledge creation, knowledge transfer and policy support upon delivery to program partners) We also have supporting and integrated research initiatives underway (ongoing) which link directly to our primary research goal. These are: 2. The relationships between grizzly bear health and landscape conditions. (Innovation and Science grant)

(In 2008 we will expand this effort by collecting biological samples from grizzly bears in each provincial

management unit to establish baseline health conditions to relate to current landscape conditions)


- 101 -

3. Grizzly bear camera/multi sensor program to explore habitat use and movements (NSERC/CRD grant). (We plan to continue to deploy these units on grizzly bears in selected study areas and improve software and hardware performance of units.)

4. Begin delivery of a training program for the use of research products by working with ENFORM and our scientific specialists. (Innovation and Science grant and ENFORM).

5. Understanding grizzly bear habitat use in relation to landscape change and environmental parameters (NSERC/CRD grant and partner funding). (In 2008 we will be adding a new project investigating grizzly bear denning ecology and environmental parameters looking at both recent (2007) and previously collected data sets (1999-2006) 6. Evaluating the impacts of Mountain Pine Beetle (MPB) and harvesting strategies on grizzly bears in the Kakwa area. (FRIAA and partner funded). (This will represent the second year of data collection on the impacts of MPB on grizzly bear habitat use and selection) 7. Continue to evaluate the efficacy of improving grizzly bear habitat quality in secure habitat area related to abandoned oil and gas well sites. (Moose Mountain Environmental Fund).

2.0 Research Projects Outline: This workplan has eight distinct program goals for 2008.

1. Remote sensing team members will: a. Complete annual landscape change maps for Bear Management Units where GPS bear movement

data exits. b. Continue to map and track mountain pine beetle activity and management response in the Kakwa

study area. This work began in 2007. 2. Modeling team members will apply newly developed food models to NW Alberta and collect additional

data to allow testing of these models. A version 1 product will be provided in 2008. This team will also produce a grizzly bear mortality risk model for NW Alberta to compliment the new food model.

3. Begin a pilot project to collect biological samples in separate Bear Management Units from the Montana border north to Grande Prairie. We will also try to maintain 10 collared grizzly bears in the Kakwa MPB study area in 2008.

4. Continue work investigating the relationships between landscape condition/change and grizzly bear health and provide program partners with a status assessment of grizzly bears in their areas (FMA, and Bear Management Unit).

5. Undertake a DNA population census for the area north of Highway 16 using new approaches from a meta-analysis of 3 year of existing DNA data and the latest RSF map products. This could include the north half of Jasper National Park, Wilmore Wilderness Park and the Kakwa Wildland Park.

6. Continue data collection from currently radio collared bears in the Kakwa area to determine response to mountain pine beetle activity and management response. Undertake data collection to provide insights into grizzly bear habitat and den selection in relation to climatic variables.

7. Expanded training initiatives and additional on site partner assistance with research products for forest management planning.

7. Continue to evaluate the efficacy of improving grizzly bear habitat quality in secure habitat area related to abandoned oil and gas well sites. (Moose Mountain Environmental Fund).


- 102 -

3.0 WORKPLAN: Objective 1: Remote Sensing Work associated with Mountain Pine Beetle and Landscape Condition and

Change

Activities: The overall goal of the remote sensing team is to provide resource managers with the knowledge and planning tools necessary to inform on the linkages between grizzly bears, mountain pine beetles, and anthropogenic mitigation activities. In working towards this goal, we have established a research plan that will lead towards the development of map products, models, and software packages enabling us to predict the impacts of MPB activities on grizzly bear populations and habitat use forward through time, thereby establishing the means by which informed management decisions can be made. Our team will also focus efforts on the production of annual landscape condition maps to coincide with grizzly bear GPS location data

This remote sensing team will conduct work on the following themes:

Theme 1. Improving the spatio-temporal resolution of base map products

Current FRIGBRP geospatial products are composed of vegetation and landscape attributes mapped at limited spatial and temporal dimensions. We will adopt a data fusion strategy that combines the high spatial resolution of Landsat (30m) with the high temporal resolution of MODIS (16 days) to improve our spatio-temporal representation of core habitat attributes: land cover, crown closure, species composition, phenology, and change.

Theme 2. Mapping the Distribution of Pinus

The current FRIGBRP map products characterize tree species composition in only the broadest sense: the proportion of conifer trees within a 30-metre pixel. In order to support our efforts towards future MPB mapping and susceptibility modeling, we will expand our base product list to include maps of Pinus distribution, developed using remote sensing-based methods suitable for application across large, multi-jurisdictional study areas.

Theme 3. Monitoring MPB Attack and Mitigation Activities

FRIGBRP personnel already use remote sensing and GIS data sources to monitor landscape change, but there is currently no provision to attribute features specifically related to MPB activity. We will implement new remote sensing methods that improve out capacity for monitoring landscape change, including red attack crowns and other affiliated MPB mitigation activities at multi-annual timeframes.

Theme 4. Mapping Landscape-level MPB Susceptibility

The current methods used to map MPB susceptibility in Alberta requires information on stand type, volume, age, and density from forest inventory data, and is therefore constrained by the collection extent of the Alberta Vegetation Inventory. In order to address these information needs and spatial limitations, we will establish a new remote sensing-based processing stream that will enable us to perform susceptibility mapping at the landscape level, using data sources that are free of jurisdictional constraints.

Theme 5. Ongoing Monitoring of MPB Infestation and Collection of Ground Validation Data

In order to support our goal of developing advanced techniques for mapping and monitoring MPB infestation and mitigation activities, we require accurate field-based observations of stand


- 103 -

condition and land cover change over the full five years of the project. However, the cost of deploying field crews across the entire area is prohibitively expensive, so we will employ an integrated field- and airborne-based observation strategy using a grid-based sampling scheme.

Theme 6. Projecting landscape recovery and change

Once land cover change has occurred due to harvesting, development, or beetle activity, it is critical to understand how the landscape will recover through time, and the effect this recovery will have on future grizzly bear habitats and populations. To examine these issues, we will implement a scenario-based modeling approach which combines information on land cover change with forest growth and forest recovery growth rates. Within this theme we will also produce annual landscape condition maps to link directly with annual GPS grizzly bear movement data.

Timelines: Research activities will continue within these themes with the production of new map products and

models. Annual reports will be provided with products as well as scientific journal publications. This work is a joint undertaking of remote sensing specialists at UBC, U of Calgary and CFS in Victoria.

Objective 2: Test and Apply New Food Based RSF Grizzly Bear Models in NW Alberta

With newly created food models (now in preparation) our research team will investigate the application of these models to the NW region of Alberta to aid in providing useful products for forest management. Additional products for grizzly bear mortality risk will be created after the food models have been tested and applied.

Activities:

• Working with current food/diet model coefficients, generated from 6 years of diet analysis. • Determine seasonal variation in diet and food phenology between various Bear Management

Units in the province. • Gather food and diet information from selected field sites in 2008. If possible this information

will be derived from GPS collared bears. Timelines:

• Food model work requires completed habitat map layers so the application of the model cannot begin until the new habitat map layers are completed. These maps are now in production with the remote sensing team. (FRIAA 2007 funding)

• The application of these new models will begin in December 2007 with expected version 1 products being available following grizzly bear den emergence in the spring of 2008.

• Field validation of new food models in NW Alberta will begin in May and will continue until September 2008 with a focus on ground truthing model predictions at selected study sites.

• If possible the research team will also endeavor to radio collar additional bears in this area; however success to date with this approach has proved difficult and costly.

Objective 3: A): Sample collection for grizzly bear health assessment across population units Activities:

• Our research team is now prepared to move into more non-invasive sampling approaches to monitor grizzly bear health over large areas. This year we propose to use newly developed laboratory techniques to quantify long term stress in grizzly bears, our program team will collect a minimum of 10 biopsy samples from free ranging grizzly bears in 5 separate grizzly bear population units in the province. These samples will be obtained through a new aerial biopsy darting program, where bears will no longer need to be captured for collaring. We plan to view this year as a pilot program to test this new approach.


- 104 -

• Samples collected from our biopsy darting and from bears handled through management actions will be analyzed at our program laboratories at the University of Saskatchewan Veterinary College.

• These data will be compared and analyzed in relation to previous samples and current landscape conditions. Particular emphasis will be placed on measuring and monitoring health characteristics of grizzly bears in the MPB study area.

• Reports will be prepared on current health status in populations sampled.

B): Capture and GPS Collar 5-7 Adult Grizzly Bears to Collect Movement and Habitat use

data in the Mountain Pine Beetle study area. Activities

• Currently there are 10 GPS collared grizzly bears providing data on habitat use and movements in the MPB study area. Our goal is to maintain 10 active collars each season and we believe that 4 -5 of the current collars will be removed by bears during denning or fall off bears next season as the rot off mechanisms erode over time. Therefore we would like to capture an additional 5-7 bears next spring (2008) to maintain a sample of 10 bears collecting data in 2008 as well. We hope some of the bears collared will be recaptures to provide data from the same individuals over multiple years.

• We will continue to also attaché new camera/sensor systems to each collared bears to gather more detail on grizzly bear movement paths between GPS locations as well as habitat use and feeding information data.

• Monthly data upload flights will be conducted from a fixed wing aircraft • Field check will be performed by a ground crew team (3 persons) to document feeding activity

and collect additional diet information Timelines:

• The capture and collaring of bears for this program will take place in April-May of 2008. Data collection will occur every month through remote data uploads and collars would be recovered in the fall of 2009, prior to denning. Field crews will be working from May-October.

Objective 4: Grizzly Bear Health and Relationships with Environmental Conditions and Landscape

Change Activities

• Our animal health team will utilize the annual landscape condition maps provided by the remote sensing group to determine relationships between health and landscape conditions. This work will utilize newly developed measures of animal health from the past 2 years of our Innovation and Science research effort.

• We will determine if we can predict grizzly bear health and population status from environmental condition data. This work is an extension of work currently underway in 2007 and funded by Alberta Innovation and Science.

• This baseline data will be important to speak to questions of forest management practices, sustainability, and future trends with stakeholders and customers worldwide.

Timeline

• This work is ongoing and we will complete the full analysis by the 3rd quarter of 2008 with interim reports being produced in the first quarter of the 2008 fiscal year.


- 105 -

Objective 5: Conduct DNA Grizzly Bear Population Inventory Activities

• Working on behalf of SRD our research team will undertake a DNA hair base mark recapture inventory of the area north of Highway 16 to south of Grande Prairie.

• This will be a new research project as the approach that will be needed is based on new research analysis and predictions of meta analysis (2004-2006)

• It is not yet known whether other jurisdictions will be participating in this program • A detailed workplan for this project will be prepared by January 15, 2008 and forwarded to

supporting partners for review and comment. Timeline

• This work is will need to begin ASAP in terms of field logistics and staffing. • Field work will begin the end of May and be completed by the end of July. • Laboratory work will begin in August and be completed by November with a final report

provided by the end of January 2009.

Objective 6: Grizzly Bear Response to Mountain Pine Beetle Spread, Forest Harvesting Operations and climatic conditions.

Activities

• This is the continuation of work our program team began in 2007 with FRIAA and other partner funding support in response to the spreading outbreak of mountain pine beetle within the province and partner requests to understand and predict the possible consequences of forest management actions on the long-term survival of grizzly bears. The first year of this program has provided important new data and in 2008 we will continue this data collection (10 collared bears with new sensors) in the MPB study area.

• This activity also relies on data from our remote sensing team and SRD forest management branch detailing new MPB conditions and spread.

• Our research team will also investigate grizzly bear habitat selection in relation to climatic variables to determine possible relationships. Currently we have 9 years of data on file to analyze to determine what, if any, relationships exist and will collect more detailed data in the MPB study area in 2008. This work will lead to a greater understanding of why bears select specific habitats in each season

• The objective of this work is to allow predictive modeling on the impacts of possible climatic variations with grizzly bear habitat selection in forest landscapes in Alberta.

• As grizzly bear response data is collected from mountain pine beetle areas the research team will begin to construct a new GIS based predictive model for testing and evaluation.

Timeline

• This work is focused on field activities during the 2008 season with data collection around MPB occurrence and spread.

• The collection of weather data will be undertaken by using portable weather stations distributed in a variety of grizzly bear habitats within the MPB study area.

• Data analysis with the first year of data will be started in December 2007 as outlined in the 2007 FRIAA project proposal. A report is expected as scheduled for April 2008 from the first year of data collection.


- 106 -

Objective 7: Continue the delivery of new products to program partners and provide training in their use. As in past years we will deliver our research products and tools to FMA tenure holders, and land and resource managers in both government and industry. Training on interpreting maps and model outputs to ensure these products are widely used for forest management planning and stewardship will be provided. It has become clear in 2007 that ASRD is requiring both forest companies and oil and gas producers to provide an evaluation of the possible impacts of development plans on grizzly bear habitat and mortality risk. These assessments will be done using our program products. Our research team is now working with ENFORM (Oil and Gas training group) in developing a two-day course to be delivered to all user groups who have received our research products. The intent is for users to not only to understand how the products have been produced but also to have the necessary skill sets to undertake their own analysis. This program will be ready for delivery in the spring of 2008. However, it is important to recognize that ongoing one on one assistant is required for new users of these tools to assist them in model use and interpretation of output. Our team needs to continue to deliver this assistance to the AFPA (Alberta Forest Products Association) and its members, CAPP (Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers), and ASRD (Alberta Sustainable Resource Development) through a series of workshops and onsite visits in 2008.

Activity and Timeline:

• All products and annual reports will be completed and distributed in April 2008 and also in April 2009 for the identified area to both industry partners and government land and resource management staff. Workshops and technology transfer will be ongoing as new products are completed and delivered. Dates for training courses will be announced to all program partners when available.

Objective 8: Grizzly Bear Habitat Enhancement Trials – pilot project (Funded by the Moose Mountain Environmental Fund)

The second year of this project will attempt to restore habitat security and food resources for grizzly bears on non-productive disturbed sites (abandoned oil and gas well sites) on the eastern slopes of Alberta.

Activities:

• Collect needed seed for production of planting stock • Work with contract greenhouse for growth of seedlings (buffalo berry and hedysarum) • Conduct field visits with research partners to select trial sites • Work with SRD to address issues of access control and human use of trial sites • Plant seedling stock with field crew • Monitor stock growth and animal use of trial sites

Deliverables and Timelines:

• Planting of successful seedlings will occur in May 2008. • Monitoring of trial sites will take place monthly until freeze up

6.0 Objectives and Deliverables for Communication and Extension A program communication plan will need to be prepared for the next 5-year business cycle by June 2008, but it is suggested that we not begin this exercise until SRD has confirmed what their research priorities are and what activities they would like us to focus on. We hope that these decisions will be made within the first few months of 2008. There is an identified need within the research team to communicate research findings and areas of study more


- 107 -

widely (provincially, nationally and internationally). The primary extension focus of this program for 2008 will be the completion and implementation of our training program with ENFORM, along with additional peer reviewed publications in the scientific literature. 7.0 Inter Program Links At the time of preparing this work plan it has not been possible to review planned activities within other FRI research programs for 2008. Once these are available additional information will allow possible inter program links to be established. Therefore the following list may be updated and/or modified as this information becomes available. Internal FRI Programs

• Natural Disturbance Program – possible linkage with remote sensing mapping efforts and with MPB harvesting efforts related to grizzly bear response.

• Fish and Aquatics Program – possible linkage with remote sensing mapping of landscape change and landscape metrics calculations.

• Highway 40 North Program – possible collaboration with GPS data collection from collared animals and habitat mapping needs.

• Fire Ecology –MPB – there are possible linkages with the collection of habitat response to MPB outbreaks in various study areas in the province. This information would be useful in understanding and predicting grizzly bear food impacts associated with MPB.

External Research Programs

• Caribou/Wolf Predation Study – University of Montana, University of Calgary, and Jasper National Park. – We are currently working with this research team to identify areas of collaboration. At this time some areas where collaboration are possible include: remote sensing map production, data uploads from collared animals, linkages with field crews for vegetation sampling and predation investigation, animal health measures, and landscape change analysis. This program is expected to be 5 years in length.

• Grizzly Bear Health Comparisons - Working with veterinarians at the Calgary Zoo we will be collecting biological samples on captive zoo grizzly bears to compare and contrast with similar samples taken from free-ranging grizzly bears. Bears in the Calgary Zoo are immobilized and have health inspections every two years and this is currently scheduled to occur in 2008. This work will be done in conjunction with our program veterinarian who is now based at the new faculty of veterinary medicine at the University of Calgary. If a formal collaboration is in place with the Scandinavian Brown Bear Project we will attempt to compare the health results of their long term study with our own data over a shorter time period.

• Polar Bear Health Status – In conjunction with research scientists with the Canadian Wildlife Service and the Minister of Natural Resources in Ontario our research team will be analyzing biological samples taken from polar bears to evaluate long-term stress levels in different arctic populations of polar bears.

• North Eastern BC Grizzly Bear Collaboration – We are in the process of establishing a working relationship with BC Environment to possibly collaborate with grizzly bear data collection in NE BC and NW Alberta. This collaboration could include: shared biological samples and data.

8.0 Funding At this time it is not possible to determine what activities will be complete in 2008 as research funding has not been secured. Direction is also required from SRD related to data and research needs for 2008. Once funding levels have been determine a revised work plan will be provided. Funding for the research projects within the FRI Grizzly Bear Program are listed below along with a breakdown of expenditures by category within each area.

108

Funding sources for this period (written description plus the following figure, please indicate total budget for the year and it has to be broken down by budget code where applicable. The following

can be completed by individual project with a grand total at the end. Please include a list of all partners and * those that are contributing either in cash or in kind)

(In-kind is support of resources to your program/project to be in $ but is not a cash contribution, this is to include in house in-kind from support areas

(Grizzly Bear Research Project Cont 204)

Contributing Organization (Incl. Requested

from FRI)

Carry Forward Cash Committed Total Confirmed Funding In-kind Support Comments (including in-kind descriptions)

BP Canada 15,000 15,000

CCWHC 20,000 project support - veteranarian

capp -erac 40,000 confirmed

FMA holders 80,000 Applied for

FRI 75,000 Requested

FRIAA 450,000 Confirmed

Oil and gas sector 100,000 requested

SRD secondment funds 60,000 in kind for project leader

SRD Policy and Planning 50,000 requested

WWF 25,000 applied for

ACA 25,000 applied for

TOTALS 15,000 505,000 80,000 760,000

(In-kind is support of resources to your program/project to be in $ but is not a cash contribution, this is to include in house in-kind from support areas FRI $10,000 GIS in kind and admin

(In-kind is support of resources to your program/project to be in $ but is not a cash contribution, this is to include in house in-kind from support areas (NSERC Camera Collars Cont 204.10)


from FRI)


Elk Valley Coal 40,000 40,000 NSERC matching contribution of

$75,000

Totals 40,000 $115,000


109

(In-kind is support of resources to your program/project to be in $ but is not a cash contribution, this is to include in house in-kind from support areas (NSERC Cont 204.9)


from FRI)


ANC 15,000

CANFOR 15,000

Conoco Phillips 10,000

DMI 25,000

Petro-Canada 15,000

Shell Canada 5,000

Sundance Forest 5,000

Talisman Energy 15,000

TransCanada 15,000 NSERC matching contribution of

$120,000

Totals 120,000 $120,000

(In-kind is support of resources to your program/project to be in $ but is not a cash contribution, this is to include in house in-kind from support areas (Moose Mountain Cont 204.12)


from FRI)


Moose Mountain Environmental

Fund

19,950

Tay River Environmental Fund 22,600

Totals 42,550 42,550

110

9.0 Program Collaborators and Responsibilities (see also Appendix 3)

1. Gordon Stenhouse – FRI Grizzly Bear Program Leader, responsible for funding,

partner liaison, program team direction and final product delivery.

2. Dr. Marc Cattet – University of Saskatchewan, CCWHC, leader of the animal health group and research coordinator within the animal health laboratories.

3. Dr. Steven Franklin - University of Saskatchewan, VP Research, leader of the remote sensing group for land cover mapping program. Supervises 2 graduate students on this component of the research program.

4. Dr. Greg McDermid - University of Calgary, Geography, responsible for product quality and delivery for remote sensing technicians and program graduate students (2) (RS). Greg also works on the MPB remote sensing effort.

5. Dr. David Janz - University of Saskatchewan, responsible for the development of stress protein chips and associated laboratory activities. Supervises PhD student and laboratory technician within this program on the topic of long-term stress.

6. Dr. Matt Vijayan- University of Waterloo, responsible for the establishment of new laboratory techniques on blood serum to measure and assess long-term stress. Supervises 1 graduate student and a laboratory technician on this program.

7. Dr. Nasir El-Sheimy - University of Calgary, Geomatics Engineering, project leader for the multi-sensor camera systems and PI for NSERC/CRD.

8. Dr. Andrew Hunter - University of Calgary, Geomatics Engineering, lead researcher and engineer for construction, development and testing of multi-sensor camera systems. Responsible for data handling and software development.

