Integrated Landscape
Management:
A Win-Win Solution
AFPA Green Paper– Integrated Land Management: A Win-Win Solution
Integrated Landscape Management:
A Win-Win Solution
OVERVIEW
Integrated Landscape Management (ILM) is a co-operative approach that minimizes industrial impacts on
land, renewable resources and ecosystems. ILM means that energy and forestry companies work together
to co-ordinate their activities and reduce the industrial “footprint” on the landscape. ILM is a win-win,
made-in-Alberta solution that delivers benefits in three critical dimensions:
•
Environmental: ILM sustains biological diversity and ecosystems by reducing cumulative effects
on the landscape, fragmentation of wildlife habitat, and impacts on soil and water resources.
•
Economic: Energy and forestry companies reduce duplication, maximize resource utilization,
improve reclamation and reforestation, and avoid regulatory costs and delays.
•
Social: ILM addresses a widespread concern among Albertans about responsible management of
public lands and sustainability of renewable resources.
“Integrated Landscape
Management fulfills the
goal of multiple-use
integration on public
lands that has been
proclaimed by Alberta
governments since the
1970s… The next steps
should include jointly
developed regional
landscape management
plans and five-year
access plans.”
Alberta forest companies have been eager participants in developing and
implementing ILM. Because they have long-term rights on a given
landscape, forest companies accumulate detailed knowledge about the
geography (including biology, hydrology, cultural and recreational values,
etc.) and the specific issues encountered when operating there. This local
expertise is an invaluable asset for anyone planning to use that land. By
working with other users, forest companies help to ensure the viability of
their own operations and the land itself.
Integrated Landscape Management fulfills the goal of multiple-use
integration on public lands that has been proclaimed by Alberta governments
since the 1970s. Through various programs, integrated resource planning has
improved communications and co-operation among industrial, recreational
and traditional users, but its implementation has often fallen short of
expectations. ILM evolved over the past decade as a practical means to make multiple-use integration a
reality. The next steps should include jointly developed regional landscape management plans and fiveyear access plans.
The main impediment to ILM is the fact that the energy and forestry industries operate on different time
scales and under different regulatory regimes. A number of companies in both industries have found ways
to overcome this barrier, but further changes in institutions and attitudes will be needed before ILM
becomes standard practice. The current pace of energy development in Alberta makes responsible
stewardship an urgent necessity.
This document explains the Alberta Forest Products Association’s position on ILM, provides examples of
benefits and best practices, and details what AFPA member companies can contribute to making ILM a
reality across all of Alberta’s forest landscapes.
AFPA Green Paper– Integrated Land Management: A Win-Win Solution
CONTENTS
Why is ILM important?
1
What knowledge and operational experience do forest companies
bring to the ILM process?
3
How has ILM been implemented?
4
What are the issues for forest companies in ILM?
8
Appendices
A. Summary of practices
9
B. Index of practices
20
C. Recognition of supporting companies
23
AFPA Green Paper– Integrated Land Management: A Win-Win Solution
Why is ILM important?
“Regulations and company
practices are based on
sustainable forest
management over the long
term, including prompt
reforestation of harvest
sites and integration of
multiple uses and values
into planning and
operations.”
Two industries, energy and forestry, account for most of the human
impacts on Alberta’s forest landscapes. By working together, these
industries can save time and money, reduce their “footprint” on the
landscape, and meet Albertans’ expectations for responsible
management.
More than 60 per cent of Alberta’s land area is forested, and nearly all of
these forests are on provincial Crown lands in the Foothills and the
North. Some of the forested area has been set aside for recreational and
ecological purposes, and some areas such as black spruce bogs are not
suitable for commercial harvest. On most of the remaining area, timber
rights have been allocated to forest products companies under area-based
Forest Management Agreements (FMAs) and volume-based Quotas. These long-term rights have enabled
the development of a modern industry that produces billions of dollars worth of products and helps
support the economies of dozens of communities. Regulations and company practices are based on
sustainable forest management over the long term, including prompt reforestation of harvest sites and
integration of multiple uses and values into planning and operations.