9. Dr. Scott Nielsen - University of Alberta. Responsible for RSF model development and food based modeling work.

10. Ms. Barb Schwab - Wilfred Laurier University, PhD candidate, responsible for the development of graph theory based movement corridor analysis and analysis of spatial movement data.

11. Dr. Mike Wulder - NRC, Canadian Forest Service, Victoria, responsible for remote sensing mapping efforts associated with mountain pine beetle work. Supervises 1 program technician on this program.

12. Dr. Nicholas Coops - UBC, Remote Sensing Chair, Vancouver, working with Dr.Wulder on production of remote sensing map products for mountain pine beetle work. Supervises one graduate student on this program.

13. John Boulanger - Integrated Ecological Research, Nelson B.C., project bio-statistician, responsible for assigned data analysis, statistical advice and reviews.

14. Jerome Cranston - Arctos Ecological Consulting , project GIS analyst, responsible for data handling, storage, dissemination along with the development and testing of new GIS applications for product use. Jerome is also the lead researcher on the pilot project for habitat enhancement.

Scientific Advisors for Mountain Pine Beetle Project

1. Dr. Sunil Ranasignhe, Provincial Forest Entomologist, SRD, Edmonton 2. Mr. John Stadt, Forest Ecology Specialist, SRD, Edmonton 3. Mr. Robert Stokes, Manager Forest Planning Section, SRD, Edmonton


111

Foothills Research Institute Grizzly Bear Project Staff - Hinton

1. Karen Graham – Biologist 2. Bernie Goski – Biologist 3. Angie Larocque – Project Administration Coordinator 4. Dr. Erin Geymonat – Project Veterinarian

10.0 Program Permits and Authorizations Three provincial permits and one federal permit are required. These permits have been obtained on an annual basis for the last 8 years. These permits are: Animal Care Committee Approvals This approval certificate is needed for handling protocols. (UofS, UofC, and SRD) Provincial Capture Permit This permit allows capturing and handling of grizzly bears. Provincial Research Permit This permit allows telemetry research. Provincial Export Permit This permit allows the export of blood and tooth samples to the U.S. for analysis. Federal Export Permit This permit allow the export of blood and tooth samples to U.S. laboratories for analysis. Authorizations The research team will work closely with, and communicate with all FMA holders where research activities will occur.


112

Figure 1: Area of grizzly bear habitat in Alberta where research products have been completed.


113

Appendix 1: Published Papers and Theses Resulting from the FRIGBP. Boulanger, J., G. Stenhouse, R. Munro. 2004. Sources of heterogeneity bias when DNA mark-recapture sampling methods are applied to grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) populations. Journal of Mammalogy 85:618-624. Cattet, M.R.L., K. Christison, N.A. Caulkett and G.B. Stenhouse. 2003. Physiologic responses of grizzly bears to different methods of capture. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 39(3):649-654. Cattet, M.R.L., N.A. Caulkett, and G.B. Stenhouse. 2003. Anesthesia of grizzly bears using xylazine-zolazepam-tiletamine or zolazepam-tiletamine. Ursus 14(1):88-93. Cattet, M.R.L., N.A. Caulkett, M.E. Obbard and G.B. Stenhouse. 2002. A body-condition index for ursids. Canadian Journal of Zoology 80:1156-1161.

Frair, J.L., S.E. Nielsen, E.H. Merrill, S. Lele, M.S. Boyce, R.H.M. Munro, G.B. Stenhouse, and H.L Beyer. 2004. Approaches for removing GPS-collar bias in habitat-selection studies. Journal of Applied Ecology 41, 201-212.

Franklin, S.E., P.K. Montgomery, G.B. Stenhouse. 2005. Interpretation of land cover changes using aerial photography and satellite imagery in the Foothills Research Institute of Alberta. Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing (submitted). Franklin, S.E., D.R. Peddle, J.A. Dechka, G.B. Stenhouse. 2002. Evidential reasoning with Landsat TM, DEM and GIS data for landcover classification in support of grizzly bear habitat mapping. International Journal of Remote Sensing 23(21):4633-4652. Franklin, S.E., M.B. Lavigne, M.A. Wulder, and G.B. Stenhouse. 2002. Change detection and landscape structure mapping using remote sensing. The Forestry Chronicle 78(5):618-625. Franklin, S.E., M.J. Hansen, G.B. Stenhouse. 2002. Quantifying landscape structure with vegetation inventory maps and remote sensing. The Forestry Chronicle 78(6):866-875. Franklin, S.E., G.B. Stenhouse, M.J. Hansen, C.C. Popplewell, J.A. Dechka, D.R. Peddle. 2001. An integrated decision tree approach (IDTA) to mapping land cover using satellite remote sensing in support of grizzly bear habitat analysis in the Alberta Yellowhead ecosystem. Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing 27(6):579-591. Gau, R.J., R. Mulders, L.M. Ciarniello, D.C. Heard, C.B. Chetkiewicz, M. Boyce, R. Munro, G. Stenhouse, B. Chruszcz, M.L. Gibeau, B. Milakovic, K. Parker. 2004. Uncontrolled field performance of Televilt GPS-Simplex collars on grizzly bears in western and northern Canada. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32:693-701. Huettmann, F., S.E. Franklin, G.B. Stenhouse. 2005. Predictive spatial modelling of landscape change in the Foothills Research Institute. Forestry Chronicle 81:525-537. Hunter, A., N. El-Sheimy, G. Stenhouse. 2005. GPS/Camera Collar Captures Bear Doings. http://www.gpsworld.com/gpsworld/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=146689 (this will only be here until March 2006 or so). Linke, J., S.E. Franklin, F. Huettmann and G.B. Stenhouse. 2005. Seismic cutlines, changing landscape metrics and grizzly bear landscape use in Alberta. Landscape Ecology 20:811-826. Linke, J. 2003. Using Landsat TM and IRS imagery to Detect Seismic Cutlines: Assessing their Effects on Landscape Structure and on Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos) Landscape Use in Alberta. MSc. Thesis. Department of Geography, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. McDermid, G. J., S.E. Franklin and E.F. LeDrew. 2005. Remote sensing for large-area habitat mapping. Progress in Physical Geography 29:449-474.


114

Mowat, G., D.C. Heard, D.R. Seip, K.G. Poole, G.Stenhouse, D.W. Paetkau. 2005. Grizzly Ursus arctos and black bear U. americanus densities in the interior mountains of North America. Wildlife Biology 11: 31-48. Munro, R.H.M, S.E. Nielsen, M.H. Price, G.B. Stenhouse, M.S. Boyce. 2006. Seasonal and diel patterns of grizzly bear diet and activity in west-central Alberta. Journal of Mammology 87:1112-1121. Nielsen, S.E., G.B. Stenhouse, M.S. Boyce. 2006. A habitat-based framework for grizzly bear conservation in Alberta. Biological Conservation 130:217-229. Nielsen, S.E. 2004. Habitat ecology, Conservation, and Projected Population Viability of Grizzly Bears (Ursus arctos L.) in West-Central Alberta, Canada. PhD Thesis. Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Nielsen, S.E., M.S. Boyce, and G.B. Stenhouse. 2004. Grizzly bears and forestry I: selection of clearcuts by grizzly bears in west-central Alberta. Canada.Forest Ecology and Management 199:51–65. Nielsen, S.E., R.H.M. Munro, E. Bainbridge, M.S. Boyce, and G.B. Stenhouse. 2004. Grizzly bears and forestry II: distribution of grizzly bear foods in clearcuts of west-central Alberta, Canada. Forest Ecology and Management 199:67–82. Nielson, S.E., M.S. Boyce, G.B. Stenhouse, R.H.M. Munro. 2003. Development and testing of phenologically driven grizzly bear habitat models. Ecoscience 10(1):1-10. Nielson, S.E., M.S. Boyce, G.B. Stenhouse, and R.H.M. Munro. 2002. Modeling grizzly bear habitats in the Yellowhead ecosystem of Alberta: taking autocorrelation seriously. Ursus 13:45-56. Pereverzoff, J.L. 2003. Development of a Rapid Assessment Technique to Identify Human Disturbance Features in a Forested Landscape. MSc. Thesis, Department of Geography, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Popplewell, C., S.E. Franklin, G.B. Stenhouse, and M. Hall-Beyer. 2003. Using landscape structure to classify grizzly bear density in Alberta Yellowhead Ecosystem bear management units. Ursus 14: 27-34. Popplewell, C. 2001. Habitat Structure and Fragmentation of Grizzly Bear Management Units and Home Ranges in the Alberta Yellowhead Ecosystem. MSc. Thesis. Department of Biological Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Ritson-Bennett, R.A. 2003. Assessing the Effects of a Heli-portable 3D Seismic Survey on Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) Distribution. MSc. Thesis, Department of Geography, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Schwab, B.L. 2003. Graph Theoretic Methods for Examining Landscape Connectivity and Spatial Movement Patterns: Application to the FRI Grizzly Bear Research. MSc Thesis. Department of Geography, University of Calgary, Calgary AB. Stenhouse, G.B., J. Boulanger, J. Lee, K. Graham, J. Duval, J. Cranston. 2004. Grizzly bear associations along the eastern slopes of Alberta. Ursus 16:31-40. Stenhouse, G.B. and K.Graham. (Eds.). 2005. Foothills Research Institute Grizzly Bear Research Program 1999-2003 Final Report. 289 pp. Stenhouse, G.B., R. Munro and K.Graham. (Eds.). 2003. Foothills Research Institute Grizzly Bear Research Program 2002 Annual Report. 162 pp. Stenhouse, G.B., R. Munro. (Eds.). 2002. Foothills Research Institute Grizzly Bear Research Program 2001 Annual Report. 126 pp.


115

Stenhouse, G. and R. Munro. (Eds.). 2001. Foothills Research Institute Grizzly Bear Research Program 2000 Annual Report. 87 pp. Stenhouse, G. and R. Munro. (Eds.). 2000. Foothills Research Institute Grizzly Bear Research Program 1999 Annual Report. 98 pp. Wasser, S.K., B. Davenport, E.R. Ramage, K.E. Hunt, M. Parker, C. Clarke, and G.B. Stenhouse. 2004. Scat detection dogs in wildlife research and management: Application to grizzly and black bears in the Yellowhead Ecosystem, Alberta, Canada. Canadian Journal of Zoology 82:475-492. Wulder, M. A., and S. E. Franklin, eds., 2003, Remote Sensing of Forest Environments: Concepts and Case Studies, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA, 519p. Wulder, M.A., S.E. Franklin, J.C. White, J.Linke and S. Magnussen. 2005. An accuracy assessment framework for large-are land cover classification products derived from medium-resolution satellite data. International Journal of Remote Sensing: in press.

Recent Publications and Scientific Activities within the FRI Grizzly Bear Research Project

REFEREED JOURNAL ARTICLES (PUBLISHED/ACCEPTED)

Linke, J., and S.E. Franklin. 2006. Interpretation of landscape structure gradients based on satellite image classification of land cover. Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing, in press. Wunderle, A., S.E. Franklin, and X. Guo. 2007. Regenerating boreal forest structure estimation using SPOT-5 pan-sharpened imagery. International Journal of Remote Sensing, in press. REFEREED JOURNAL ARTICLES (PUBLISHED/SUBMITTED) Cattet, M., J. Boulanger, G. Stenhouse, R. Powell, and M. Reynolds. 2007. Long-term effects of capture and handling in grizzly bears and black bears: implications for ecological studies, conservation programs, and wildlife management. Ecological Applications, submitted. Klassen, J.N., G.J. McDermid, and M. Hall-Beyer. 2007. Remote sensing of phenology: strategies for noise reduction in NDVI time series. Journal of Applied Remote Sensing, submitted. McDermid, G.J., R.J. Hall, G.A. Sanchez-Azofeifa, S.E. Franklin, G.B. Stenhouse, T. Kobliuk, and E.F. LeDrew. 2007. Remote sensing and forest inventory for wildlife habitat assessment. Journal of Wildlife Management, submitted. McDermid, G.J., S.E. Franklin, and E.F. LeDrew. 2007. A multi-attribute approach to mapping vegetation and land cover over large areas in support of wildlife habitat mapping. Remote Sensing of Environment, submitted. McDermid, G.J., S.E. Franklin, and E.F. LeDrew. 2007. Radiometric normalization and continuous-variable model extension for the operational mapping of vegetation and land cover over large areas. International Journal of Remote Sensing, submitted. Pape, A.D. and S.E. Franklin. 2007. MODIS-based change detection for grizzly bear habitat mapping in Alberta. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, submitted.


116

CONFERENCE PRESENTATION/POSTER

Carlson, R.I., M.R.L. Cattet, G.B. Stenhouse and D.M. Janz. Development of a protein microarray to detect long-term stress in grizzly bears. Poster presentation, The Wildlife Society annual meeting, Anchorage, AK, Sept 23-27, 2006. Carlson, R.I., M.R.L. Cattet, G.B. Stenhouse and D.M. Janz. Monitoring long-term stress in grizzly bears using protein microarray technology. Poster presentation, World Microarray Congress, Vancouver, BC, March 24-25, 2006. Hamilton, J., M. Obbard, M. Cattet, G. Stenhouse, and M.M. Vijayan. 2006. Cortisol-binding globulin as a marker of chronic stress in bears. Oral presentation, The University of Waterloo Graduate Symposium, Waterloo, ON, April 3, 2006. Hamilton, J., M. Obbard, M. Cattet, G. Stenhouse, and M.M. Vijayan. 2006. Is cortisol-binding globulin a biomarker of chronic stress in bears? Poster presentation, Canadian Society of Zoologists Annual Meeting, Edmonton, AB, May 4-6, 2006. McDermid, G.J., S.E. Franklin, G.B. Stenhouse. 2006. Remote sensing and forest inventory for grizzly bear habitat mapping and resource selection analysis. Oral presentation, American Society of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing Annual Conference, Reno, NV, April 2, 2006. Stenhouse, G.B. Grizzly bears in the wild: grizzly bear science and research in Alberta. Invited presentation, Smithsonion Institution, Washington DC, August 3, 2006. Stenhouse, G.B. Recognizing the needs of grizzlies: new knowledge and tools for land management decisions in Alberta. Invited presentation, Petroleum Technology Alliance of Canada Ecological Research Forum and Resource Access Technology Workshop, Kananaskis, AB, October 10-11, 2006.

OTHER: TECHNICAL REPORTS, NON-REFEREED ARTICLES ETC.

Pape, A.D. 2006. Multiple spatial resolution image change detection for environmental management applications. M.Sc. thesis, Department of Geography, University of Saskatchewan, 97p. Wunderle, A.L. 2006. Sensitivity of multi-resolution satellite sensor imagery to regenerating forest age and site preparation for wildlife habitat analysis. M.Sc. thesis, Department of Geography, University of Saskatchewan, 89p.


117

APPENDIX 2 - Deliverables

1. Landcover Maps: these maps are raster-based GIS layers, in ESRI grid format, identifying land cover classes derived

from remote sensing imagery (Landsat) at 30m resolution (pixel size). Associated maps include leaf area index (LAI

for 3 seasons), leading species (percent conifer/broadleaf), and crown closure (CC). When combined, these data layers

provide a powerful tool to understand landscape configuration and plant phenology over time.

2. Resource Selection Function Maps (RSF): these are raster-based maps, at 30m resolution, showing the relative

probability of grizzly bear occurrence on the landscape. They are derived from grizzly bear location data collected by

GPS radio collars, combined with landcover and other GIS maps, and have been tested and validated with at least 2

years worth of GPS data. Models are developed for three seasons (spring, summer and fall), and three population

subgroups (adult males, adult females, and subadults).

3. Mortality Risk Map: using spatial and temporal data on grizzly bear mortalities, we have produced a raster-based

grizzly bear mortality risk map, which predicts the probability of human-caused grizzly bear mortality over the

landscape. This map is based on the most current data for open, motorized linear access structures including roads and

rights-of-way.

4. Safe Harbours and Attractive Sinks: from the work of Dr. Scott Nielsen (research team member) we have combined

the RSF maps which show where bears are likely to occur, with the mortality risk map to create two additional map

layers. Safe harbour maps indicate areas of high RSF scores and low mortality risk, while the attractive sink maps show

areas of high probability of occurrence and high mortality risk. These map products are designed to be used together to

provided a clearer understanding of the landscape conditions for grizzly bears.

5. Grizzly Bear Movement Corridors: Graph Theory has been applied to the RSF maps to indicate the location of

grizzly bear movement corridors on the landscape. These maps also provide a ranking of the relative importance of

movement corridors and are tested and validated using GPS grizzly bear location data.

6. Grizzly Bear Conservation Zones: the research team has utilized all available data from the past 8 years of research

and recent DNA-based grizzly bear population census results to delineate watersheds within grizzly bear habitat and

classify them according to their suitability for grizzly bear conservation.

7. GIS applications: Python geoprocessing scripts, and associated GIS input layers, allow the user to predict changes to

grizzly bear habitat caused by industrial development. Planned development features (roads, cutblocks, wellsites,

pipelines) are incorporated into the landscape variables, and the RSF and mortality risk models are then regenerated for

Phase 3 study area. These scripts require ESRI ArcGIS 9x with Spatial Analyst extension. GIS layers include:

terrain grids:

DEM, Compound Topographic Index, Terrain Ruggedness Index, topographic class, solar radiation, distance

to water features

vegetation grids:forest age, landcover, greenness, Leaf Area Index, Crown Closure


118

- 119 -


224 - Social Science Program

1. Prepared by:

Dr. Bill White, Program Manager 5320 122nd St. Edmonton, AB T6H 3S5 Ph: (780) 435-7315 Fax: (780) 435-7359 Email: [email protected]

2. Sign off Sheet 3. Executive Summary (brief five hundred words or less) It is generally accepted that something must be measured to be managed. This holds for social and economic variables as well as biophysical data. The Canadian Forest Service and Foothills Research Institute have a history of co-operation in developing and reporting on a set of social indicators derived from the Census of Canada. The Census is conducted each 5 years and all data relevant to update the report will be released in time for a report to be completed in 2008. Given the significant changes in the study area, most notably the huge increase in oil and gas activity, the results should be of particular interest to municipal and provincial decision makers. Indicators to be collected, reported on and compared to previously collected information include: population (total and by age groups), income, income distribution, incidence of low income, mobility, education, real estate values, and employment 4. Background Information The Social Science Program is in a state of transition. Our funding was essentially eliminated last year and we have lost a key member of our team (Sociologist John Parkins) and he will not be replaced until sometime during this fiscal year. We do not know the exact skill set and interests the new hire will have. Therefore we are proposing to organise ourselves and with the assistance of a newly constituted Activity team develop a work plan for the next fiscal year if the board is supportive of rebuilding the Social Science program. To date we have developed neither a 5 year business plan nor a 5 year communication plan. We will develop these when we learn from the Board that they support the reconstituting of the Social Science program. We recognise that the new Social Science program must work differently than the previous model. Previous projects were developed by the CFS Social Science Group and most funding came from FRI core funds and significant CFS in-kind contributions. Little outside funding was sought and partners were used as “data sources” rather then full-fledged contributing partners providing both funding and knowledge. The re-vamped program will build on partnerships where appropriate and will link closely with the FRI Business Plan. Ideas from our workshop in Hinton last May will also help in the development of meaningful projects. Sustainable resource management includes biophysical, social and economic aspects. A strong social science program at FRI will contribute to two-thirds of these elements. In the current year we are proposing a very limited program focusing on social and economic indicators of community well-being. The FRI has reported on these variables since its inception. The opportunity that presents itself now is the release in 2008 of data from the 2006 Census of Canada.

- 120 -

5. Objectives a) To provide a report that on the key social and economic indicators contained in the 2006 Census and compare them to results from previous reports based on census data for the Foothills Research Institute area. This will be done in co-operation with the FRI C&I program who have used portions of these results previously in their reporting.


a) a joint CFS-Foothills Research Alliance publication b) a powerpoint presentation to be presented to interested to interested local and provincial decision

makers. c) A poster highlighting key results d) Sharing of key variable with the C&I program

We are committing to having this complete by March 31, 2009. No date has been set for release of the required data from StatsCan and we will also be waiting for budget approval from our CFS masters before purchasing the data. We anticipate co-operation from the Communications group in developing the poster. 7. Inter Program Links The C&I program has used social and economic indicator developed by the Social Science program in their previous reports. We anticipate that they will require this information again and we will make available all relevant data from this study. We are also participating in the development of the water strategy proposal and are available to work with any of the other programs that may require a social science component in their work. 8. Funding sources for this period

9. Program/Project Key Members and Responsibilities The CFS will be hiring a new Resource Sociologist who will primarily responsible for carrying out this work. Dr. White will oversee the project and supervise this employee. 10. 10. Environmental/Occupational Health and Safety/Permits 11. Appendices

(Project Name & Code) Contributing Organization (Incl. Requested from FRI)

Carry Forward

Cash Committed

Total Confirmed Funding

In-kind Support

Comments (including in-kind descriptions)

CFS $10,000 Salary, office and building, census data

Foothills 10,000 (core) Student or term employee

Totals

- 121 -

Annual Work Plan 235 - Foothills Growth and Yield Association

April 1, 2008 – March 31, 2009

1. Title and Contact Information............................................................................................................ 122 2. Signed Authorities ............................................................................................................................. 122 3. Executive Summary........................................................................................................................... 122 4. Background Information.................................................................................................................... 123 5. Objectives and Deliverables .............................................................................................................. 123

5.1. Project 1 - Development and Management of the Association................................................ 123 5.2. Project 2 - Lodgepole Pine Regeneration ................................................................................ 123 5.3. Project 3 - Comparison of Pre-harvest and Post-harvest Stand Development......................... 124 5.4. Project 4 - Cooperative Management of Historic Research Trials .......................................... 124 5.5. Project 5 - Regional Yield Estimators ..................................................................................... 124 5.6. Project 6 - Enhanced Management of Lodgepole Pine............................................................ 124 5.7. Project 7 – Regeneration Management in a Mountain Pine Beetle Environment.................... 124

6. Extension and Communication .......................................................................................................... 125 7. Inter-program Links........................................................................................................................... 125 8. Funding Sources ................................................................................................................................ 126 9. Program Key Members and Responsibilities ..................................................................................... 127 10. Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety Permits....................................................... 129 11. Appendices................................................................................................................................... 129

11.1. Memorandum of Agreement among Members of the Foothills Growth and yield Association ... (Effective April 1 2000) .......................................................................................................... 130 11.2. Mid-year Progress Report 2007-08 .....................................................................................- 135 - 11.3. Preliminary Year-end Report 2007-08 (Executive Summary) ............................................- 136 -

- 122 -

Foothills Research Institute Annual WorkPlan 2008-09 (Formally Foothills Model Forest, FtMF)

235 – Foothills Growth and Yield Association

1. Contact Information Prepared by: R.W. Udell, R.P.F. and H. Lougheed, R.P.F. Contact: R.W. Udell, R.P.F. Address: 384 Collinge Road, Hinton, Alberta, T7V 1L2 Phone: 780 865 4532 Fax: 780 865 4497 Email: [email protected] 2. Signed Authorities Signed approvals will be obtained when the work plan and an updated business plan are reviewed and approved by the FGYA Steering Committee at its annual meeting in February, 2008. 3. Executive Summary The Foothills Growth and Yield Association (FGYA) is a research cooperative administered by the Foothills Research Institute (FRI) on behalf of nine industrial sponsoring members. It is also a sub-program of the FRI’s Landscape Dynamics program. The mission of the FGYA is to continually improve the assessment of lodgepole pine growth and yield in managed stands. This is currently being achieved through implementation of a business plan covering six approved and funded projects. The plan is updated annually. The Association and program are governed by a Steering Committee consisting of representatives from member organizations. Funding of the program is the responsibility of the nine sponsoring members. The work plan provides background information, summarizes project objectives, and lists deliverables scheduled for 2008. Links to FRI communications and extension objectives and to other programs are highlighted. Funding and funding sources are itemized. Program participants and their responsibilities are identified. Mid-year and projected year-end progress reports are appended. The main fieldwork and related deliverables planned for 2008/09 are scheduled re-measurements of the Regenerated Lodgepole Pine and Historic Research trials. The main analytical tasks and deliverables (already scheduled or under consideration) are:

• Complete the analysis and continue modeling efforts for the 5-year establishment phase of the Regenerated Lodgepole Pine trial;

• Refine exploratory analyses and strategy to develop regeneration models; • Comparison of historical trial data with growth and yield model results (GYPSY, MGM, TADAM, and

possibly TASS); • Complete the analysis, gather 3-year growth and fertilization response measurements, and prepare

information and technical reports from the Enhanced Management of Lodgepole Pine trials • Begin work on the project Regeneration Management in a Mountain Pine Beetle Environment

FRIAA and FRI funding of the Regeneration Management in a Mountain Pine Beetle Environment proposal will allow project startup activities to be undertaken in all four program areas:

• Baseline assessment (collection of supplementary data, compilation of existing and supplementary data) • Projections (vegetations analysis and projections using existing models) • Monitoring (status checks) • Synthesis (preliminary synthesis of assembled information)

- 123 -

Funding from the Foothills Research Institute’s Mountain Pine Beetle Ecology Program (MPBEP) and FRIAA Open Funds have been granted for the period 2007-2009. Some realignment of Foothills Research Institute funding has been requested, and if granted the funds for the current (2007) and upcoming year (2008) will be – respectively - $107,940 and $212,240. Given the relatively late notice of the FRIAA Open Funds decision, some carryover of work and funds will be necessary from 2007 to 2008. In-kind contributions totaling over $170,000 have also been identified. The work plan, budget and current and proposed organizational arrangements are subject to reviews by the FGYA membership and approval by the FGYA Steering Committee. 4. Background Information The Foothills Research Institute (FRI) facilitates collaboration among nine holders of Forest Management Agreements on the Eastern Slopes by administering the Foothills Growth and Yield Association (FGYA) for co-operative forecasting and monitoring of managed stand growth and yield. A memorandum of agreement (appended in Section 11.1) between nine sponsoring members, the Land and Forest Service and the FRI has been in effect since April 1, 2000. The Association is governed by a Steering Committee composed of voting members. The Alberta Department of Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD) and the FRI participate as non-voting members, with the FRI acting as the coordinating agency. In March 2002 the Steering Committee approved a business plan that rationalized the Association’s mission, strategies, projects and financial requirements for the next five years. The plan identified a total of six projects, all of which have been funded and are in various stages of completion. The plan was updated in 2004 and 2005 to March 31, 2010, and following the strategic review and Steering Committee meetings in January and February 2007, updated in May including the addition of a 7th project and again in August 2007.1 5. Objectives and Deliverables The mission and mandate of the FGYA are to continually improve the assessment of lodgepole pine growth and yield in managed stands by:

• Forecasting and monitoring responses to silvicultural treatments; • Facilitating the scientific development and validation of yield forecasts used by members in managing their

tenures; • Promoting knowledge, shared responsibility and cost-effective cooperation.

Objectives (plus methods and budgets) for each of the six projects approved and funded to date are detailed in the Business Plan. The following is a list and description by project of those deliverables proposed or already scheduled for 2008. 5.1. Project 1 - Development and Management of the Association A number of events and activities are required to maintain and advance the work of the association. These include:

• Annually updated 5-year business plan and annual work plan, with budgets by year for each project; • Project plans, designs, reports and publications; • Information exchange meetings, field tours and technical sessions (minimum of 1 meeting per year); • Active publicly-accessible web site; • Mid-year and annual progress and financial reports; • Steering committee meeting minutes.

5.2. Project 2 - Lodgepole Pine Regeneration In the current year (2007/08) the Research and Development Associate plans to complete the 5-year crop performance report and a preliminary regeneration establishment model. Further activities planned for 2008/09 include:

1 Foothills Growth and Yield Association Business and Work Plan, April 1, 2007 with Annual Work Plan for April 2007 – March 2008, prepared by W.R. (Dick) Dempster (May 2007), revised by R.W. Udell (August 2007).

- 124 -

• Scheduled status checks or full measurements (102 installations) – October 31, 2008; • Updated digital database – December 31, 2008; • Audit and work verification reports – January 31, 2009; • Regeneration model improvements to include climate data – December 31, 2008.

5.3. Project 3 - Comparison of Pre-harvest and Post-harvest Stand Development Follow-up work to results previously reported for this project will be conducted and reported under Project 4 (see Section 5.4 below). No other specific deliverables are scheduled for 2008, other than active support of and participation in the Dialogues initiative led by FRI Communications and Extension Program as an outcome of the Post-harvest Stand Development Conference held in 2006. 5.4. Project 4 - Cooperative Management of Historic Research Trials A five-year Agreement with the CFS for the remeasurement and maintenance of these trials expired in 2007 and has been renewed for one year pending discussion between the FGYA, Alberta Sustainable Resource Development and the Canadian Fibre Centre towards a new five-year Agreement. Subject to this renewal, re-measurements are tentatively scheduled for the following CFS trials:

• MacKay thinning 1954 • Swan Lake thinning 1977 • Teepee Pole Creek spacing (flat, north) sites 1967

A project originally begun by the CFS will be completed in 2007/08, i.e. a performance evaluation of Alberta and British Columbia growth and yield models against growth data from historical research trials. The intent of this examination is to evaluate the performance of GYPSY and MGM against actual growth as reflected in the long-term trials. This was a high priority project for FGYA, and the CFS has advised it will not complete it. The analysis and report will be done under contract by Andria Dawson, who initiated the project under the CFS but was diverted to other tasks before completing it. Funding for this work is from the existing budget (the dropped portion of the Teepee Pole Creek thinning remeasurement, and signage deferred until a new cooperative agreement is in place). The tentative schedule is to test against the MacKay and Gregg trials by mid-February 2008, and additionally McCardle Creek, Edson and TeePee Pole Creek by the end of March. 5.5. Project 5 - Regional Yield Estimators No deliverables are currently scheduled for 2008. 5.6. Project 6 - Enhanced Management of Lodgepole Pine Sub-project 1 remeasurements for 3rd-year growth and foliage analysis are planned for 2008 (post growing season. Finalization of the analysis and preparation of the scientific paper for Sub-project 2 will be done in 2008, along with preparation of technical and information reports. 5.7. Project 7 – Regeneration Management in a Mountain Pine Beetle Environment The intent of this project is to provide decision support tools that will assist FGYA members and others mitigate timber supply impacts of the mountain pine beetle in Alberta by using knowledge of growth and yield in the silvicultural treatment of threatened or attacked stands. Funding is confirmed for this Project from the FRI, FGYA and FRIAA Open Funds (proposal submitted October, 2007). Subject to review and approval by the Technical and Steering Committees, deliverables in 2008 are: a. Elements with Research Institute funding:

• Baseline assessment – compilation of existing and supplementary data; dendrochronological sampling (Reports March 31, 2008 and 2009);

• Projections: Simulations with Alberta and BC models, other vegetation analysis. b. Elements with FRIAA funding:

• Baseline Assessment – supplementary field measurements; • Monitoring – plot status checks (Status Reports March 31, 2008 and 2009); • Synthesis – preliminary report providing an initial synthesis of information to be used in the Decision

Support Tool development (March 31, 2009).

- 125 -

FGYA Funding supports technical input by the Research and Development Associate as well as management activities by the Director. To minimize overlap and seek optimal coordination of effort and leveraging of resources, this project is closely linked to the Foothills Research Institute Mountain Pine Beetle research program. The Program Lead for the Mountain Pine Beetle Ecology Program at Foothills is also coordinating elements of the FGYA project. The Director of the FGYA is also a member of the MPBEP Activity Team at Foothills Research Institute. 6. Extension and Communication The FGYA Business Plan addresses the following aspects of extension and communication:

• Information exchange meetings, field tours and technical sessions; • Maintenance of an active publicly-accessible web site; • Technical reports, publications and bulletins; • Collaboration with external institutions; • Dissemination of information and sharing of data.

A Communications and Extension Strategy was prepared in August 2007 that includes the following activities for 2008:

• Technical Session providing an update of FGYA results to date (in conjunction with the 2008 AGM); • Website updates; • Technical information reports for Projects 6 and 7 • Two Quicknotes providing non-technical summaries of project results and / or program activities

7. Inter-program Links The following activities or projects will be undertaken in collaboration with other FRI and external programs:

• Database management: The FRI Data, Information and Knowledge Management Program is responsible for management and safe storage of the Association’s data. This relationship is being reviewed.

• Website management: The FGYA, as a FRI program, has a dedicated section of the FRI website, and relies on the FRI Communications and Extension Program for management of the website.

• Inter-agency dialogues on post-harvest stand development: the FGYA Steering Committee Chairman represents the Association on this initiative.

• Climate change: The FGYA maintains an interest in the proposed FRI Climate Change sub-program and has expressed particular interest in the following areas:

o Relationship of regeneration success to variation in local climate, and application of results to predicting impact of future climate change (see Section 5.2);

o Separation of climatic and other factors that have led to local and hemispherical changes in tree and stand growth rates (see Section 5.4);

o Improved linkage of MPB risks to local climatic trends. • Historic research trials: this project will continue to be conducted cooperatively through an inter-agency

agreement with the Canadian Forest Service and Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. • Enhanced management of lodgepole pine: the University of Alberta has participated in the design, and

will participate on the analysis, of this project under a research collaboration agreement with the FGYA.

- 126 -

8. Funding Sources The following organizations are sponsoring members of the FGYA:

• Alberta Newsprint Company • Blue Ridge Lumber • Canadian Forest Products • Millar Western Forest Products • Spray Lake Sawmills • Sundance Forest Products • Sundre Forest Products • Hinton Wood Products • Weyerhaeuser Canada

All are companies or corporate divisions holding Forest Management Area tenures in the Foothills Natural Sub-regions of Alberta. Each member contributes:

• An annual membership fee of $15,000 (for the 2008/09 operating year); • In kind services, including measurement, treatment and maintenance of the Regenerated Lodgepole Pine

(RLP) Trial (Project 2); • Funding to other projects, pro-rated by pine-leading managed area according to a formula specified in the

Business Plan. Project 6, Enhanced Management of Lodgepole Pine, and Project 7 Regeneration Management in a Mountain Pine Beetle Environment are supported with FRIAA Open Funds. Table 1 summarizes funding sources for 2008. Commitments are subject to confirmation at the annual Steering Committee meeting to be held in February 2008.

Table 1. Scheduled income for 2008

Project (Accounting

Code)

Contributing Organization

Carry Forward

(est)

Cash Committed

(est)

Total Funding2

In-kind Support

Comments

Project 1 FGYA (235)

Members and SRD

105,773 135,000 240,773 Member fees, SRD Grant

Project 2 - RLP

Members 170,700 Fieldwork

Project 4 - HRT (235.1)

Members and SRD

42,000 42,000 Historic research trials

Project 6 - EMLP (235.2)

FRIAA Open Funds OF-02-16

51,572 51,572 Enhanced management of lodgepole pine

Project 7 – MPB

FRI and FRIAA Open Funds

89,940 194,000 283,940

Subtotal FGYA/FRI 195,713 245,572 441,285 170,700 Subtotal SRD Grant 177,000 177,000

Includes Project 1 and Project 4

Total FGYA Program 195,713 422,572 618,285 170,700

Table 2 shows in further detail income and expenditures for Project 1 projected for 2008 and the following 2 years. (Estimates for 2008 are shown in bold type). 2 Updated from 2007/08 Business and Work Plan rev Aug 2007

- 127 -

Table 2. Income and expenditure details for Project 1

Income / Expenditure 2007-8

(forecast) 2008-9

(forecast) 2009-10

(forecast) 2010-11

(forecast) Membership fee (per voting member) 15,000 15,000 18,500 21,000

Income Prior year balance forward 156,392 105,773 45,473 16,673 Membership fees - FRIP (FRIAA contract) 120,000 120,000 148,000 168,000 Membership fees - non-FRIP 15,000 15,000 18,500 21,000

Total income 291,392 246,333 216,698 215,123 Expenditures

Director (including GST + expenses) 66,500 66,500 66,500 66,500 Field coordination 24,697 20,000 20,000 20,000 Research and development associate 85,560 75,000 75,000 75,000 GIS and misc. services 0 15,000 15,000 15,000 Office and field supplies 1,197 2,500 2,500 2,500 Meetings and tours 7,665 7,000 7,000 7,000 Contingency (5%) 0 9,300 9,300 9,300

Total expenses 185,619 195,300 195,300 195,300 Ending Balance 105,773 45,473 16,673 10,373

9. Program Key Members and Responsibilities Key program members and representatives (current organizational status) are listed in Table 3. The FGYA Business Plan and Memorandum of Agreement between members specify the responsibilities of voting members, ASRD and the Foothills Research Institute. Responsibilities of the voting members include:

• Installation and measurement of growth and yield trials (either directly or by financial and other support of work undertaken by contractors administered through the FRI) as specified in work and project plans approved by the Steering Committee;

• Appointment of a representative to a Steering Committee with authority to vote and represent the Member’s strategic and financial interests;

• Assignment of a representative to a Technical Committee with authority to represent the Member’s technical views and interests;

• Payment of an annual membership fee approved by the Steering Committee to support the direct costs incurred by the Coordinating Agency in the management of the Association.

Overall control of management of the FGYA is vested in the Steering Committee. The Land and Forest Division (LFD) of ASRD has undertaken to:

• Assign the Executive Director of Forest Management, or other authorized senior official, to participate on the Steering Committee in a non-voting advisory capacity;

• Assign a technical expert advisor, knowledgeable in forest planning and yield forecasting, to the Technical Committee.

Table 3. Foothills Growth and Yield Association Representatives and Contacts

- 128 -

Role / Affiliation First Name Last Name Telephone Chairman Greg Behuniak (780) 539-8207 Management: FRI General Manager Tom Archibald (780) 865-8332 FGYA Director Bob Udell (780) 865-4532 Research and Development Associate Dick Dempster (780) 424-5980 Field Coordinator Harry Ullrich (780) 865-4499 Steering Committee: ANC Timber Greg Branton (780) 778-7012 Alberta Sustainable Resource Development Doug Sklar (780) 422-4590 Blue Ridge Lumber Murray Summers (780) 648-6325 Canfor Dwight Weeks (780) 538-7745 Foothills Research Institute Board Murray Summers (780) 648-6325 Millar Western Forest Products Tim McCready (780) 778-2221 Spray Lakes Sawmills Ed Kulcsar (403) 932-2234 Sundance Forest Industries John Huey (780) 723-3977 Sundre Forest Products Bob Held (403) 638-4482 Hinton Wood Products Richard Briand (780) 865 8181 Weyerhaeuser Canada Greg Behuniak (780) 539-8207 Technical Committee: ANC Timber Daniel Chicoine (780) 778-7015 Alberta Sustainable Resource Development Daryl Price (780) 422-0329 Blue Ridge Lumber Colin Scott (780) 648-6200 Canfor Jill Ashley (780) 538-7793 Foothills Research Institute Debbie Mucha (780) 865-8290 Millar Western Forest Products Tim McCready (780) 778-2221 Spray Lakes Sawmills Ed Kulcsar (403) 932-2234 Sundance Forest Industries Pat Golec (780) 723-3977 Sundre Forest Products Bob Held (403) 638-4482 Hinton Wood Products Glenn Buckmaster (780) 490-2307 Weyerhaeuser Canada Greg Behuniak (780) 539-8207

The Foothills Research Institute, as Coordinating Agency for the FGYA, has a number of responsibilities, including:

• Financial administration of the Association; • Appointment of a representative of the Foothills Research Institute Board of Directors to the Steering

Committee in a non-voting capacity; • Retention of a Director and other staff or contractors as required to manage the Association, undertake

research and development, and coordinate fieldwork; • Procurement of equipment and supplies required by the Association; • Compilation, maintenance and management of a secure repository of all FGYA data.

Commencing in 2007, the key functions of program management and research were split between two contracts or positions: a Director (or Program Manager) and a Research and Development Associate (or Technical Director). The allocation of responsibilities between the 2 positions is as follows. Program Manager (Director of Operations):

• Preparation of an annual work plan and budget, and annual updating of the 5-year business plan; • Chairing of the Technical Committee;

- 129 -

• Ensuring that projects are developed, implemented and reported in a timely manner consistent with approved program and project plans and quality standards;

• Consultation with the Technical Committee regarding the selection, establishment and measurement of field trials;

• Direction or undertaking of the planning, supervision and quality control of field measurements and research activities, including supervision, training, orientation and coordination of contractors and technical representatives;

• Arrange dissemination to FGYA members of relevant information, including a minimum of one educational meeting or field trip per year;

• Provide progress reports to the Coordinating Agency every six months, and annual program and project reports to the Steering Committee and FRIAA,

• Collaboration and cooperation with other agencies as appropriate and necessary to further the interests of the Association.

Research and Development Associate (Technical Director):

• Selection and development of analytical and modeling techniques for predicting the establishment, early crop performance, growth and yield of lodgepole pine in managed stands;

• Analysis of data from FGYA field trials; • Reporting of technical results of projects to FGYA members; • Development and testing of decision-support tools for application by Association members; • Preparation and authorship (or co-authorship) of technical reports and papers for dissemination or

publication; • Liaison and communication with Association timber supply planners and silvicultural practitioners, and

with researchers in collaborating agencies, as required for effective exchange of knowledge and ideas.

10. Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety Permits With the exception of supervision, administration and data management tasks conducted directly by FRI staff, the FGYA program and projects are implemented by contractors. Contracts are administered by the FRI and stipulate statutory compliance of the contractor with the laws of Alberta, explicitly including the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Field trials and associated silvicultural activities are conducted and permitted under authority of the sponsors’ timber tenures. 11. Appendices (See following pages.)