Energy, however, dominates the Alberta economy.
Many energy operations – oil and gas exploration and
production, processing plants and pipelines, oilsands
projects, coal mines, power plants and transmission
lines – are located in the forested Green Area. In some
years and some areas, energy companies have cut
more trees than were harvested by forest companies.
Energy companies operate under regulations designed
to facilitate timely access to resources and markets.
Although they must obey relevant regulations, pay
Timber Damage Assessment (TDA) and fees for use
of forestry roads, most energy companies conduct their
operations independently of forest management
considerations. Reclaimed sites, for example, are
generally planted with grass rather than trees.
Due to accelerating energy industry activity in recent
years and continuing high levels of forest industry
activity, there are now multiple reasons why the “two
solitudes” status quo is no longer acceptable:
• Loss of commercially productive and
ecologically vibrant forests
• Costly duplication (e.g. roads, bridges, consulting services etc.)
• Cumulative effects on wildlife habitat and biological diversity, including species such as
woodland caribou
• Impacts on soil, water resources and fisheries
• Conflicts with Albertans’ social and environmental values.
AFPA Green Paper– Integrated Land Management: A Win-Win Solution
1
The Alberta Forest Products Association recently commissioned an in-depth study of Albertans’ views on
forestry. The results of the Alberta Forest Usage Survey show there is a strong constituency for
sustainable forest management among both self-selected stakeholders and Alberta citizens.
Extensive replanting, concern for wildlife and habitat protection, acceptable cutting methods, and
regulations and restrictions on the use of the forest were the top four attributes that contributed the most
to respondents’ policy choices. Those surveyed made it clear that they wanted all users, not just forest
companies, to replant all sites with trees. That finding alone makes a good case for more co-ordination
between energy and forestry companies. Not surprisingly, the survey also found strong support for
Integrated Landscape Management, with few dissenters.
Respondents were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with ILM, which was described as “an
approach to land management that considers the effects of industrial development on the land in light of
environmental, social and economic sustainability, balancing the various needs of provincial lands.”
AFUS Response to ILM Question
Somewhat/completely disagree
Neither
Somewhat agree
Completely agree
Government and energy industry leaders have endorsed the principle of responsible stewardship. The
Alberta Chamber of Resources, which includes both energy and forestry companies, played a key role in
developing ILM. Enough ILM plans have now been implemented in a variety of foothills and boreal subregions to demonstrate the feasibility and the benefits for both industries and ecosystems. The most
immediate benefits are in co-ordination of access plans (roads and bridges) and pre-harvest of energy
sites, but there are also long-term benefits in reclamation and reforestation, habitat protection and erosion
prevention. Cumulative effects, a growing concern for ecologists, are minimized.
AFPA Green Paper– Integrated Land Management: A Win-Win Solution
2
The time is ripe for implementation of Integrated Landscape Management across the province’s forest
landscapes. This would include development of regional landscape management plans and coordinated
five-year operational plans. The plans should incorporate best management practices from both industries,
specify steps to manage access, and address the cumulative effects of human activities.
Alberta’s renewable resource industries – including agriculture, tourism and recreation as well as forestry
– are currently dwarfed by the booming energy industry, but they played crucial roles in the provincial
economy during the energy slowdown in the late 1980s and early 1990s and could do so again in the
future.
Foresters, farmers, grazing lease holders, tourism operators and recreational users get to know landscapes
intimately and see themselves as stewards of the land for present and future generations. The Alberta
public strongly supports responsible stewardship of public lands and resources. Effective implementation
of ILM would demonstrate that multiple-use integration is truly achievable. ILM would set the stage for a
new era of responsible land use in Alberta.
What knowledge and operational experience do forest companies bring
to the ILM process?
Forest companies bring to the ILM process a wealth of knowledge and
operating experience regarding the landscapes on which they operate.