- 130 -

11.1. Memorandum of Agreement among Members of the Foothills Growth and yield Association (Effective April 1 2000) WHEREAS: The companies that are signatories of this Agreement wish to participate in a cooperative program, known as the Foothills Growth and Yield Association, for the forecasting and validation of managed stand growth and yield, particularly of lodgepole pine; The Foothills Research Institute wishes to promote cooperation and shared responsibility in the improvement of sustainable forest management practices, and has agreed to be the Coordinating Agency for the Association; The Alberta Land and Forest Service wishes to promote the scientific development and validation of yield forecasts used by tenure holders in the development of forest management plans, and is willing to provide advice and information to the Association; IT IS AGREED: DEFINITIONS “Association” means the Foothills Growth and Yield Association. “Voting Members” means industrial forest tenure holders that are signatories to this Agreement, and that pay an annual membership fee and otherwise contribute to the Association at a level specified by the Steering Committee. “Members” includes Voting Members, the Foothills Research Institute, and the Alberta Land and Forest Service. “Foothills Research Institute” is a non-profit company established under part 9 of the Companies Act R.S.A. 1980, Ch. C-20. “Land and Forest Service” refers to the Land and Forest Service of the Alberta Department of Environment. “Steering Committee” means the governing body of the Association as represented by one person from each of the Voting Members. “Technical Committee” means the body, consisting of technical representatives from each member and chaired by the Director, which develops project plans, experimental designs and standards for approval by the Steering Committee, and coordinates installation and measurement of field trials. “Coordinating Agency” is the Foothills Research Institute or other agency assigned by the Steering Committee to administer the Association. “Director” is the person recruited by the Coordinating Agency and approved by the Steering Committee to manage the Association. 1. VOTING MEMBERS Voting Members are responsible for: 1. Installation and measurement of growth and yield trials on their tenured lands; 2. Provision of error-free data, in a format defined by the Coordinating Agency and the Technical Committee,

from these trials to the Coordinating Agency; 3. Participation in the affairs of the Association at their own cost; 4. Application, as the Members deem appropriate, of results from Association projects to their own tenures,

including local calibration of models; incorporation of results in financial models, timber supply analyses, and other corporate decision-support systems; and seeking approval of yield forecasts used in forest management plans.

- 131 -

Each Voting Member shall: 5. Appoint a representative to the Steering Committee with authority to represent the Member’s strategic and

financial interests; 6. Assign a representative to the Technical Committee with authority to represent the Member’s technical

views and interests; 7. Install and periodically measure growth and yield trials as specified in the work plan approved by the

Steering Committee; 8. On or before April 1 each year, and commencing on or before April 1, 2000, pay a membership fee

approved by the Steering Committee to support the direct costs incurred by the Coordinating Agency in the management of the Association.

2. STEERING COMMITTEE T he Steering Committee shall: 1. Meet at least once each year; 2. Elect from among the Voting Members’ representatives a chairperson who shall call and chair meetings; 3. Define, periodically review, and revise as necessary, a minimum program contribution level for Voting

Members; 4. Set, annually review, and revise as necessary, annual membership fees; 5. Review and approve project plans, data standards, annual work plans, annual operating budgets, reports,

and priorities for supporting research; 6. Approve the purchase and disposition of assets (such as vehicles, computers, and software); 7. Review and approve contracts for outside services, data sharing agreements, and other business

arrangements proposed by the Director; 8. Approve assignment to the Association of personnel hired or contracted by the Coordinating Agency; 9. Approve the publication and dissemination of information resulting from Association projects; 10. Set and annually review policies and strategic directions for the Association; 11. Resolve any disputes arising among members regarding the design and implementation of the Association’s

program. At any meeting of the Steering Committee: 12. Each Voting Member may be represented by the Member’s appointed representative, or an alternate

designated by the Member; 13. A Voting Member representative shall have one vote; 14. A quorum shall be at least 75% of the Voting Members. 3. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE The Technical Committee shall: 1. Develop project plans, experimental designs and standards for approval by the Steering Committee; 2. Assist the Director in the development of work plans and budgets; 3. Coordinate the installation and measurement of field trials; 4. Monitor program implementation, quality control, and data delivery; 5. Evaluate project results. 4. COORDINATING AGENCY The Coordinating Agency is responsible for: 1. Administration of the Association; 2. Ensuring that project plans, experimental designs, and data standards are developed in a timely manner; 3. Data compilation;

- 132 -

4. Control of data quality consistent with plans and standards approved by the Steering Committee; 5. Selection or development (as appropriate), testing, and validation of stand-level growth and yield models

which best represent the experimental sites, practices and data evaluated; 6. Dissemination of information to, and continuing education of, Members in matters relevant to the

Association. The Coordinating Agency, with the direction and approval of the Steering Committee, shall: 7. Retain the services of a Director to manage the Association and fulfill duties as specified in Section 6 of

this Agreement; 8. Retain or assign other staff and contract services as required and approved in the annual work plan; 9. Administer the annual operating budget of that portion of the Association’s program for which it is

responsible; 10. Control expenditures in accordance with the approved annual work plan and operating budget, and

generally accepted Canadian accounting practices; 11. Maintain books of account of all funds contributed and dispersed on behalf of the Association’s program, in

accordance with generally accepted Canadian accounting practices, and subject to annual independent audit;

12. Provide financial reports to the Director and Steering Committee on request; 13. Procure, own, maintain and dispose of equipment; 14. Maintain a secure repository of all Association data; 15. Encourage, and seek resources to undertake, research supporting and related to the Association’s program. The Foothills Research Institute, as Coordinating Agency, shall additionally contribute the following to the establishment and operation of the Association, at no cost to the Voting Members: 16. $200,000 towards initial establishment of the Association, contracting of a Director, and associated fringe,

overhead, and meeting costs, incurred between June 21, 1999 and June 21, 2001; 17. Salary and fringe costs of a field coordinator, on a half-time equivalent basis, from April 1, 2000 to March

31, 2002; 18. Administrative overhead services, at a level of effort equivalent to approximately 5% of the non-capital

operating budget managed on behalf of the Association; 19. A member of the Foothills Research Institute Board of Directors to participate on the Steering Committee

in a non-voting advisory capacity. 5. LAND AND FOREST SERVICE The Land and Forest Service shall: 1. Assign the Director of the Land and Forest Service Forest Management Division, or an equivalent senior

official, to participate on the Steering Committee in a non-voting advisory capacity; 2. Assign a technical expert, or experts, knowledgeable in forest planning and yield forecasting, to the

Technical Committee to provide advice on matters pertaining to project planning, experimental design, quality control, data acquisition, model development and validation, project evaluation, and regulatory requirements for yield forecasting and validation.

6. DIRECTOR The Director shall, subject to the approval and supervision of the Steering Committee: 1. Prepare an annual work plan and budget; 2. Act as chairperson to the Technical Committee; 3. Ensure that project plans, experimental designs, and data standards are developed in a timely manner; 4. Supervise a field coordinator or other staff approved by the Steering Committee; 5. Consult with the Technical Committee regarding the selection, establishment and measurement of field

trials;

- 133 -

6. Ensure the timely compilation of Association data consistent with approved project plans and quality standards;

7. Undertake, or direct the undertaking of, analysis of data and the selection, development, testing, or validation of appropriate stand-level models;

8. Report the results of Association projects to Members; 9. Arrange dissemination to Members of information on matters relevant to the Association, including a

minimum of one educational meeting or field trip per year; 10. Provide quarterly and annual progress reports to the Steering Committee and the Coordinating Agency; 11. Act as Secretary to the Steering Committee if requested to do so by the chairperson; 12. Collaborate, cooperate and confer with other agencies as appropriate and necessary to further the interests

of the Association; 13. Arrange the dissemination or publication of data and results when so directed by the Steering Committee. 7. PROJECTS 1. All Association projects shall have as deliverables yield forecasts and a validation program. 2. Following project design by the Technical Committee, and approval of a project plan by the Steering

Committee, all members shall support project implementation. 3. Yield forecasts shall be quantitative estimates of future stand timber yields, agreed by the scientific and

regulatory community as the most probable outcome of the treatment regime being applied to the range of stand and site conditions specified. They may be based on new models developed by the Association, models calibrated by the Association, or existing models validated by the Association.

4. Project plans shall specify input and output variables to be included in each yield forecast. 5. Input variables shall include (a) stand and site parameters prior to treatment, and treatment parameters, and

/ or (b) stand and site parameters at benchmark stand development stages (e.g. performance surveys). Input variables shall include, or be stratified by, a common ecological site classification system.

6. Output variables shall include timber yields from intermediate (if applicable) and final harvests, at utilization standards agreed by the members.

7. A validation program may involve existing trials or new trials. It shall include a valid replicated experimental design, an installation schedule (if applicable), and a measurement schedule. The project plan shall specify variables to be measured and models or assumptions to be tested in the validation program.

8. Project plans shall include estimates of implementation costs.

- 134 -

8. PROTECTION OF RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES 1. No Member shall use for its own purpose or disclose information of or relating to any other Member, which

it knows or ought to know is confidential or proprietary information of such other Member, except as may be expressly authorized by such Member in writing.

2. No Member shall disseminate to non-members information produced by the Association, without the approval of the Steering Committee, except to parties authorized and legally entitled to receive such information.

3. Each Member indemnifies and holds harmless all of the other Members from and against all claims, actions, damages and expenses arising out of, or resulting from, a negligent act or omission of the indemnifying Member with respect to the Association.

4. Nothing in this Agreement shall be interpreted to create a partnership between the Members, or to authorize one Member to act as an agent for any other Member.

5. The Steering Committee may set charges for data or other services provided by the Association to non-members.

6. At the discretion of the Steering Committee, and after April 1, 2000, new Voting Members may be admitted and charged an entrance fee.

7. Data and analyses produced from Association field trials shall be made equally available to all Members. 8. Notwithstanding 8(2) and 8(7) above, data contributed by a Member to an Association field trial are the

property of that Member, and may be used and distributed to other parties as the Member sees fit. 9. Data which are not produced from Association field trials, but which are provided by an individual Member

to support Association analyses, remain the confidential property of that Member. 9. ESTABLISHMENT, TERMINATION AND AMENDMENT 1. The Association shall be established effective April 1, 2000. 2. Any Member may terminate its participation upon delivery to the Foothills Research Institute of at least 12

month’s notice in writing. 3. Voting Members whose participation lapses may, at the discretion of the Steering Committee, be charged a

re-entrance fee computed as a proportionate share of the costs incurred by the Members in operating the Association during the lapsed period.

4. Voting Members who terminate their participation shall have no right to Association information developed after the effective date of termination except information afforded to non-members under Sections 2.9 and 8.5 of this Agreement.

5. This Memorandum of Agreement may be amended, or a Member barred from further participation, or the Association wound up, by approval of at least 75% of the Voting Members.

6. This Memorandum of Agreement shall remain in effect until amended or terminated by approval of at least 75% of the Voting Members.

7. The interests of a Member herein are transferable with the approval of at least 75% of the Voting Members. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned party has executed this Agreement. Member ________________________________________ Signature of authorized representative Per: _________________________________ Print name: __________________________ Date _______________________

- 135 -

11.2. Mid-year Progress Report 2007-08 Project/Activity Approved

Budget for Year

Expended to September 30

Progress to Date (September 30)

Foothills Growth and Yield Association (FGYA) Project 1: Development and Management of the Association - FRI Project 235 - FRIAA Project FOOMOD-01-03

$214,263 (FRIP and member funded)

$61,936.16 to Sept 30, 2007

Planning and Funding Approvals: Work plan and budgets for all projects updated and approved. Staffing: Director, Research and Development Associate and field coordination assistance contracted. Meetings and tours: Technical committee and contractor meeting held June 14 in Edson; Field tour to Prince George July 11,12 to view impacts of Mountain Pine Beetle and the implications for Alberta. Publications:

1. Annual Report 2006-07; 2. Tour of Mountain Pine Beetle Affected Areas in the Prince George Forest

District July 11 and 12, 2007 3. Enhanced Management of Lodgepole (EMLP1) Nutrition and Density

Management Trial Establishment Report (FRIAA Project OF-02-16) 4. Enhanced Management of Lodgepole Pine (EMLP2) Installation

Establishment Report (FRIAA Project OF-02-16) 5. Enhanced Management of Lodgepole Pine (FRIAA Project # OF-02-16)

Progress Report and Updated Work Plan FGYA Project 2: Lodgepole Pine Regeneration

Estimated value $97,100 (in-kind fieldwork contribution by members) $6,000 FRI in-kind support data management

Estimated 90% complete = $87,400 (in-kind)

Planning: Schedules finalized and approved for full measurements (108 plots), partial measurements (300 plots) and tending treatments (22 plots). Fieldwork: Scheduled work nearing completion; verification and QC audits in progress. Analysis and reporting: Early competition assessments analyzed to identify treatment requirements. Approach to modeling and analysis under review. New database developed to stabilize and expedite data input, storage and analysis

FGYA Project 3: Post-harvest Stand Development

- - Follow-up to PHSD Conference: FGYA Chairman and Director participated in April 23 meeting to advance 3 Dialogues emerging from 2006 Conference. Next meeting proposed January 2008.

FGYA Project 4: Historic Research Trials -FRI Project 235.1 -FRIAA Project FOOMOD-01-02

$28,000 (FRIP and member funded)

$13,045 contract for measurements; $7,000 for analysis

Fieldwork: Complete. Kananaskis trials K-3 and K-58 remeasured in September; QC incomplete. Analysis and Reporting : Contract let for evaluation of growth and yield models (GYPSY, MGM, TASS, TADAM, SORTIE) against data from historic research trials. This project was begun by CFS in 2006, CFS unable to continue to completion.

FGYA Project 5: Regional Yield Estimators

- - Complete, no further work planned.

FGYA Project 6: Enhanced Management of Lodgepole Pine - FRI Project 235.2 - FRIAA Project OF-02-16

$34,587 (project funded under FRIAA Open Funds Program, augmented by members)

$37,843.87 Sub-project 1 (Nutrition): All trial installation work is complete and QC checked. Data has been cleaned and checked for all 30 sites; Sub-project 2 (Pine-aspen Density): Missing data has been remedied; laboratory stem analyses completed; Reconnaissance and selection target reduced from 30 to 18 sample stands, and completed. Field sampling in progress (installation, mensuration and QC checks completed for 8 stands). Analysis and reporting: Installation establishment reports written; compilation and analysis in progress.

FGYA Project 7 Monitoring and Decision Support for Forest Management in a Mountain Pine Beetle Environment

Costs of Developing proposal absorbed under Project 1

Planning: Field Trip to examine British Columbia issues in Prince George region; engaging collaborators to participate in project (Rene Alfaro CFS; Ellen MacDonald UofA; John Stadt/ Ken Greenway SRD); development of proposal and budget for scaled down project, with provision for a second phase dependent on the severity of the MPB infestation. Proposed budget $25,500 – FRI (approved) $18,240 – In-kind FGYA $64,200 Proposal to FRIAA Open Funds

FGYA Total 2007-08 $276,850 $99,780.03 In-kind support $87,400

- 136 -

11.3. Preliminary Year-end Report 2007-08 (Executive Summary)

Foothills Research Institute Work Plan Year-end Report Foothills Growth and Yield Association

Summary The Foothills Growth and Yield Association moved forward with several projects in the current year as listed in Table 1 – Deliverables in the 2007/08 Work Plan and Table 2 - Preliminary Year-end Report 2007-08. One new project was added towards the end of the year, two projects are complete except for follow-up activities linked to the outcomes of the Postharvest Stand Development Conference 2006. Deliverables Deliverables and performance against the 2007/08 Workplan are shown in Table 1. Summary of Program Goals Short Term: FGYA Goals The FGYA projects are linked to its annually updated Business plan and are continually reviewed to ensure they are on track and relevant to the interests of the FGYA Membership and priority information needs that support the improved management of Lodgepole Pine in Alberta. Long Term – Relationship to Research Institute Business Plan and Goals: MF Goal1. Build a community of diverse and active partners who are working in or are concerned about natural resource management The FGYA is a partnership of 9 major FMA holders in Alberta, along with the Research Institute and Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. MF Goal 2. Identify natural resource management issues at the landscape level that are common to our partnership, recognizing the necessity of integrated resource management The FGYA reviews its business and work plan annually to ensure that its activities are focused on building the priority tools for the forecasting of the growth and yield of lodgepole pine, particularly regenerated pine. This information is the foundation of management planning and integrated resource management is not possible without scientifically defensible forest management plans. MF Goal 3. Provide science-based tools and knowledge that is understandable and available to natural resource managers, policy makers and the public The mission and mandate of the FGYA are to continually improve the assessment of lodgepole pine growth and yield in managed stands by:

• Forecasting and monitoring responses to silvicultural treatments; • Facilitating the scientific development and validation of yield forecasts used by members in managing their

tenures; • Promoting knowledge, shared responsibility and cost-effective cooperation.

MF Goal 4. Broadly disseminate our knowledge The FGYA focuses on the development of knowledge and tools for the improved management and forecasting of lodgepole pine. This is of prime interest to its membership as well as others involved in pine management. The FGYA has participated in planning and delivering a major conference on Postharvest Stand Development and maintains its involvement in three “Dialogues” that are moving key recommendation forward. FGYA reports are published on the Research Institute website and the FGYA has a communications plan that it is implementing.

- 137 -

12. Table 1. Deliverables as listed in the 2007/08 work plan DELIVERABLES %

COMPLETE $ CURRENT

EXPENDITURE $ TO

COMPLETE (OVER) UNDER

BUDGET

COMMENTS

1. Management of the Association

90 185,599 28,694 28,694

2. Project 2 Lodgepole Pine Reneneration

100 103,100 0 Current expenditure is in-kind contribution by members and FRI

3. Project 3. Postharvest Stand Development Conference Followup

100 0 0 3 Dialogues arising from the conference continue

4. Project 4. Historic Research Trials

82 20,045 7,954 7,954 Some activities deferred due to absence of five-year Letter of Agreement

5. Project 5. Regional Yield Estimators

100 0 0 Complete, no further activity planned

6. Project 6. Enhanced Management of Lodgepole Pine

100 37,843 0 (3,257) FRIAA Open Funds Project, with supplementary funding by FGYA membership

7. Project 7. Monitoring and Decision Support for Forest Management in a Mountain Pine Beetle Environment

39 35,000 54,700 54,700 3-year new project not in original workplan. Funding provided by FRIAA Open Funds, FRI pine beetle program. 89,700 proposed for 2007/08. Late approval shortened deliverables

138

Program Changes (additions/deletions) The only significant change to the current year’s work program was the addition of one new project aimed at developing knowledge and tools to help the membership and others involved in Alberta’s pine industry cope with the impacts of mountain pine beetle on wood supply and allowable annual cuts. Activity Team Report The “Activity Team” of the FGYA are the two committees engaged in its program – the Steering Committee and Technical Committee. The Steering Committee meets annually in February and March to review and approve the updated Business Plan and Annual Work Plan. The Steering Committee normally meets twice a year at the AGM and just prior to the annual field season. Members are listed below in Table 2.

Table 2. Foothills Growth and Yield Association Representatives and Contacts

Role / Affiliation First Name Last Name Telephone Chairman Greg Behuniak (780) 539-8207 Management: FRI General Manager Tom Archibald (780) 865-8332 FGYA Director Bob Udell (780) 865-4532 Research and Development Associate Dick Dempster (780) 424-5980 Field Coordinator Harry Ullrich (780) 865-4499 Steering Committee: ANC Timber Greg Branton (780) 778-7012 Alberta Sustainable Resource Development Doug Sklar (780) 422-4590 Blue Ridge Lumber Murray Summers (780) 648-6325 Canfor Dwight Weeks (780) 538-7745 Foothills Research Institute Board Murray Summers (780) 648-6325 Millar Western Forest Products Tim McCready (780) 778-2221 Spray Lakes Sawmills Ed Kulcsar (403) 932-2234 Sundance Forest Industries John Huey (780) 723-3977 Sundre Forest Products Bob Held (403) 638-4482 Hinton Wood Products Richard Briand (780) 865 8181 Weyerhaeuser Canada Greg Behuniak (780) 539-8207 Technical Committee: ANC Timber Daniel Chicoine (780) 778-7015 Alberta Sustainable Resource Development Daryl Price (780) 422-0329 Blue Ridge Lumber Colin Scott (780) 648-6200 Canfor Jill Ashley (780) 538-7793 Foothills Research Institute Debbie Mucha (780) 865-8290 Millar Western Forest Products Tim McCready (780) 778-2221 Spray Lakes Sawmills Ed Kulcsar (403) 932-2234 Sundance Forest Industries Pat Golec (780) 723-3977 Sundre Forest Products Bob Held (403) 638-4482 Hinton Wood Products Glenn Buckmaster (780) 490-2307 Weyerhaeuser Canada Greg Behuniak (780) 539-8207

Program Finances: See Table 3 Preliminary Year-End Report 2007/08

- 139 -

Table 3. Preliminary Year-end Report 2007-08 Project/Activity Approved

Budget for Year

Expended to March 31

Progress to Date (March 31)

Foothills Growth and Yield Association (FGYA) Project 1: Development and Management of the Association - FRI Project 235 - FRIAA Project FOOMOD-01-03

$214,263 (FRIP and

member funded)

$90,389.91 to Nov 30, 2007

Forecast $185,569

Planning and Funding Approvals: Work plan and budgets for all projects updated and approved. Staffing: Director, Research and Development Associate and field coordination assistance contracted. Meetings and tours: Technical committee and contractor meeting held June 14 in Edson; Field tour to Prince George July 11,12 to view impacts of Mountain Pine Beetle and the implications for Alberta. Publications:

1. Annual Report 2006-07; 2. Tour of Mountain Pine Beetle Affected Areas in the Prince George

Forest District July 11 and 12, 2007 3. Enhanced Management of Lodgepole (EMLP1) Nutrition and

Density Management Trial Establishment Report (FRIAA Project OF-02-16)

4. Enhanced Management of Lodgepole Pine (EMLP2) Installation Establishment Report (FRIAA Project OF-02-16)

5. Enhanced Management of Lodgepole Pine (FRIAA Project # OF-02-16) Progress Report and Updated Work Plan

6. Monitoring and Decision Support for Forest Management in a Mountain Pine Beetle Environment (FRIAA Open Funds Proposal, October 9, 2007),

7. Quicknotes for Projects 4, 6 and 7. 8. Information / Technical Reports for Projects 2 and 4.

FGYA Project 2: Lodgepole Pine Regeneration

Estimated value $97,100 (in-kind

fieldwork contribution by

members) $6,000 FRI in-

kind support data management

Complete ($103,100 in-

kind)

Planning: Schedules finalized and approved for full measurements (108 plots), partial measurements (300 plots) and tending treatments (22 plots). Fieldwork: Measurements, verification and QC audits complete. Review of measurement standards complete. Analysis and reporting: Early competition assessments analyzed to identify treatment requirements. Approach to modeling and analysis under review. New database developed to stabilize and expedite data input, storage and analysis. Review of alternatives for database management complete, implementation underway.

FGYA Project 3: Post-harvest Stand Development

- - Follow-up to PHSD Conference: FGYA Chairman and Director participated in April 23 meeting to advance 3 Dialogues emerging from 2006 Conference. Next meeting proposed April 2008.

FGYA Project 4: $28,000 $13,045 contract Fieldwork: Complete. Kananaskis trials K-3 and K-58 remeasured in

- 140 -

Project/Activity Approved Budget

for Year

Expended to March 31

Progress to Date (March 31)

Historic Research Trials -FRI Project 235.1 -FRIAA Project FOOMOD-01-02

(FRIP and member funded)

for measurements; $7,000 for analysis

September; QC complete. Analysis and Reporting : Report prepared for evaluation of growth and yield models (GYPSY, MGM, TASS, TADAM, SORTIE) against data from historic research trials. This project was begun by CFS in 2006, CFS unable to continue to completion.

FGYA Project 5: Regional Yield Estimators

- - Complete, no further work planned.

FGYA Project 6: Enhanced Management of Lodgepole Pine - FRI Project 235.2 - FRIAA Project OF-02-16

$34,587 (project funded under FRIAA Open Funds

Program, augmented by

members)

$37,843.87 Sub-project 1 (Nutrition): All trial installation work is complete and QC checked. Data has been cleaned and checked for all 30 sites; Sub-project 2 (Pine-aspen Density): Missing data has been remedied; laboratory stem analyses completed; Reconnaissance and selection target reduced from 30 to 18 sample stands, and completed. Field sampling in progress (installation, mensuration and QC checks completed for 8 stands). Analysis and reporting: Installation establishment reports written; compilation and analysis in progress.

FGYA Project 7 Monitoring and Decision Support for Forest Management in a Mountain Pine Beetle Environment

Costs of Developing

proposal absorbed under Project 1

Planning: Field Trip to examine British Columbia issues in Prince George region; engaging collaborators to participate in project (Rene Alfaro CFS; Ellen MacDonald UofA; John Stadt/ Ken Greenway SRD); development of proposal and budget for scaled down project, with provision for a second phase dependent on the severity of the MPB infestation. Proposed budget $25,500 – FRI (approved) $18,240 – In-kind FGYA $64,200 – FRIAA Open Funds (Approved) Baseline Assessment - Compilation of existing data (March 31, 2008), preliminary report providing basic stand descriptions and reconstructed histories (March 31, 2008). Monitoring status report (March 31, 2008)

FGYA Total 2007-08 $276,850 $243,457.87 In-kind support $103,100

- 141 -


246 - Mountain Pine Beetle Ecology Program

1. Prepared by:

Don Podlubny, Program Manager P.O. Box 6330 Hinton, AB T7V 1X6 Ph: (780) 865-8332 Fax: (780) 865-8331 Email: [email protected]

2. Activity Team Approval This workplan was approved by MPBEP Activity Team at its Feb 8, 2008 meeting.

Activity Team Members: ___________________________________Don Podlubny

___________________________________Bob Udell

___________________________________Dennis Quintilio

___________________________________Barry White

___________________________________Richard Briand

___________________________________Pat Wearmouth

___________________________________Joyce Gould (Kyle Clifford)

___________________________________Steve Otway

___________________________________Mark Storie

___________________________________Dave Andison

___________________________________Rob Gibb

___________________________________Ray Ault

___________________________________George Hamilton

3. Executive Summary The MPBEP for 2008-2009 will start with two projects related to the affects of mountain pine beetle infestation on ground water hydrology and vegetation changes to affected stands. As these progress other linkages will be explored with the FRI Fish and Watershed program, other Foothills Growth &Yield Association projects, Grizzly Bear program and possibly the CLMA This effort will include the development of common data standards and formats where feasible and appropriate. Data standards and formats for new research will be required to comply with existing FRI GIS formats, to ensure compatibility and accessibility to program areas where needed. To ensure the greatest distribution of the new data, knowledge and tools a detailed communications and extension plan for MPBEP will be developed and vetted through the FRI Communications and Extension Program. With this direction further partners and funding will be pursued.

- 142 -

The MPBEP is funded by ASRD presently and has project contributions from Open FRIAA and other project partners and proponets. For this next year the program will be seeking and acquiring additional partners and funding. There are no core funds being requested from the Foothills Research Institute for this fiscal year. 4. Background Information The Foothills Research Institute Mountain Pine Beetle Ecology Program was born out of the Wildland Fire Research Program proposal, submitted for funding in March of 2007. The concept of the proposal was to carry out focused research and investigations in regards to forest ecology as related to mountain pine beetle infestations. The work of this program is initially funded at $300,000 per year for a three year period (2007 to 2009), with an expectation of growth as more agencies join the effort. Established under the Landscape Dynamics Program Theme, the research conducted by this Program will examine current and emerging aspects of the effects of mountain pine beetle on the ecology and wildland fire management in the foothills and mountainous areas of Alberta.

The projects to be funded and their deliverables will be determined on a priority basis as reviewed and recommended by the program’s activity team. As this is the inception year the program activity team is currently putting together the list of priorities, direction for projects and a funding strategy.

A major concern lending urgency to this research imperative is the emerging infestation of mountain pine beetle. Much uncertainty surrounds the potential impacts of mountain pine beetle on forest ecology and the related implications. Some areas of concern are; fire intensity and frequency, vegetation change in unsalvaged infested stands, effects on the growth and yield of lodgepole pine, effects on ground water hydrology. Mountain pine beetle and climate change together will have implications for forest ecology and silviculture strategies, including for example dealing with predicted increases in wildfire risk, intensity and severity. Will stands from such unprecedented fires replace themselves naturally as they have in the past or would intervention be required? How will the ecology of forest stands in these new circumstances affect decisions on silviculture strategies including the choice of species for reforestation? These questions are being asked today, and the information and data is required to populate forest management planning models. Unfortunately, little is known at this time, except that business as usual will not be the norm. The Activity team has identified four objectives for the program that will guide us project prioritization and selection, by seeking to;

1) Maximize the ecological integrity of the affected forest landscape

2) Adjust practices to minimize disturbance factors affecting the landscape

3) Understand and mitigate related disturbance factors such as; wildfire occurrence and intensity, hydrology changes

4) Plan for resource management knowing the changes to the forest ecology and landscape

5. Current Program and Projects

5.1 Effects of Mountain Pine Beetle attack on hydrology and post-attack vegetation and hydrologic recovery in lodgepole pine forests in Alberta. Led by Uldis Silins of the University of Alberta this project will provide information on the impacts of MPB on stand hydrology and ecology to improve post-beetle understandings and management strategies.

Project research objectives include:

1) Determine initial effects of variable intensity of “red attack” on stand water balance including rain/snow interception, forest floor evaporation, soil moisture storage, groundwater recharge, water table response, and understory light regimes & micro-climate.

- 143 -

2) Explore relationships between MPB driven changes in understory micro-climate and moisture regimes with initial understory vegetation response (recruitment, growth, leaf area) including opportunities for natural regeneration and early performance of underplanting with several tree species.

3) Incorporate new relationships from 1) and 2) into existing forest water balance models developed lodgepole pine for broad landscape scaling of hydrologic effects of MPB attack along several hydro-climatically distinct eastern slopes forested regions in Alberta.

Work Plan – 2008/09

1. Complete layout and instrumentation June 1, 2008 2. Pre-treatment measurement year (hydrology and vegetation data collection) Oct. 31, 2008. 3. Data entry and analysis data collection March 31, 2008. Note: This project is located just east of the Hamlet of Robb Alberta, in West Fraser’s FMA. To emulate the mountain pine beetle attach the researchers will be working with West Fraser Mills Ltd, Hinton Wood Products in using either mechanical or chemical treatment of the plots. A map of the site is provided in Appendix I.

5.2 Monitoring and Decision Support for Regeneration Management in a Mountain Pine Beetle Environment. This project is co managed by Dr. Dick Dempster of the Foothills Growth and Yield Association (scientific and technical elements) and Don Podlubny (budgets, timelines and deliverables), the project will provide a decision support tool that will assist managers to make quick and rationale decisions in a complex and fast-changing situation. The objectives of the project include:

1) Quantitative stand-level projections for predominant post-attack conditions and management intervention alternatives, that planners can incorporate quickly into landscape-level and timber supply forecasts;

2) Silvicultural guidelines for mitigating negative impacts on mid and long-term timber and cover supply. 3) Feed-back from ongoing monitoring to continually improve initial projections and guidelines.

Project Deliverables Deliverables are listed below for each of the main project activities. 1. Baseline assessment

• Database for selected plots • Baseline report including basic stand descriptions and reconstructed histories

2. Projection

• Preliminary projections of stand development following lodgepole pine mortality by strata • Detailed projections of stand development under range of post attack conditions

3. Monitoring

• Network of monitoring plots established throughout study region • Associated database • Periodic status reports

4. Synthesis

• Decision support tool (information report and computer program) o First release (limited distribution) o Second release

- 144 -

Note: This project encompasses the complete range of lodgepole pine in Alberta to the USA border. Appendix 2 shows the project area from within which 240 plots will be selected for assessment across the range of lodgepole pine.

5.3 Partner and Funding Acquisition At present the only contributor of direct funds to the MPBEP is Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. An ongoing goal of the MPBEP is to seek out and secure additional funding partners either to the program as a whole as well as to specific projects. To accomplish this, a funding strategy will be developed with Activity Team input and regular reports to the Activity Team will describe progress in achieving the goal of additional funding. 5.4 Collaboration During this period the MPBEP will be seeking collaboration with the Alberta Water Research Institute (AWRI), and is included in a proposal by the Foothills Research Institute under AWRI’s Water for Life Program. This Proposal is for funding to develop a comprehensive research program under the Water for Life Program, and if funding is granted for this, the MPBEP Program will collaborate in the drafting and submission of the final detailed proposal. 5.5 Communication and Extension

i. The program will develop a communication and extension plan by June 31, 2008 for submission to the FRI Communications and Extension program.

ii. The program will host a work shop by no later than June 30, 2008. The deliverables for rthe work shop are; 1) Reporting on potential related researchers 2) Create a document providing a gap analysis 3) A report on the priorities and direction for the long term of the MPBEP

5.5 Development and Management of the Program (Program Administration) A number of events and activities are required to maintain and advance the work of the program. These include:

• Annually updated 5-year business plan and annual work plan, with budgets by year for each project; • Project plans, designs, reports and publications; • Information exchange meetings, field tours and technical sessions (minimum of one meeting per

year); • Active publicly-accessible web site; • Mid-year and annual progress and financial reports; • Steering committee meeting minutes. • Seek out and identify partners for funds and /or collaboration • Develop and implement a project review process

6 Inter Program Links

For this work plan year (2008-09) the MPBEP will be linked to three FRI Programs: 1) Foothills Growth and Yield Association through the project listed under 5.2 2) Foothills Fish and Watershed Program through the project listed under 5.1 3) Foothills Grizzly Bear Program, through their own MPB affects on GB

habitat research and through both 5.1 and 5.2

- 145 -

7 Funding sources for this period

5.1 MPB Hydrology 246.1 Contributing Organization (Incl. Requested from FRI)

Carry Forward

Cash Committed

Total Confirmed

Funding

In-kind Support


FRI (ASRD) $80,000 $ 80,000

U of A (Uldis & MacDonald) $46,375 Man power and equipment

CONAC YT Scholarship $12,000 $ 12,000

Open FRIAA $60,000 $ 60,000 Open Funds proposal approved in 2007

Totals $152,000 $152,000 $46,375

5.2 Development of Decision Support Tools (FGYA) 246.2 Contributing Organization (Incl. Requested from FRI)

2007 Funding1

Cash Committed

Total Confirmed

Funding

In-kind Support


FRI (ASRD) $25,500 $108,800 $134,300 This includes funding for program administration and contract support.

FGYA $18,240 $18,240 $36,480

FRIAA Open Funds $64,200 $85,200 $149,400 Open Funds award fall 2007

Totals $107,940 $212,240 $320,180

5.3 Partner and Funding Acquisition 246 Contributing Organization (Incl. Requested from FRI)

Carry Forward

Cash Committed

Total Confirmed

Funding

In-kind Support


FRI (ASRD) $20,000 $20,000 Funds for time and travel for the Program lead.

Totals $20,000 $20,000

5.4 Collaboration 246 Contributing Organization (Incl. Requested from FRI)

Carry Forward

Cash Committed

Total Confirmed

Funding

In-kind Support


FRI (ASRD) $ 38,000 $38,000 Funds for time and travel for the Program Lead

Totals $38,000 $38,000

1 Includes admin time of Program Lead Don Podlubny. Late notice of Open Funds approval will impact 2007/08 expenditures, balance will carry forward to 2008/09. Three year program, only first two years shown.

- 146 -

5.5 Communication and Extension 246


Requested from FRI)

Carry Forward

Cash Committed

Total Confirmed

Funding

In-kind Support


FRI (ASRD) $30,000 $30,000 Funds for time and travel for the Program Lead; i For this year the program will develop a communication and extension plan by June 30 for submission to the FRI Communications and Extension program. ii The program will host a work shop, date to be determined but no later than June 30, 2008.

Totals $30,000 $30,000

5.6 Development and Management of the Program

(Program Administration) 246


Requested from FRI)

Carry Forward

Cash Committed

Total Confirmed

Funding

In-kind Support


FRI (ASRD) $23,000 $23,000 Funds for time and travel for the Program Lead as per duties: - Annually updated 5-year business plan and annual work plan, with budgets by year for each project; - Project plans, designs, reports and publications; - Information exchange meetings, field tours and technical sessions (minimum of 1 meeting per year); - Active publicly-accessible web site; - Mid-year and annual progress and financial reports; - Steering committee meeting minutes. - Seek out and identify partners for funds and /or collaboration - Develop and implement a project review process

Totals $23,000 $23,00

Program Areas 246

Funds carried forward

FRI funds Other funds

Total Funds

In-kind

Comments

5.1 MPB Hydrology Project 80,000 72,000 152,000 46,375 Project started in 2007-08 5.2 Decision Support Tools 107,940 108,800 103,440 320,180 Project started in 2007-08 5.3Partner and funding acquisition

20,000 20,000 Will be talking to energy and funding organizations

5.4 Collaboration 38,000 38,000 Seed funds for new projects 5.5 Communication & Extension

30,000 30,000 Main expense will be the work shop. Any surplus funds will go to 5.4

5.6 Program administration 180,000 23,000 203,000 The carry forward will be used for new project support

Total 287,940 299,800 175,440 763,180 46,375

- 147 -

8 Program/Project Key Members and Responsibilities Don Podlubny Program Lead (780) 865-7190 [email protected] Responsible for over all program delivery and will work with the two projects as administration delivery. Dr. Dick Dempster Research and Development Associate, FGYA (780) 424-5980 [email protected] Principal Investigator for the MPB PSP monitoring project, Dick will coordinate the work to be done on PSP review, data acquisition, analysis and technical reports. Mr. Bob Udell Program Director for the Foothills Growth and Yield Association (780) 865-4532 [email protected] Main contact with the FG&YA for Decision Support project Uldis Silins, Ph.D., RPF Associate Professor - Forest Hydrology 751 - General Services Building Dept. of Renewable Resources, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, CANADA. T6G 2H1 Tel: (780) 492-9083 Fax: (780) 492-4323 E-Mail: [email protected] Principal Investigator for the MPB Hydrology project, Uldis will coordinate the project in the field and work with other researchers. He will provide analysis and reports on the project.

Dr. Ellen Macdonald Professor Department of Renewable Resources University of Alberta Edmonton, AB T6G 2H1 Ph: 780-492-3070 FAX: 780-492-4323 [email protected]

Vegetation researcher, working closely with Dr. Silins on the MPB Hydrology project and associated with vegetation assessment and analysis in the FGYA Decision Support project.

9 Environmental/Occupational Health and Safety/Permits

- 148 -

10 Appendices

Appendices I Map of Project Area

- 149 -

- 150 -

- 151 -


300 - Communications and Extension Program

1. Prepared by:

Don Podlubny Foothills Research Institute Box 6330 Hinton, AB T7V 1X6 Ph: (780) 865-8332 Fax: (780) 865-8331 Email: [email protected] Program Manager: Lisa Jones Ph: (780) 865-8329 Fax:(780) 865-8331 Email: [email protected]

Communications and Extension Steering Committee: Aaron Jones West Fraser Mills Ltd, Hinton Wood Products Carolyn Duchoslav Jasper National Park

Rob Galon Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Hinton Training Centre Dave Ealey Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Communications Glenn Taylor Mayor, Town of Hinton

Introduction The Communications and Extension Program plays a critical role in supporting the achievement of the Goals of the Foothills Research Institute. Business Strategy 2007 – 2012, particularly Goals 1, 3 and 4: Goal One: Build a community of diverse and active partners who are working in or are concerned about natural resource management. Goal Three: provide science-based tools and knowledge that is understandable and available to natural resource managers, policy makers and the public. Goal Four: Broadly disseminate our knowledge. The work-plan for 2008-09 will cover the basics for this period as the Program Manager will be returning after an extended absence. There is a core funding request of $246,000 for this period (ASRD 99,000, West Fraser 113,550 and FRI 33,450) the plan is divided into the following sections: 1. Budget

There is a need for the activities and projects of the Communications and Extension

Program to be prioritized by the Communications Steering Committee, the Program

Review Team and the Board of Directors. The Communications and Extension Program

will attempt to secure external funds for projects which may provide additional

resources. Tables 1 through 3 illustrate Program Revenue, Operational Expenses and

Project Expenses. Project expenses are elaborated in Tables 4 – 6.

- 152 -

2. Communications Goals, Key Messages and Target Audiences

As was previously mentioned, this document uses Communications Goals, Key Messages

and Target Audiences from the 2007-2012 C&E Strategy.

3. Deliverables

The third part of the work-plan outlines proposed Communications, Environmental

Education, Knowledge Transfer and Informing Policy activities, projects and products.

This list includes requests from program leads, actions from the Foothills Research

Institute Business Strategy, 2007 – 2012 and core products and projects of the

Communications and Extension Program. A budget of over $260,000 is required to

fund all the projects and activities included in this section of the work-plan. There is

approximately $74,000 to fund projects and activities.

Appendix A of this document provides a summary of 2008/2009 deliverables as well as the

status of 2007/2008 projects.

- 153 -

PART ONE: COMMUNICATIONS AND EXTENSION PROGRAM’S BUDGET Summary of Budget The Communications and Extension Program’s confirmed budget is $246,000. The

Program has applied for an additional $14,900 for a seasonal interpreter. This funding is

pending.

The Program’s Operational Expenses total $177,200.

The budget for all proposed Program, Project and Product Expenses range from

$83,700. This budget includes:

Action items from the Foothills Research Institute Five-Year Business Plan, 2007

– 2012 relevant to the Communications and Extension Program,

Products and projects that the Foothills Research Institute has produced for a number of

years such as newsletters and the annual report.