Forest management is based on a dynamic process that continually updates
short-, medium- and long-term plans. These plans cover the year ahead, the
decade ahead and up to two centuries into the future. The plans are based on
detailed mapping, aerial photography and inventories of vegetation, soils,
topography, hydrology, wildlife species, cultural and recreational assets,
traditional uses, traplines and other features. The information is collated in
multi-layered computer geographical information systems (GIS) databases.
”Forest management is
based on a dynamic
process that continually
updates short-, mediumand long-term plans.
These plans cover the
year ahead, the decade
ahead and up to two
centuries into the future.”
Through public consultation programs, forest companies also gain extensive
knowledge of stakeholders’ values concerning the landscape. Many companies have public advisory
bodies that include key stakeholders, and the companies also communicate frequently with the general
public, other resource users and government officials. Annual operating plans and long-term forest
management plans are presented to the public at “open house” events. As a result, forest companies
become aware of the issues and values that can affect industrial operations in a given area.
Alberta’s rigorous requirements for reforestation of harvest sites and reclamation of temporary roads and
landings have necessitated a high level of expertise in forest companies and their contractors. The energy
industry is already tapping this expertise in some areas such as reforestation of oilsands sites.
In addition, the forest industry has long experience in land administration, consent processes, fee
collection and dispute resolution; managing and monitoring fish and wildlife habitat, and providing or
enhancing recreational opportunities.
Any successful integrated landscape management program contemplated for the province of Alberta
would be well advised to actively engage the planning and resource management expertise and
knowledge base of the forestry sector.
AFPA Green Paper– Integrated Land Management: A Win-Win Solution
3
How has ILM been implemented to date?
Sixteen AFPA member companies recently completed questionnaires regarding their experience with
ILM and multi-use integration. The results demonstrated positive benefits in five important areas: access
development, reclamation, planning, fish and wildlife, and recreational opportunities. However, it was
also evident that more progress is both desirable and achievable.
Access Development
Anytime the word “integration” is mentioned, joint access or sharing roads with the energy sector is often
the first thing that comes to mind. Although integration is much more far ranging, there is no question
that roads have a significant impact on the forest land base and forest sustainability. It is also a significant
cost of resource extraction. Anything we can do as an industry to reduce costs while minimizing the
environmental impact of roads is good business and would be welcomed. Integration and joint access
planning are one way to achieve this.
With this in mind, several forest companies have been involved (or are currently involved) in more formal
regional access planning processes. The purpose of these processes is to get all the key stakeholders from
a particular area or region at the table and to jointly develop the access including location, standards and
use of the main roads. The obvious benefit is to reduce duplication and the total number of roads required
to access the resources of the area. This reduces the road footprint and forest fragmentation while
maintaining more of the area as suitable habitat for wildlife and other uses. Fewer roads also mean less
contact (road kills, hunting chances) with wildlife and make it easier to enforce wildlife regulations. Since
the government is also at the table, the process also has the buy in and support of key departments like
Fish and Wildlife. Although not without flaws and frustrations, the concept has lots of merit and with
perseverance should only get better. It can also include less formal processes with fewer players while
focusing on a single (but important) access road to a key resource area.
Some examples of regional access planning include:
• Little Smoky River Corridor Management Strategy – Alberta Newsprint Company, Whitecourt
• Chungo Creek Access Plan – Alberta Chamber of Resources
• Kakwa – Copton Corridor Plan – Weyerhaeuser, Grande Prairie
• Vista Creek Road – Manning Diversified Forest Products, Manning
Reclamation
“Reclamation” is a word with many meanings and connotations. To the energy sector it means “grass,
quick establishment and a reclamation certificate.” To the forester it means “an opportunity to grow more
trees.” Further, to Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD) it means “ground cover and
stabilizing the site as quickly as possible.” All are right, and in some ways, all are in conflict with
company or government goals and objectives (or the legal requirements).