Minimum funding to support the FRI for the 2008-2009 year.

The manager of the Communications and Extension Program will apply for external funds for

appropriate programs, projects and products to help fill the budget shortfall.

Revenue The Communications and Extension Program revenue is summarized in the table below.

There are two categories of revenue: confirmed and unconfirmed.

1. Confirmed revenue includes core dollars from the Foothills Research Institute and

dollars from outside funding agencies.

2. Unconfirmed revenue includes activities that will be funded through cost-recovery,

cost-sharing, sponsorship and grants. The Communications Steering Committee reviews

the Program’s activities and budget on a quarterly basis to ensure the Program’s

expenditures do not exceed revenue. The Communications Steering Committee assigns

priority to activities when funds are limited.

Table 1: Revenue

2008/2009 REVENUE 2008/2009 CONFIRMED REVENUE

Foothills Research Institute– Core Dollars $246,000 TOTAL CONFIRMED REVENUE $246,000

2008/2009 UNCONFIRMED REVENUE Habitat Stewardship Canada – Summer Interpreter $14,900 TOTAL UNCONFIRMED REVENUE $14,900 TOTAL REVENUE $260,900

- 154 -

Expenses Expenses for the Communications and Extension Program are summarized below. There are

two categories for expenses: operational and project expenses.

1. Operational Expenses – Operational expenses are those that are required to operate

the Communications and Extension Program such as salaries and administration costs.

The Communications and Extension Program is recommending that it no longer pay for

some administration costs that are not specific to the Communications and Extension

Program. The Program also pays for Christmas cards and stationary. The 2008/2009

budget for operational expenses does not include these costs.

2. Program, Project and Products Expenses – This category of expenses are for the

following:

Program Expenses – Program expenses are dollars allocated to specific programs

for communications activities. In 2007/2008, $4,000 was budgeted to the Natural

Disturbance Program. These dollars were used to develop a website for the Highway

40 North Demonstration Project.

Project Expenses – Project expenses are dollars for special projects. Special

projects include the public survey or conducting focus groups to determine if the

Foothills Research Institute should change its name.

Products Expenses – Product expenses are used for the development of

communications and knowledge transfer products and tools such as the newsletter,

website, Integration Notes.

Table 2: 2008/2009 Operational Expenses 2008/2009 BUDGETED EXPENSES

OPERATIONAL EXPENSES Salaries & Travel Manager’s Wages and Benefits, Full-Time $73 000 Environmental Educator Wages and Benefits, .6 position 40 000 Administrative Support Wages and Benefits, .6 position 30 000 Manager’s Travel 5 000 Environmental Educator’s Travel 4 000 Total Salaries & Travel $152 000 Administration Phone 3 000 Admin Costs (photocopy, courier, etc.) 4 000 Insurance 2 200 Computer Hardware 4 000 Vehicle 5 000 Office Rent 2000 Total Administration $20,200 Knowledge Transfer Website Maintenance and Subscription Service $5 000 Total Knowledge and Technology Transfer $5 000 TOTAL OPERATIONAL EXPENSES $177 200 The salaries of the Communications and Extension Manager, Administrative Support and

Environmental Educator assume regular salary increases.

- 155 -

Table 3: 2008/2009 Program, Project and Product Expenses 2008/2009 PROGRAM, PROJECT and PRODUCT EXPENSES

Communications and Environmental Education Inside Education EcoTour - RECOMMEND $10,700 Development and Promotion of Environmental Education Curriculum - RECOMMEND

time

Palisades Education Stewardship Centre - RECOMMEND TIME Summer Interpretive Programs – EXTERNAL FUNDING APPLIED FOR

14,900

19,100 Communications Support to Program Areas includes fund raising research Total Communications and Environmental Education $44,700 Knowledge Transfer 2 Newsletters –Design and printing $6,000 2 Newsletters – Writing 3,000 Tours 0 Knowledge Transfer Forums cost recovery CIF Virtual Lecture Series 5,000 Continued Website Development 5,000 Total Knowledge Transfer $9,000 Informing Policy Annual Report 20,000 Total Informing Policy $20,000 TOTAL PROGRAM, PROJECT and PRODUCT EXPENSES 83,700

- 156 -

PART TWO: GOALS, TARGET AUDIENCES

AND KEY MESSAGES Goals from the 2007-2012 Communications and Extension Strategy are used in the

2008/2009 Work-Plan. Please refer to the communication and Extension five year plan for

the details pertaining to the listed goals. The Communications and Extension goals are also

aligned with the organization’s 2007-2012 Business Plan goals, particularly Goals 1, 3 and

4:

COMMUNICATIONS AND EXTENSION GOAL ONE: Raise awareness of, support for and engagement in the Research Institute Program by natural resource agencies, practitioners, policy makers and political and municipal leaders. COMMUNICATIONS AND EXTENSION GOAL TWO: In collaboration with Program Leads facilitate the adoption of Foothills Research Institute science-based knowledge, tools and technology in sustainable forest-land management practice through strategic and structured communications and extension activities. COMMUNICATIONS AND EXTENSION GOAL THREE: In collaboration with the Board and Management of Foothills Research Institute facilitate the interpretation and use of Foothills Research Institute . science to develop improved sustainable forest-land management policy through strategic and structured communications and extension activities. COMMUNICATIONS AND EXTENSION GOAL FOUR: Contribute to the general public’s understanding and support for sustainable forest-land management research, policy and practices.

COMMUNICATIONS AND EXTENSION GOAL FIVE: In collaboration with the Board and Management of FRI, develop and implement a strategy to communicate information and knowledge at the local, regional and provincial levels.

PART THREE: 2008/2009 DELIVERABLES Part Three of the Communications and Extension Work-Plan includes all proposed projects

and activities. The Board of Directors, Program Review Team and the Communications

Steering Committee will need to determine what will be funded through the

Communications and Extension Program’s core budget dollars. In part three objectives and

audiences are identified, as well as the recommended strategies to achieve each deliverable.

Table 4 summarizes the proposed projects and activities requesting financial resources from the Communications and Extension Program.

- 157 -

Table 4: Budget for Knowledge Transfer Activities Knowledge Transfer 2 Newsletters –Design and printing $6,000 2 Newsletters – Writing 3,000 Tours 0 Knowledge Transfer Forums Cost recovery CIF Virtual Lecture Series 5,000 Continued Website Development 5,000 Total Knowledge Transfer $19,000 The budget for proposed knowledge transfer projects and products is $19,000. It is

recommended that $5,000 is allocated to the continued development of the Foothills

Research Institute website. The Foothills Research Institute website is the organizations

most efficient and cost-effective knowledge transfer tool. Furthermore, a key area of the

Foothills Research Institute for the period of 2007 – 2012 is “data, information and

knowledge management” which includes “web-based data management program”1. The

Communications and Extension Program will be working with the GIS Program to secure

external funds for web-based data management and dissemination.

Objective: To establish a structured and strategic approach to knowledge transfer.

Strategy and Tactics: 1. By May 2008 all Foothills Research Institute programs will have a communications and knowledge transfer plan for the current fiscal year. Budget: Accounted for in Research Program’s budgets. Time of the Communications and Extension Manager to coordinate and provide guidance to development of Communications and Knowledge Transfer Plans. Each research program is required to develop a Communications and Knowledge Transfer

Plan for their respective programs. The Communications and Extension Manager will

facilitate the development of the Communications and Knowledge Transfer Plans, however it

is the responsibility of each program lead to write, or contract help, to write the

Communications and Knowledge Transfer Plans. The Communications and Extension

Program is operating under the assumption that each program area will budget dollars to

implement their Communications and Knowledge Transfer Plans, unless otherwise discussed

and agreed to with the Communications and Extension Program.

Deliverables:

Communications and Extension Plans for each research program area.

1 Foothills Research Institute Business Strategy, 2007 – 2012.

- 158 -

Objective: To build and maintain credibility and support for Foothills Research Institute research.

Strategy and Tactics: 1. In 2008/2009 (Spring 2008, Fall 2008) distribute two newsletters to keep Foothills Research Institute R&D and events at the forefront of the target audience’s minds. Budget: $9, 000 for writing, layout and printing of Newsletters. In 2004/2005 the Foothills Research Institute newsletter moved from a tool targeted at a

general audience to a knowledge transfer tool. The newsletter is the first step in the

knowledge transfer process. It creates and maintains awareness about the organization, its

programs and research. The newsletter focuses on a single program area. In 2008/2009

two newsletters will be produced and distributed.

Audience: Primary audience:

Partners of the Foothills Research Institute Sustainable forest management professionals in Alberta. Subscribers to eNotes.

Secondary audience:

Sustainable forest management professionals throughout Canada. Oil and gas sector: environmental planners from companies and consultants.

Deliverables: Hard and electronic copies of two Footnotes Newsletters. 2. Deliver tours throughout the year to groups who will use the Foothills Research Institute knowledge and tools in sustainable forest management practice and policy. Budget: $0. Time of Foothills Research Institute researchers, program leads, staff and partners. Cost recovery will be used if required to maintain the $0 budget. Foothills Research Institute receives many requests to conduct tours. Where appropriate,

the Foothills Research Institute will accommodate all tours however will not cover costs

associated with tours such as meeting rooms, meals and transportation.


Senior policy makers and scientists in the field of forest and resource management. Secondary audience:

Foresters Tertiary audience:

Academics Public

Deliverables: Report summarizing tours.

- 159 -

Objective: To provide resource managers and practitioners with scientifically credible information that is accessible and useable therefore can be integrated into forest and land management practice and policy.

Strategy and Tactics: 1. On-going communications of Grizzly Bear Research findings. Budget: $0. Time of Communications and Extension staff. The Communications and Extension Program will work with the Grizzly Bear Research

Program to coordinate with other agencies (SRD, Innovation & Science), as needed, to

deliver communications to partners and the general public.

NOTE: The GB program is the only program that has an effective communications

strategy working with the Communication and Extension Program. The

Communications and Extension Program Manager will be working with the other

program leads this year to set up an effective communications schedule. This is to

be in place by September 30, 2008.


Individuals responsible for forest and land management planning and operations, media. Secondary audience:

Interested general public including public advisory groups, associations and special interest groups.

Deliverables: press releases, announcements of Innovation and Science report, articles. Strategy and Tactics: 2, CIF Virtual Lecture Series Budget: $5,000. Time of Communications and Extension staff, and purchase of time from the Canadian Institute of Forestry Program The Communications and Extension Program will work with Canadian Institute of Forestry as

well as Program leads to develop and deliver virtual lecture series using video conferencing,

web based, etc., technologies. At this time no topic has been selected. It is noted that to

benefit the Foothills Research Institute our contribution has to be far reaching and have

benefit to a very wide audience. The series should be targeted for the fall of 2008.


Individuals responsible for forest and land management planning and operations. Secondary audience:

Staff, general public, Deliverables: virtual lectures

- 160 -

Objective: The Foothills Research Institute website will act as an effective communications, knowledge transfer and data management tool.

Strategy and Tactics: 1. Continue development and maintenance of the new Foothills Research Institute website.

• Report the amount and nature of knowledge being transferred from the Foothills Research Institute web site outwards.

Budget: $5,000. The Foothills Research Institute new website was launched in February 2008. One of the

objectives of the new web site is to allow access via the web to the data base and systems

for our partners. The GIS Program is fully supportive of this initiative and will work closely

with the Communications and Extension Program to ensure the website meets the GIS

needs of Foothills Research Institute partners.

Audience: Primary audience: Sustainable land management professionals in Alberta and Canada. Deliverables: - Updates to website. - Website statistics report.

Objective: Conduct knowledge and technology transfer sessions that lead to the integration of Foothills Research Institute knowledge and tools into forest management practice and policy.

Strategy and Tactics: 1. In 2008/2009 provide support to workshops throughout the year that introduce Foothills Research Institute knowledge and tools to partners and potential users. Budget: Unconfirmed funding costs will be balanced by cost recovery. Dollars generated through workshop fees. Time of Communications and Extension staff. All workshops are delivered on a cost-recovery basis. In 2008/2009 the Communications

and Extension Program will support the delivery of knowledge transfer sessions that meet

the organization’s goals. Knowledge transfer sessions will be delivered on a cost-recovery,

cost-sharing or sponsorship basis. At this time there is only one confirmed work shop, and

that is for the MPBEP in May of 2008. There is a possibility of others in Climate Change,

Water For Life and the Circumboreal Initiative, pending funding and approvals.

Audience: Primary audience: Sustainable land management professionals with operations in, or management authority over Alberta’s northeast slopes.

- 161 -

Secondary audience: Sustainable land management professionals from Alberta and jurisdictions with a similar ecology and business climate. Deliverable: MPB Ecology Program workshop and evaluation

The goals and objectives listed below are taken from the Natural Disturbance Program Communications and Extension Plan which was completed in September 2003.

Objective: To develop a common understanding of the natural disturbance approach to forest management among Foothills Research Institute sponsoring partners and Natural Disturbance program partners.

1. Strategy and Tactics: 1. By March 31, 2009 deliver Natural Disturbance Short-Courses. Budget: Cost-recovery. In 2008/2009, at least one Natural Disturbance Short-Course will be delivered. The

Communications and Extension Program’s involvement in the delivery of the short-course

Will step due to the failure of SIAST to provide the required support. The Natural

Disturbance Program is responsible to find appropriate instructors to teach the course. The

Communications and Extension Program expects to be involved in discussing how dollars

recovered through the short-course fee will be invested into future knowledge transfer tools.

Audiences Target audience: Sustainable forest management professionals (including foresters, biologists, GIS professionals) in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec. Deliverables:

Evaluation of Introduction to Natural Disturbance Short-Course

- 162 -

Communications and Environmental Education Table 5 summarizes the proposed projects and activities requesting financial resources from

the Communications and Extension Program.

Table 5: 2008/2009 Budget for Communications and Environmental Education Activities

Communications and Environmental Education Inside Education –republication of work books $10,700 Development and Promotion of Environmental Education Curriculum

TIME

Palisades Education Stewardship Centre TIME Summer Interpretive Programs – propose cooperation with JNP, Switzer, and FRPL to deliver programs

TIME & $14,900 19,100 Communications Support to Program Areas

Total Communications and Environmental Education $44,700

The Communications and Extension Program builds the public’s support for sustainable

forest management through public relations and environmental education. Thus, these two

areas are addressed separately.

Environmental Education In December of 2006, the Communications and Extension Program hired a part-time

environmental educator. This individual delivered school programs on request, GIS day

activities, partnered with GYRD and JNP to develop environmental education related

curriculum and supported the Fish and Watershed Program. The individual’s responsibilities

include developing and delivering environmental education programs and providing

communications support to, primarily, the Fish and Watershed Program. An interpreter with

Jasper National Park (partner) delivered our grizzly bear Interpretive Program at Whistler

campground. This fiscal year, the Foothills Research Institute will either:

a) Continue to work with JNP and Switzer interpreters to develop and deliver Summer

Interpretive Programs in Jasper National Park and William A. Switzer Provincial Park

and as requested. Approximately $1500 of core dollars will be required to fund this

option; less if our interpreter delivers some of the programs.

b) Use core dollars or apply for external funds to hire a Summer Interpreter.

Approximately $15,000 is required to hire a full-time summer interpreter for the

months of May, June, July and August.

Objective: Foothills Research Institute research findings will be used in the classrooms of Alberta.

Strategy and Tactic: 1. To provide teachers with a bias balanced view of sustainable forest land management issues and encourage them to integrate FRI research findings into their lesson plans.

- 163 -

Budget: $10,700 The FRI will work with Inside Education in republication of a five series workbooks that were provided to educators at the end of Phase II Audience: Primary audience: Pre-service and first year school teachers in Alberta. Secondary audience: Inside Education Staff. Deliverables:

EcoTour; Report on evaluation of ecotour. 2. Environmental Education Programs based on GIS Day Programs

• In 2008/2009 continue to partner with the Grande Yellowhead School Division, JNP and Alberta Education to develop and deliver curriculum to be used in Grande Yellowhead Schools by March 31, 2009.

• By March 31, 2009, participate in one Teacher In-service outside of the Foothills Research Institute Land base to introduce teachers to new curriculum developed through the Grande Yellowhead Regional School Division, Alberta Education and the Foothills Research Institute.

Budget: $2,000 and time of environmental educator. The Foothills Research Institute has been delivering environmental education within the

context of GIS Day event. The few keen teachers in Hinton and Jasper have moved on so

new relationships are being sought to champion this initiative. To date, one GIS day event

has been delivered to grade 9-11 science students. We are hoping to deliver a few more

before end of March 2008.FRI, Grande Yellowhead School Division, high schools in Hinton

and Jasper, and JNP delivered 2 pilot, 3-credit GIS/GPS courses in 2007. A locally

developed course was developed and submitted to Alberta Education for approval

It is recommended that Foothills Research Institute continue to work with individual

teachers, its shareholders and Grande Yellowhead School Division to expand its

environmental education programming beyond GIS Day


Students in FRI land base. Secondary audience:

Teachers beyond FRI boundaries. Deliverables: - New curriculum. - Report on where curriculum is used. 3. In 2008/2009 foster a relationship with Jasper National Park focussed on curriculum development for the Palisades Youth Stewardship Education Centre (ongoing through March 31, 2009).

- 164 -

Budget: Time of environmental educator. Jasper National Park has secured approval and funds to convert the Palisades Centre into a

Youth Stewardship Education Centre with a focus on environmental education. Foothills

Research Institute supports this initiative in principle and is committed to becoming involved

in curriculum development for the Centre. Time of the Environmental Educator is required

for this initiative as well as access to knowledge, tools and data generated through Foothills

Research Institute research.


Regional, provincial, national and international students. Secondary audience:

Regional, provincial, national and international teachers. Deliverables:

Programs using new curriculum.

Policy Support COMMUNICATIONS AND EXTENSION GOAL THREE: In collaboration with the Board and Management of FRI facilitate the interpretation and use of Foothills Research Institute science to develop improved sustainable forest-land management policy through strategic and structured communications and extension activities.

Table 6: 2008/2009 Budget for Informing Policy Informing Policy Annual Report 20 000 International Research Institute Global Forum June 2007 TBD Presentation to the Cabinet Policy Committee TBD Set up a meeting with the Major Media Editorial Boards TBD Total Informing Policy $20,000 The Foothills Research Institute Communications and Extension Program provides support to

the Board of Directors, General Manager and program leaders in their efforts to achieve this

objective. The four initiatives that the Communications and Extension Program will lead are

the development of the annual report, the Global Forum, the Virtual Lecture Series and a

presentation to the Cabinet Policy committee..

- 165 -

Objective: To encourage the use of Foothills Research Institute R&D in the policy of resource industries, federal and provincial governments.

Strategy and Tactics: 1. Produce and distribute the 2007/2008 Annual Report by September 26, 2008. Budget: $20 000; Time of C&E Manager Audiences: Primary audience:

Key decision-makers within industry, government and associations with influence. Foothills Research Institute partners.

Secondary audience:

Interested general public. Deliverable: Annual Report. 2. International Research Institutes Global Forum will be hosted by the FRPL at the Hinton Training Centre in June 2008 Budget: $0 direct to the Foothills Research Institute, time of administration and C&E staff, with cost recovery to the IMFN program. The Foothills Research Institute will provide administrative and communications support to

the Canadian Research Institute Network.

Audience:

International and Canadian Research Institutes, Sustainable forest and land management specialists, biologists,

Provincial leaders and policy makers Deliverable:

Global Forum 2. Presentation to the Cabinet Policy Committee, with an election being proposed for this

spring it is likely that there will be a new CPC. This poses an opportunity for the Foothills Research Institute to present and garner support.

Audience:

Alberta Cabinet Policy Committee of Energy and the Environment Deliverable:

Providing either a presentation at a committee meeting or providing the CPC with a one and one/half day tour and presentation at the Foothills Research Institute. This should be targeted for June and if possible linked to the Global Forum June 16 to 20.

3. Arrange meetings with major media Editorial Boards to show case the Foothills Research Institute.

- 166 -

Audience: Edmonton Journal Edmonton Sun Global Network CBC

Deliverable: Provide material to the Media and have them recognize the value of the Foothills Research Institute and utilize the Foothills Research Institute as a go to organization for sustainable forest land management information, science and expert sources.

APPENDIX A: Summary Tables Table 1. Summary of 2008/09 C&E Program Deliverables Deliverables Estimated Cost When Who Target Audience 2 News letters $9,000 based on

previous years Spring 2008, Fall 2008

C&E staff working with program staff

Partners, AB practioners

E-notes C&E staff working with program staff

Partners, AB practioners

NDP Integration Note $4000 based on previous years


Practioners

Forestry Chronicle articles C&E Staff Practioners Tours C&E staff working

with program staff Policy, practioners, scientists, public

MPB Workshop $2,700 Spring 2008 C&E staff working with program staff

Practioners

Virtual Lectures $5,000 C&E staff working with program staff

Practioners, staff

Global Forum Cost recovery from IMFN

June 2008 C&E Staff Policy, practioners, scientists

Annual Report $20,000 Fall 2008 C&E Staff Partners, policy, practioners

Media, press releases, news articles


Public, policy, media

Website $5,000 C&E staff working with program staff

Partners, Practioners

Trout Hwy interpretive route March 2009 C&E staff working with program staff

Practioners, public

Hwy 16 self guided interpretive route

March 2009 Bob Udell and C&E Public

Summer interpretive programs $14,900 June-August 2008 C&E staff working with program staff

Public, youth

NDP short course Time and in kind C&E staff working with program staff

Practioners

FRI work books $10,700k Summer/fall 2008 C&E staff working with program staff

Teachers, students

School programs- tours, interpretive programs, GIS, GPS, map reading etc.,

On-going C&E staff working with program staff

students

GYRD/Pallisades curriculum development

$2000 On-going C&E staff working with program staff

youth

Discovery Boxes $2000 December 2008 C&E staff families

- 168 -

- 169 -

Foothills Research Institute Annual Work Plan 2008-2009

Detailed Work Plan 401 - Administration and Program Support

1. Prepared by

Tom Archibald, General Manager Foothills Research Institute Box 6330 Hinton, AB T7V 1X6 Ph:(780) 865-8332 Fax (780) 865-8331 Email: [email protected]

2. Sign off Sheet The General Manager reports directly to the president and the FRI Board of Directors. The group that plays the direct role at this time is the Executive Committee and the sign off will come at their review and in conjunction with the approval and allocation of funds to all program areas for 2008-2009 3. Executive Summary The Administration Program provides support to the program areas of the FRI, supports the Board of Directors, ensures financial control and adherence to accepted accounting practices, and provides initial contact and coordination to outside interests. The objectives on the following page will ensure that these goals are met. 4. Background Information The General Manager carries out the administration of the Foothills Research Institute with support from a part time administrative assistant, a part time clerical and a full time accountant. This team ensures accurate records are kept of Board meetings and direction, financial accountability is maintained for all FRI activities, and documents are managed responsibly. The General Manager is also, the link to the Canadian Research Institute network and strives to maintain viable partnerships and is constantly seeking new partners towards the development of the 2007 – 2012 business strategy. 5. Program Objectives The following are the Objectives for the Administration and Program Support for 2008 –2009:

1. To have an FRI completed work plan for Board approval by February 15, 2009. 2. To ensure a successful audit of financial records is completed by June 15, 2008. 3. To arrange and carry out a minimum of four board meetings for this period. 4. To complete a physical inventory of the FRI equipment and materials - underway. 5. To ensure complete financial records are maintained on a real time basis. 6. To maintain a direct link to the Canadian Research Institute Network and International Research Institute

Network. 7. Continue to work with Program Leads in the development and implementation of an integration strategy.

- 170 -

6. Inter Program Links The Administration of the Foothills Research Institute will work with all program areas and ensure that all programs and projects under the name of the Foothills Research Institute follow the policies and procedures of the FRI. Through management of the respective work plans the General Manager will work towards integration and collaboration between program areas. 7. Funding sources for this period The total budget for Administration for 2008 – 2009 is $200,000.00.

8. Program/Project Key Members and Responsibilities Tom Archibald: General Manager responsible for the day-to-day operations of the FRI and reports to the Board

through the President. Denise Lebel: Accountant responsible for financial recording and reporting. Reports to the General Manager

and supports all program areas. Judy Astalos: Administrative Assistant responsible for records management, support to the General Manager

and Accountant, and secretary to the Board. 9. Appendices:

a. Budget forecast sheet showing figures from 2007-08 and the projected budget for 2008-2009 Appendix a - Budget Forecast


Requested from FRI)

Carry Forward

Cash Committed

Total Confirmed

Funding

In-kind Support


ASRD

$ 47,000

FRI $ 153,000 Operational dollars

Totals $ 200,000

- 171 -

ADMIN.BUDGET BUDGET

07/08 08/09 VARIANCEOffice Supplies 20,000.00 20,000.00 0.00

Comp Exp 2,400.00 3,200.00 800.00

contracts/consultants 120,000.00 0.00 -120,000.00 no GM costs 8/9

equipment 0.00 200.00 200.00

subscriptions 1,000.00 1,000.00 0.00

training 500.00 500.00 0.00

Travel 25,000.00 14,500.00 -10,500.00 avg 25k last 5yrs

Telephone 3,000.00 3,000.00 0.00

Vehicle Costs 0.00 15,000.00 15,000.00

Wages 90,100.00 108,000.00 17,900.00 to cover salary increases, Admin assist position

Insurance 7,000.00 7,000.00 0.00

Legal Fees 0.00 600.00 600.00 will be higher due to name change costs

Audit 17,000.00 17,000.00 0.00 may increase 3 to 5%

Ads 10,000.00 10,000.00 0.00

296,000.00 200,000.00 -96,000.00100,000.00 GM FROM SRD

4,000.00 Budget increase overall

- 172 -

- 173 -


612 - Adaptive Forest Management/ History Program

Table of Contents 1. Prepared by ........................................................................................................................... 173 2. Sign off Sheet ........................................................................................................................ 173 3. Executive Summary............................................................................................................... 174 4. Background Information ....................................................................................................... 175 5. Objectives.............................................................................................................................. 176 6. Objectives and Deliverables for Communications and Extension......................................... 177 7. Inter Program Links............................................................................................................... 177 8. Funding sources for this period ............................................................................................. 177 9. Program / Project Key Members and Responsibilities .......................................................... 180 10. Environmental / Occupational Health and Safety / Permits ................................................. 180 11. Appendices ........................................................................................................................... 180 Appendix 1 Mid Term Progress Report to Sept 3 2007/08: Adaptive Forest Management ......... 181 Appendix 2 The Foothills Research Institute Adaptive Forest Management / History Program-November 2007 ............................................................................................................. 182 Appendix 3 Edmonton Journal Review of “Hard Road to Travel” August 19, 2007 ................... 189 Appendix 4 Article on GyPSy – Westworld Magazine April 2007.............................................. 191 1. Prepared by

Robert Udell, Program Lead, Adaptive Forest Management/ History Address: 384 Collinge Road Hinton, Alberta T7V Ph: (780) 865-4532 Fax: (780) 865-8331 Email: [email protected]

2. Sign off Sheet

Program Lead: Bob Udell_________________________________________

Peter Murphy:___________________________________________________ Consultant and Author

Robert Stevenson: ________________________________________________ Archivist, Photographer, Author

Bruce Mayer:____________________________________________________ Forest History Association of Alberta /Alberta Sustainable Resource Development

Tom Peterson____________________________________________________ Hinton Historical Tracks and Trails Society

Tom Archibald___________________________________________________ General Manager, Foothills Research Institute

3. Executive Summary Three Projects are proposed for 2008/09 with a total budget of $65,000. One project from 2007/08 (Mountain Trails) may spill over into the first month or two of 2008, but is currently targeted for completion by March 31.

- 174 -

General Administration: Fees for meetings, travel and program administration Proposed Budget $5,000 Project One: A Human and Ecological Guide to the Highway 16 Corridor Over two million people a year drive through the Foothills Research Institute, yet interpretive media for the human, ecological, and geological history are largely unavailable. In 1997, Susan de Caen was working on her Masters thesis at University of Calgary, which included recommendations for a Cultural Interpretive Program for Jasper National Park. This was never implemented, yet the information contained could provide the foundation for a fascinating ecotour within and outside the park in the Research Institute landbase. Tom Peterson, who was one of her advisors on the project, has provided the background materials and reports of de Caen. Further, the work of the Research Institute and its partners over the past 15 years, the information contained in various reports and books from the Adaptive Forest Management / History Program as well as current projects of the Research Institute can be included in this Guide. A program similar to this was first developed by the Canadian Forest Service for the Calgary-Banff corridor in the 1970s, and has since been adopted by Canadian Geographic for other parts of Canada. We propose to use these and expand them using knowledge gained from the Research Institute program and other sources to produce an interpretive guide to the corridor and adjacent areas. We then proposed to use this to produce a GyPSy Guide - http://www.gpstourscanada.com – a GPS-based interpretive system that combines GPS technology with a recorded (voice, images) interpretation. Discussions have begun to this end. This blend of interpretation with technology and communications holds considerable potential for the Communications and Extension program of the Research Institute and many of the program areas. Proposed Budget: $50,000 Project Two: DVD: The Roots of the Present are Buried Deep in the Past – CIF/SAF History Forum – Plenary Session 2 October 4, 2004 This historical forum, organized by Bob Udell and Pete Murphy of the Foothills Research Institute Adaptive Forest Management/ History Program, was a great success at the conference in Edmonton, several people from the SAF stating that it was the best plenary they had attended in years. It provides a fascinating look into the past as a prologue for the present and the future. A DVD of this forum is on hand, and is suitable for production and distribution. A joint project with the Forest History Association of Alberta. Proposed Budget: $10,000 Project Three: The Last Patrol – a Former AFS Ranger returns to his roots for one last summer on patrol in Willmore Wilderness Park, 1982 Harry Edgecombe was a long service Alberta Forest Service ranger who finished his career as an instructor at the Forest Technology School in Hinton. After retirement, he spent the summer of 1982 on ranger patrol in the Willmore Wilderness Park, traversing many of the trails developed by or travelled on by Jack Glen so many years earlier. Mr. Edgecombe’s report of that summer and his photographs provide an interesting contrast to the times of Jack Glen, reported in the recent book “Mountain Trails” from the Adaptive Forest Management/ History Program. Joint project of the Foothills Research Institute and Forest History Association of Alberta. Proposed Budget: $5,000 Project Four: Historical Database The Adaptive Forest Management/ History program has, in the past 10 years, assembled a number of interviews and other historical information that currently resides in various databases within and outside the Research Institute control. Similarly, the Forest History Association of Alberta is collecting interviews and other site-specific historical information throughout Alberta that will be of immense value to practitioners and others interested in Alberta forest history today and into the future. This cooperative project with the FHAA proposes to adapt the Research Institute’s Aboriginal database template for use as a forest history database.

- 175 -

Proposed Budget: $5,000 4. Background Information

a. Linkages to the Research Institute Business Plan 2007-12

The 2008/09 workplan for the Adaptive Forest Management/ History Program is situated within the Landscape Dynamics Program Theme of the 2007-12 Business Strategy. It is firmly aligned with the Goals of the Research Institute as described in the Business Strategy, as follows: Foothills Research Institute Goal One: Build a community of diverse and active partners who are working in or are concerned about natural resource management

The AFM/History program has a core team that works on programs and projects within the Research Institute. Depending on the project being done, this team is expanded or contracted to reflect a partnership that is interested in, and committed to working on, the project at hand. Currently, the team includes Peter Murphy, Bob Stevenson, Bruce Mayer, Rob Mueller and Tom Peterson. Partners involved in the program have included West Fraser Timber Mills Ltd., the University of Alberta, the Forest History Society of Durham, N.C., Alberta Sustainable Resource Development and the Forest Resource Improvement Association of Alberta. In 2008/09 the partnership involved in the program will include the Hinton Tracks and Trails Historical Society, the Forest History Association of Alberta, and Alberta Sustainable Resource Development.

Foothills Research Institute Goal Two: Identify natural resource management issues at the landscape level that are common to our partnership, recognizing the necessity of integrated resource management

The AFM/ History program supports this goal by tracking and examining the issues and responses that have characterized our past, so that we may shape our future from this broader understanding. Several of the reports examine the issue of integrated resource management and sustainable forest management from a number of perspectives and historic antecedents.

Foothills Research Institute Goal Three: Provide science-based tools and knowledge that is understandable and available to natural resource managers, policy makers and the public

Several AFM/History reports examine the science and practice of forestry, some of them have supported thesis projects for post-graduate degrees, and are also used as reference documents in university programs. This work continues, as the AFM/History program seeks out opportunities to broaden the understanding of our rich history of adaptive forest management and those people and organizations that have contributed to it.

Foothills Research Institute Goal Four: Broadly disseminate our knowledge The Research Institute has a well-established communications program and the AFM/History program cooperates by providing information to support that program. This includes participation in Research Institute forums and events, providing information for the newsletter and other products. Products from the AFM/History program have been widely used by the shareholders of the Research Institute to improve understanding of their management programs and practices. A Hard Road to Travel is currently available in local shops in Hinton and Jasper, as well as at Greenwoods and Audreys and the University of Alberta bookstores in Edmonton, Chapters in St. Alberta. Through reading this book, people well removed from the Hinton area are learning of our history and the role of the Research Institute in preserving and learning from it.

- 176 -

a. History of the AFM/History Program

In 1996, Weldwood initiated a history and case study of its sustainable forest management program at Hinton. At the request of Research Institute Board member Dennis Quintilio, this initial project was expanded to encompass the entire Research Institute landbase in 1997.

Since then, seven reports have been produced, including two books and a third book is nearing publication in early 2008. See Appendix 2 – Overview of the AFM/History Program. 5. Objectives

Project One: A Human and Ecological Guide to the Highway 16 Corridor Target Date – February 2009

a. Knowledge Creation Produce an interpretive guide for the highway 16 corridor which encapsulates not only the interesting

historical highlights of the trip, but also projects and programs of the Research Institute and its partners Adapt this guide to a GPS-based program with voice over and images, possibly video to enhance the

interpretation.

b. Knowledge and Tech Transfer Use of GPS-based technology to enhance interpretation has potential application in a number of fields.

c. Policy Support and Demonstration

The interpretive program will highlight the work of the Research Institute along the corridor and can easily be adapted to other corridors within the Research Institute.

Project Two: DVD – the Roots of the Present are Buried in the Past. Target Date October 2008

a. Knowledge Creation a. Many people assume that the forests we inherited in the 20th century derived from “natural” causes

and the role of early man in the creation of these often goes unrecognized. This assumption in some way underlies some of the Research Institute’s own programs, e.g. the Natural Disturbance Program. An appreciation of these antecedents improves informed decision making

b. Knowledge and Tech Transfer Availability of this DVD will be of value to researchers, to academia and to forest practitioners. The DVD may be appropriate for educational credits through professional forester associations.


Linkages here are somewhat more tenuous, although the discussion around the role of aboriginal burning in the creation and maintenance of seral stage representation and coarse filter biodiversity is germane to prescribed burn planning for Willmore and Jasper parks.

Project Three: The Last Patrol Target Date August 2008

a. Knowledge Creation Raises awareness of issues in the Willmore 25 years ago that may or may not prevail today

b. Knowledge and Tech Transfer

Of interest to practitioners, particularly those involved in protected area management activities. c. Policy Support and Demonstration

Edgecombe’s report discusses a number of challenges in the Willmore in 1982 and includes recommendations for improvement. Park administrators and policy makes may find it useful to reflect on how many of those issues have been addressed in the intervening years, if any.

- 177 -

Project Four: Historical Database Target Date: June 2008

a. Knowledge Creation Assembles in one place historical records and interviews for easy access and research purposes

b. Knowledge and Tech Transfer

Of interest to practitioners, particularly those with an interest in the historic foundations of current forest practices in Alberta and those who have played roles in their development

Information on the locations and significance of historic forestry sites will be of value to practitioners as well as others with an interest in Alberta Forest history.


These records will be useful to policy makers wishing to understand the circumstances and policy environments that contributed to forest policy in the past, along with the thought processes and decisions made by people who played a role in that policy development.

6. Objectives and Deliverables for Communications and Extension The following activities will take place in 2008/09, subject to availability of funding and resolution of partnership agreements.

a. Production and marketing of “Mountain Trails” b. Development and marketing of an interpretive guide to the Yellowhead Corridor and adjacent

accessible areas c. Adaptation of the interpretive guide into a GPS-based communications tool available for visitors as

well as practitioners d. Production and marketing of the History Forum DVD e. Two “quicknotes” on the AFM/History Program f. Maintenance of AFM reports on the Research Institute website g. Updates to the Board and participation in Research Institute forums as appropriate and requested.

7. Inter Program Links Linkages to other Programs:

a. All programs and Research Institute in general – Interpretive Guide to Yellowhead Corridor b. Natural Disturbance – DVD project c. Fisheries and Watershed – interpretive guide and technology can be adapted to the “Trout

Highway” project d. GIS – development of new technologies adapting GIS technology to GPS communications tools e. Aboriginal – DVD project examines aboriginal role in forest development. Aboriginal database

template will be adapted for use in history documentation 8. Funding sources for this period The Adaptive Forest Management/ History program receives no direct funding from the Foothills Research Institute, but receives in-kind support in Administration and GIS. For 2008, we are requesting 14 days GIS support to assist with Projects 1, 3 and 4. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development has supported the program with a grant to the Research Institute, and we will pursue that potential again for 2008/09. Other funds to support the program are generated by the sale of books in the Adaptive Forest Management/ History series (Learning from the Forest, Hard Road to Travel, the Resilient Forest).

- 178 -

The Forest History Association of Alberta has committed $3,000 to the DVD project as well as Harry Edgecombe’s report of his last patrol in the Willmore. Project One: The largest project this year is expected to be the Human and Ecological Guide to the Yellowhead Corridor. In-kind support to this project will be provided by local historian Tom Peterson who will be an advisor to the Project Lead, Bob Udell. A Grant proposal to the Community Initiatives Program is in preparation. Estimated Budget: 50,000 includes development of the guide – including interpretive sites accessible from roads linking into the Yellowhead Highway; development of a voice over program for GPS units; acquisition of GPS units and loading in of data. Project Two: Production of the DVD from the 2004 History Forum at the CIF/SAF Convention will follow the acquisition of written permissions from the CIF National Office as well as the authors who presented papers. These authors have already given the project a green light via email, but written confirmation will be pursued. Estimated budget $10,000 Project Three: The Last Patrol will be expanded somewhat with the addition of biographical details on Harry Edgecombe, and will be further refined before publication. Estimated budget $5,000. Project Four: Historical Database will be an adaptation of the Aboriginal Database to serve as the repository for the growing bank of interviews and other site-specific information on Alberta’s rich forest history. Estimated budget $5,000.

See Table 1 for proposed budget and sources of funding.

- 179 -

Table 1 Adaptive Forest Management/History Program

Proposed Budget 2008/09 Project Contributing

Organization (Incl. Requested from FRI)1

Total Proposed Budget

Carry Forward

Other Cash Committed

Total Confirmed Funding

Unsecured Funding2

In-Kind Support

Comments Including In-Kind Support Description

612.0 General Administration

Research Institute

5,000 5,0003 5,000 0 5,000 In-Kind: donated time by program partners

612.1 Mountain Trails

0 0 0 0 0 Current plan is to finish in 2007/08 with no carryover, but provision is made for a delay. If so, funds will carry over.

612.2 Human and Ecological Guide

Research Institute

50,000 ~25,000 0 ~25,000 25,000 16,300 Carry forward is surplus from Mountain Trails, income from 2007/08 Book Sales. In Kind Support includes donated time by program partners and GIS support of 14 days ($12600)

612.3 DVD from 2004 CIF/SAF Convention

Forest History Association of Alberta

10,000 0 1,500 1500 8,500 2,000 Inkind support is donated time by program partners. Forest History Association of Alberta is contributing $1500 to project.

612.4 The Last Patrol

Forest History Association of Alberta

5,000 0 1,500 1500 3,500 2,000 Inkind support is donated time by program partners. Forest History Association of Alberta is contributing $1500 to project.

612.4 Historical Database

Research Institute

5,000 0 0 5,000 5,000 Research Institute will adapt template from Aboriginal Program for use in documenting FHAA interviews and other historical materials

Totals 75,000 30,000 3,000 33,000 42,000 24,000 1 Contributing organization is a confirmed source of funds as reported in Column 6- total confirmed funding 2 Unconfirmed funding is as of the date of proposal preparation or revision 3 Carry forward is unexpended funds from 2007/08 plus income from book sales 2007/08

- 180 -

9. Program/Project Key Members and Responsibilities Bob Udell, Pete Murphy, Bob Stevenson and Tom Peterson – Human and ecological Guide to the Yellowhead Corridor Bob Udell, Pete Murphy, Bruce Mayer – DVD project Pete Murphy, Bob Udell, Bob Stevenson – The last Patrol Bob Udell, Pete Murphy, Bruce Mayer, Butch Schenfield – Historical Database

10. Environmental/Occupational Health and Safety/Permits No issues 11. Appendices Appendix 1: Mid Term Progress Report 2007/08 Appendix 2: Overview - Adaptive Forest Management/ History Program Nov. 2007 Appendix 3: Edmonton Journal Review: Hard Road to Travel August 2007 Appendix 4: Westworld Article on GyPSy tours

- 181 -

Appendix 1

Mid Term Progress Report to Sept 3 2007/08: Adaptive Forest Management 612 – Adaptive Forest Management

Project Budget Expended to Sept 30

►

Project 1: Hard Road to Travel and General History

43280 (Cont)

30500 (Alb Lottery Fund)

$15,232.62

► Hard Road Project is Complete, final cost was 62,736.58

► Income from Book Sales is 16,488 to Sept 30, credited to AFM/History program for ongoing work

Project 2: Mountain Trails 45000 ABSRD

40900 FRIAA

$7997.66 ► Mountain Trails – (in progress) Is the memoir of Jack Glen, DFB/AFS ranger at Entrance from 1920 to 1942. Draft is completed and funding requests for publication are going out.