By working together it is possible to find solutions that will satisfy everyone. This requires:
• Reclamation plans for individual dispositions and/or an area including methods, timing, who does
what, who pays for what, etc.
• Up to date information on all dispositions; this is an absolute requirement to track all the
dispositions and to make suitable plans.
• effective use of the Timber Damage Assessment (TDA) that has been collected for dispositions;
forest companies need to be clear about how TDA is being used to replace loss forest land base;
reforestation of abandoned dispositions is one option.
• Reasonable standards for ground cover; ensuring that reforestation methods will also adequately
address the need to stabilize the ground and minimize erosion.
AFPA Green Paper– Integrated Land Management: A Win-Win Solution
4
Many AFPA members do not want grass on dispositions within their productive forest land base. They
are working closely with the energy sector and the government to ensure dispositions are returned to the
land base and that trees are reestablished as quickly as possible. This helps to reduce the impact of the
energy sector on the forest sector and is an important component of integration and managing the
industrial footprint.
Keeping the Green Area green is in the best interests of the Government of Alberta and the forestry
industry. Forestry is a sustainable contributor to Alberta’s environmental, social and economic well being.
Planning
To say that “planning” is a key to integration is probably an understatement. Good, detailed,
comprehensive planning with key stakeholders and the public can resolve many issues and address
concerns well before the first road is built or the first tree is cut. However, integrated planning is another
issue and the words often have bad connotations due to past failures. This need not be the case. Often, the
excuse of incompatible planning horizons between the energy and forestry sectors is used to explain why
there is not more integrated planning. Again, this need not be the case.
As shown by our members, integrated planning can take many forms and work at many levels. It does not
have to be a full, landscape level plan that tries to address every value and issue raised. It can be as simple
as sitting down with an individual energy company and looking at operating maps and plans for the next
six months. Resolving conflicts and looking at opportunities to work together for the next six months is
integrated planning and the benefits of this should not be ignored. And the benefit goes well beyond joint
road planning, but is also an opportunity to address other issues and values.
With this in mind our members have outlined a number of ways to integrate planning with the energy
sector (and other stakeholders) or at least make the opportunity available:
•
Compartment Design. This approach is based on obtaining meaningful input before decisions are
made. This allows the forest company to address issues and values very early in the planning
process and to mitigate, where possible, any conflicts with other stakeholders and resource users.
•
Long Term Access Plan. Many forest companies have identified the corridors that will be used to
provide long term access to their operable land base. These plans and corridors have been
approved by ASRD. By working with the energy sector and other resource users, these plans can
be used to promote integration and to reduce the number of roads required to access any one area.
Reducing the footprint from roads is a key target for managing the environmental footprint.
•
Integrated Land Management Guidebook. A lack of knowledge or understanding is often an
excuse for not working together or integrating plans. One forest company has addressed this issue
by producing a guidebook for the energy sector that outlines how the company plans its activities
and how energy sector developments are assessed for integration. Increased understanding and
knowledge of how our industries work can only lead to more co-operation and integration.
•
Route Planning Service. Time is money. Forest companies have lots of existing data that can be
used for planning road access. It is not a big step to see that forest companies are in a prime
position to work with the energy sector and other applicants to plan their roads. With a little bit of
lead time and by working together, routes can be planned together thus automatically practicing
integration and saving everyone time and money.
AFPA Green Paper– Integrated Land Management: A Win-Win Solution
5
These are just some examples of success. They are not complicated and may not be part of a
comprehensive land management plan, but they do work and they do advance the cause of integration.
These examples reinforce the need for forest industry knowledge and expertise in any Green Area land
planning and long-term management processes.
Fish and Wildlife
Although industry does not have direct responsibility for managing wildlife in
Alberta, our activities do have a direct impact on their habitat. Maintaining habitat
for key wildlife species is an important challenge for AFPA members.