► 2000 Softcover, 300 hardcover planned.

► Most writing complete

► Most photos selected and in hand

Project 3: The Resilient Forest (STOP Revisited)

12500 FRIAA ($17,963.70)

Final Cost

► Project complete, early June

► The Resilient Forest – Revisiting a 1970s Environmental Campaign. Twenty-five years later, this new report revisits, rephotographs and describes the subsequent development of Zimmer’s “wastelands”.350 copies printed at a cost of $34/copy

- 182 -

Appendix 2 The Foothills Research Institute Adaptive Forest Management/ History Program

November 2007 Program Lead – Bob Udell

Background

The Adaptive Forest Management/ History Program at Foothills Research Institute has its roots in

a 1995 speech by Bob Udell -Building AAC on a Tenured FMA - at the Grande Prairie Forestry Show. At the conclusion of the speech, Prof. Les Reed of UBC rose to ask why no one to date had set forward the remarkable legacy of forest management at the Hinton Forest. In 1996, Weldwood launched the project to record the natural and management history of its Hinton Forest, with Pete Murphy and Bob Udell as lead authors and Bob Stevenson as photo historian. At the suggestion of Foothills Research Institute board member Dennis Quintilio, the project was expanded to add more reports and to encompass the entire model-forest land base. Current Status

To date, the program has produced a five-volume series of reports covering all aspects of

sustainable forest management, drawing on the history of the model-forest land base. Partners involved in the program include West Fraser Timber Mills Ltd., the Research Institute, the University of Alberta, the Forest History Society of Durham, N.C., Alberta Sustainable Resource Development and the Forest Resource Improvement Association of Alberta. Three of the existing reports are on the Research Institute website, and three are published. A new book underway (Mountain Trails) will be of high interest to current and former employees of Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, forest practitioners interested in the roots of sustainable forest management in Alberta, as well as the general public interested in the life and times of early Albertans. The program also sponsored a 1999 repeat photography project of M.P. Bridgland’s 1915 photographic survey of Jasper National Park, which has been widely used by historians and geographers. The success of this project encouraged another Bridgland repeat project in Waterton Lakes and another proposal is being developed for the Upper Red Deer area. FRI also produced a comprehensive series of maps to support the various reports in the series.

Publications to Date Report #1: The Development of Adaptive Management in the Protected Areas of the Foothills Research Institute - by Michael den Otter. November, 2000 – Research Institute Website

In 1999, the Research Institute supported Michael den Otter in his Masters thesis for Dr. Marty

Lukert at the University of Alberta. Pete Murphy served on the supervision committee and Bob Udell was a liaison link to the FRI. Den Otter examined the evolution of adaptive forest management in the parks and protected areas of the Foothills Research Institute, and upon completion of his thesis, he adapted it for publication. He examines the histories of Jasper National Park, Switzer Provincial Park and Willmore Wilderness Park, and the evolution of adaptive management within each managing agency. To support this study, a map series showing the boundary changes of Jasper and Willmore Parks was produced.

- 183 -

Report #2: The Evolution of the Forest Management Agreements by Dr. P.J.Murphy and Dr. M.K. Luckert January, 2002 – Research Institute Website

Eric Huestis and Reg Loomis of the Alberta Forest Service envisaged the concept of forest

management agreements as early as 1949, and the Hinton operation was the first in Alberta to capitalize on this opportunity. Over time, the agreement has evolved and changed reflecting the changing view of society and our regulators on how forests should be managed and what the appropriate rights and responsibilities of tenure holders should be. Using a common set of criteria for comparison, the authors examine this evolution using the series of forest management agreements and amendments from 1952 to 1995. Report #3: The Hinton Forest: A Case Study in Adaptive Forest Management 1955-2000 by P.J.Murphy, R.W.Udell, R.E. Stevenson. Research Institute Website: 2002

This report is a comprehensive review of the forest management program at Hinton from its

beginnings in 1955 to the 1999 forest management plan. The evolution of forest management from sustained yield to sustainable forest management of all values inherent in the forest is described through the comparison of planning, practice and adaptation from a wide range of perspectives - inventory, silviculture, multiple values and uses, protection, research, harvesting, and the planning and management cycle for sustainable forest management. Report #4: Learning from the Forest: The Evolution of Adaptive Management at Hinton, Alberta by R.D.Bott, P.J.Murphy, R.W.Udell and R.E. Stevenson Published by: Fifth House. 2003

This book draws upon previous publications in the series to examine the antecedents, scientific

basis for and the evolution of the forest management program on the West Fraser Hinton Forest. The Foreword by Prof. Gordon Baskerville recommends it as required reading in any forestry program, and it has been well received across the country. The book provides an in depth discussion of the range of forestry practices from inventory, silviculture, multiple values and uses, protection, research, harvesting, and the planning and management cycle for sustainable forest management. It describes how foresters of industry and government collaborated to develop a forestry program not by creating rule books or codes of practice but by developing broad goals and objectives and allowing the company to establish a program that met agreed-to outcomes. It includes an extensive discussion about the evolution of Foothills Research Institute research and knowledge and how this science is included in West Fraser’s sustainable forest management program at Hinton. In the recent campaigns of ENGO organizations against West Fraser’s SFM program at Hinton the book has provided high value to the company in explaining to customers and the public the history, the science, the stewardship ethic and the legacy of the forest management program at Hinton. Report #5: A Hard Road to Travel by P.J. Murphy, with R.W. Udell, Tom Peterson and R.E. Stevenson.

- 184 -

Published by: Foothills Research Institute and The Forest History Society. 2007 This book is an in-depth look at the remarkable human and ecological history of west central Alberta from prehistoric times to the arrival of large-scale industrial forest management in 1955. The authors combed a number of archives and museums to come up with over 150 photos to illustrate the book. Through examination of a number of historical records a series of 28 maps, most original for this book, supplement the text. Historian Tom Peterson joined the team to provide advice on the broad and colourful history of exploration and development from aboriginal times to the present in the area. The Forest History Society of Durham N.C. is a partner in the project, providing a distribution and awareness capability unavailable to Foothills Research Institute. They are also overseeing the design work for the book. In the meantime, Pete Murphy and Tom Peterson have developed a PowerPoint presentation about the Athabasca Pass, which served as the portal on the Trans-Canada overland route between Hudson Bay and the Pacific at the mouth of the Columbia for over 40 years after David Thompson’s discovery in 1811. This 4000 km and 3-3 ½ month route became known as the Hudson’s Bay Express with two brigades per year passing through the FRI area. The talk draws on historical material collected in connection with the Hard Road book. It is being used in support of the David Thompson Bi-Centennial celebrations that will start in 2007. Report #6 The Resilient Forest: After the Stumps A 35 Year Retrospective on a 1970s Environmental Campaign By Bob Stevenson, Steve Ferdinand and Bob Udell Published by: Foothills Research Institute. 2007

In 1971, the environmental organization Save Tomorrow – Oppose Pollution –(STOP) - commissioned one of its members, Arnim Zimmer, to visit North Western Pulp and Power’s Hinton forestry operations and examine environmental and forestry practices there. His 1972 report, the pictures it contained and his presentation to the Minister of Forestry, Lands and Wildlife caused a flurry of activity and negative publicity in the media at the time. Consternation over this report provoked the AFS to dispatch Silviculture Program Manager Dr. Kare Hellum to locate every site identified in Zimmer’s damning report and investigate his assertions of environmental degradation, deforestation and wasteful practices. This report effectively refuted most if not all of Zimmer’s assertions but good news is never as popular as bad and the negative seeds planted in the public’s mind lingered. In 1997, Weldwood supported a re-photography project by Steve Ferdinand and Bob Stevenson who found all of the blocks and sites reported by Zimmer and took new pictures of them as close as possible to the original photopoints. This presented some line-of-sight problems, as young reforested stands up to 10 metres in height blocked the view from many of the original points and the authors had to use helicopters to capture the perspective. Subsequently, the Company conducted an ecological assessment of the sites to examine the soil conditions, reforestation status and growth performance of the stands. In 2006 these sites were again visited, with ground photopoints established and new photography from the ground and aerial perspective. An initial draft of the combined Zimmer/ Hellum/ Ferdinand/Stevenson examinations is done, but some work remains to incorporate the current ecological status and the new photography. Report #7 50 Years of Harvest and Reforestation - A Historical Photo Review of the Hinton Forest Management Agreement Area By Bob Udell, 2007

- 185 -

This report is a pictorial and historical record through time of harvest areas on West Fraser’s

Hinton Forest Management Area. Drawing upon his own records as well as the archival records of West Fraser and others collected through the Foothills Research Institute Adaptive Forest Management and History Program, the author selected 36 blocks from the 1950s to the 1990s for rephotography. A continuing pictorial record is thus established, along with a discussion of significant and interesting events associated with the times as well as represented by the blocks themselves. Most of the blocks, with the exception of some aerial and landscape images, were visited on the ground and photopoints established with GPS coordinates recorded for future retrospectives.

Report #8 Mountain Trails By Jack Glen, 1969 Adapted by Rob Mueller, Bob Udell, Pete Murphy, Bob Stevenson To be Published 2008 by Foothills Research Partnership Ltd. and Alberta Sustainable Resource Development

The Research Institute has received permission to publish “Mountain Trails” - the memoirs of

Jack Glen who was a ranger at Entrance from 1920 to 1942 and saw much of the early development in the forests around Hinton, particularly in the Athabasca Forest. His memoir was originally published in a series of articles in the Western Producer in 1969. Mrs. S. McCreedy was Forest Service librarian at the time, and kept the articles, which Pete Murphy arranged to have reproduced in 1997. They are a fascinating read of the life and times of a DFB/AFS ranger who saw the transition from Dominion to Provincial resource ownership.

In 2003, Jack Glenn’s family was contacted for permission to publish this memoir and not only

gave permission but provided the original manuscript upon which it was based, as well as Glen’s photo collection from the time. Work is well advanced, with the support of FRIAA Open Funds and Alberta Sustainable Resource Development to produce this expanded memoir, illustrated by Glen’s photos as well as others from various collections. Maps have been designed to illustrate the book.

2008/09 Program

A Human and Ecological Guide to the Highway 16 Corridor: Foothills Research Institute Over two million people a year drive through the Foothills Research Institute, yet interpretive media for the human, ecological, and geological history are largely unavailable. In 1997, Susan de Caen was

- 186 -

working on her Masters thesis at University of Calgary, which included recommendations for a Cultural Interpretive Program for Jasper National Park. This was never implemented, yet the information contained could provide the foundation for a fascinating ecotour within and outside the park in the Research Institute landbase. The “Ecotour” interpretive program was first developed by the Canadian Forest Service for the Calgary-Banff corridor in the 1970s. Since then, Canadian Geographic has used the approach to develop similar tours for different parts of Canada. Tom Peterson, who was one of her advisors on the project, has provided the background materials and reports of de Caen. We propose to use these and expand them using knowledge gained from the Research Institute program and other sources to produce an Ecotour of the corridor. If possible, this will be adapted as a GyPSy Guide – a GPS-based interpretive system that combines GPS technology with and recorded (voice, images) interpretation. See Appendix 4 DVD: The Roots of the Present are Buried Deep in the Past – CIF/SAF History Forum – Plenary Session 2 October 4, 2004

This historical forum, organized by Bob Udell and Pete Murphy of the Foothills Research

Institute Adaptive Forest Management/ History Program, was a great success at the conference in Edmonton, several people from the SAF stating that it was the best plenary they had attended in years. It provides a fascinating look into the past as a prologue for the present and the future. A DVD of this forum is on hand, and is suitable for production and distribution. A joint project with the Forest History Association of Alberta. The Last Patrol – a Former AFS Ranger returns to his roots for one last summer on patrol in Willmore Wilderness Park, 1982 Harry Edgecombe was a long service Alberta Forest Service ranger who finished his career as an instructor at the Forest Technology School in Hinton. After retirement, he spent the summer of 1982 on ranger patrol in the Willmore Wilderness Park, traversing many of the trails developed by or travelled on by Jack Glen so many years earlier. Mr. Edgecombe’s report of that summer and his photographs provide an interesting contrast to the times of Jack Glen, reported in the recent book “Mountain Trails” from the Adaptive Forest Management/ History Program. Historical Database The Adaptive Forest Management/ History program has, in the past 10 years, assembled a number of interviews and other historical information that currently resides in various databases within and outside the Research Institute control. Similarly, the Forest History Association of Alberta is collecting interviews and other site-specific historical information throughout Alberta that will be of immense value to practioners and others interested in Alberta forest history today and into the future. This cooperative project with the FHAA proposes to adapt the Research Institute’s Aboriginal database template for use as a forest history database.

- 187 -

Future Projects In the Adaptive Forest Management/ History Series

A History of Silviculture at Hinton 1955-2005 By Lorne Brace, adapted and supplemented by Pete Murphy and Bob Udell

Des Crossley, who originated the forest management program at Hinton was a distinguished CFS researcher, frustrated at his inability to see his research knowledge adapted into practice. When given the opportunity and challenge to do so at Hinton he leaped at the chance and set in motion a remarkable and innovative silviculture program never before seen in Alberta. As background to “The Hinton Forest” a first draft of the comprehensive history of this silviculture program at Hinton from 1955 to 1999 was developed by retired CFS research Lorne Brace. Completion of this project, including a photographic record not yet initiated, will provide insight into the science, philosophy and practice of silviculture as it has emerged under an adaptive forest management framework.

A History of the Settlement in Grande Cache The General Manager of the Foothills Research Institute has a copy of an early Report by Alberta Historical Resources on the background and context for the native settlements in the Grande Cache area. Permission will be sought to publish this through the Adaptive Forest Management/ History Program.

The Foothills Research Institute: A 20 Year Record of Achievement in Sustainable Forest Management Research

The current business cycle of the Research Institute will take it to its 20th anniversary. No

compilation of the history of the Research Institute has been done to date, yet its achievements are remarkable and continue to grow with an increasing enthusiastic partnership. It is timely to pull this all together in one comprehensive history as others with less distinguished histories have done.

Beyond the Borders –

Adaptive Forest Management/ History Program Contributions to Related Projects

Culturing Wilderness in Jasper: Studies in the Human History of the Upper Athabasca River Valley By I.S. MacLaren, U of A Press – fall 2007

I.S. MacLaren, professor of English and history at the University of Alberta, has completed this

book, which has been accepted by the U of A Press for publication in the fall of 2007. It contains a chapter authored by P. Murphy: Chapter 3: “Following the Base of the Foothills”: Tracing the Boundaries of Jasper Park and its adjacent Rocky Mountains Forest Reserve. It was inspired by previous publications of the FRI and drew on knowledge and understandings acquired during the FRI studies, as well as further research on the topic. The book also includes a second chapter: Chapter 4: Homesteading the Athabasca Valley to 1910: An Interview with Edward Wilson Moberly, Prairie Creek, Alberta, 29 August 1980. Conducted, Introduced, Transcribed, and Edited by Peter J. Murphy. The introductory section, which provides a historical perspective, also drew heavily on earlier studies in connection with the FRI history project. Rhemtulla J. 1999. Eighty Years of Change: The Montane Vegetation of Jasper National Park. MSc Thesis. University of Alberta.

- 188 -

Rhemtulla, Jeanine M., Ronald J. Hall, Eric S. Higgs, and S. Ellen Macdonald. 2002. Eighty years of change: vegetation in the montane ecoregion of Jasper National Park, Alberta, Canada. 2002. . Canadian Journal of Forest Research. Volume 32, Number 11, Pages 2010-2021. November 2002

Jeanine Rhemtulla, a graduate student at U of A was given support by the Foothills Research Institute as well as Weldwood of Canada to complete a rephotography project of the 1915 Bridgland series in Jasper National Park and, to a degree, the adjoining foothills. The results of this work have been used in a number of Research Institute reports and two books in the History Series, as well as validating some of the observations in the Natural Disturbance program at the Research Institute.

Repeat ground photographs (taken in 1915 and 1997) from a series of topographical survey stations and repeat aerial photographs (flown in 1949 and 1991) were analyzed to assess changes in vegetation composition and distribution in the montane ecoregion of Jasper National Park, in the Rocky Mountains of Alberta, Canada. The results indicated a shift towards late-successional vegetation types and an increase in crown closure in coniferous stands. Grasslands, shrub, juvenile forest, and open forests decreased in extent, and closed-canopy forests became more prevalent. The majority of forest stands succeeded to dominance by coniferous species. Changes in vegetation patterns were likely largely attributable to shifts in the fire regime over the last century, although climatic conditions and human activity may also have been contributing factors. Implications of observed changes include decreased habitat diversity, increased possibility of insect outbreaks, and potential for future high-intensity fire events. Results of the study increase knowledge of historical reference conditions and may help to establish restoration goals for the montane ecoregion of the park.

- 189 -

Appendix 3 Edmonton Journal Review of “Hard Road to Travel”

August 19, 2007

Article rank

SUPPLIED

David Thompson postage stamp Edmonton Journal. Sunday, August 19, 2007

Travelling back along Alberta’s ‘hard road’ Review by KEN TINGLEY

A Hard Road to Travel: Land, Forests and People in the Upper Athabasca Region

Peter J. Murphy, with Robert W. Udell, Robert E/ Stevenson and Thomas W. Peterson

The year 2007 marks the centennial of Jasper Forest Park, the first incarnation of Jasper National Park. It also marks the bicentennial of the first passage through Athabasca Pass by David Thompson. These two events have seen the publication of several interesting books to celebrate their importance in western Canadian history. A Hard Road to Travel, coincidentally published during these celebrations, is the closest thing to a definitive and comprehensive history of the Jasper region to date, and makes a great birthday gift for Jasper, and everyone who values the place. This is the book that many of us have been waiting for. It answers most of the questions that naturally arise in the car as family vacationers scoot through what once was a hard road to travel, but today shoots travellers across the kilometres almost too quickly to consider the passing scene. Peter Murphy, the principal author, has been a forester in the Jasper area since 1954, and is a founding director of the provincial Forest Technology School, now the Hinton Training Centre. Robert Udell, another Hinton forester, who later went to work for North Western Pulp and Power, now West Fraser Timber Co. Ltd., writes the section on the district around Hinton. Robert Stevenson has collected many of the wonderful historical photographs that illustrate the book so impressively. Thomas Peterson added a lifetime of research to the project, including many memories from early participants in the events described.

- 190 -

This wonderful book grew from a single chapter for Learning from the Forest, the Fifth House book about Hinton forest management. Thoroughly researched and brilliantly presented through its carefully selected graphics, it does justice to a demanding subject. When Sir Sanford Fleming travelled west of Fort Edmonton to survey a possible railway route through the mountains to the west, his party came across a poignant blaze on a tree near the Macleod River. It probably had been left by a member of the Overlanders of 1862, and declared the route “a hard road to travel.” The gumbo and thick deadfall on the trails seemed at times a virtually impenetrable barrier to travel, but the passes to the west were the best available and inevitably would demand the attention of both a fur trade empire, and a government searching for a means to complete its transcontinental dream. The Athabasca valley had been the principal western trade and travel corridor long before the 19th century. First Nations had used the Athabasca and Howse passes for years, but after David Thompson proved that they could be used, they became indispensable to the western fur trade empire. By 1915 two parallel railways spanned the mountains through the upper Athabasca. The present Yellowhead Highway follows the grade of one of these, the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. Its route became the first rough road into Jasper National Park when the wartime demand for steel led to tearing up its tracks and merging tracks with the Northern Canadian Railway in 1916. A Hard Road to Travel tells the story of the upper Athabasca through the accomplishments of the men and women who first challenged its distances and severe physical obstacles. The first people who lived in the area and changed it fundamentally through their seasonal burning are given attention, as are the wildlife and vegetation, but this is essentially the story of the European use of the land, from fur to lumbering, railways to tourism. Starting with David Thompson, Sir George Simpson and Gabriel Franchere, through the Dominion Land Surveyors, to those more intent on mining and lumbering, the story unfolds in fascinating detail. Many truly wonderful photographs provide a subtle insight into the times. One of my favourites shows Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and his family having a picnic near Otto’s Cache, everyone looking much more pleased than Lady Doyle. Paintings like Paul Kane’s depiction of Jasper House in 1847, or Walter J. Phillips’s Parting of the Brigades 1826, bring the period alive. The many outstanding maps by Toby Foord are one of the greatest assets of the book. A Hard Road to Travel is an easy read to travel for anyone wanting to understand this part of Canada.

- 191 -

Appendix 4 Article on GyPSy – Westworld Magazine

April 2007

adm 2008 04 wrkpln annualworkplan2008 2009vol2detailedworkplan

Documents

program areas

extension program

program objectives

natural disturbance

aboriginal involvement

grizzly bear research

foothills growth

foothills research institutes