Many of the operating rules and guidelines associated with wildlife management
focus on individual cut blocks, roads, dispositions or a specific operating area. All
operators in an area may not be working under the same rules or policy. We know
many of the issues around wildlife management need to be approached from a
landscape perspective. Even a million-hectare FMA area may not be large enough
to tackle some wildlife issues.
“Although industry
does not have direct
responsibility for
managing wildlife in
Alberta, our activities
do have a direct
impact on their
habitat. Maintaining
habitat for key
wildlife species is an
important challenge
for AFPA members.”
Over the years the AFPA has worked together and with the government to resolve
issues and to improve wildlife management at the landscape level. There has been
and continues to be a number of committees or associations working on key issues (caribou is a good
example). These often include the major energy sector companies in the area.
This is a step in the right direction, that is, the forest and energy sectors working together (through
committees or associations) to resolve wildlife issues and to move wildlife management forward with
common solutions on a landscape basis. Working in isolation is often not effective, and trying to resolve
landscape issues on a company by company basis can be unproductive and costly.
There are several examples of joint or integrated actions regarding habitat and wildlife management:
•
Caribou Habitat Management. Over the years, there has been industry participation in a number
of committees and associations both on a regional and provincial basis. The current initiative is
under the Caribou Landscape Management Association which is focusing on coordinating access
in the Little Smoky area and minimizing impact on the A La Peche - Little Smoky caribou herd.
•
Caribou Habitat Restoration. Since access is a requirement of resource extraction, the impact of
access development can be at least partially mitigated by habitat restoration. This could mean
rolling back and planting seismic lines and roads used for the initial resource development or
restoring other areas as an offset to permanent dispositions or deletions from the forest land base.
•
Fish Monitoring. Working together with other companies (forest and energy) to survey fish
populations as opposed to individual companies doing this alone. A simple exercise, but all too
often, if not coordinated, the same fish are counted more than once at extra cost to industry.
•
Stream Crossing Management. In most areas stream crossings in any one watershed have
multiple owners (forestry, energy, government). Stream crossings have a large impact on water
quality and fish habitat. Currently the Foothills Stream Crossing Program is developing
inspection protocols to quickly provide assessments on stream crossings. Once an inventory is
complete in a watershed, this will allow the owners to work together to develop an overall repair
and/or maintenance program on a priority basis. The program also includes monitoring protocols
to re-inspect crossings on a regular schedule.
AFPA Green Paper– Integrated Land Management: A Win-Win Solution
6
Although working together in committees and associations is an important step to integration, it is only a
first step. The real results and associated benefits will come when the outcome of this work is translated
into operating plans so there is only one approach to managing the forest values in a given area.
Recreation
“Recreational opportunities
are another way the forest
industry shows that
integrated land
management is important
and a priority. With good
forest management and
long-term planning, there is
room for both the loggers
and the recreation users as
well as the energy
industry.”
Many of us enjoy the opportunity to camp, hike or just spend some time in
the “bush.” And it is not always in the national parks, high-profile
campgrounds or recreational areas. Quite often it is a local campground,
picnic site or a trail that is within an easy drive of our home. We may even
have to share the road with a log truck or rig move in order to get there. In
the past, most of these sites were maintained by the provincial government.
However, on your next visit take a closer look and you may be surprised to
learn that your particular recreation site or trail is being provided and
maintained by a local forest company.
These campgrounds are used mostly by local residents who are seeking a
more remote and rustic camping experience. Local activities may include
fishing, boating, hiking, ATV riding, picnicking, wildlife watching or just
enjoying nature. In the fall hunting is a priority for many users. The forest company is responsible for
improvements and for maintaining and cleaning the campgrounds. Some even provide free firewood and
free camping.
Other companies build and maintain recreation trails for a variety of users. These may be existing trails
that were maintained and kept opened by the forest company after logging, historical trails that have been
re-established or new trails built for hikers, mountain bikers, ATV users, horses, etc. Again, the forest
company is responsible for maintenance (in some cases in co-operation with local community groups).
Other companies provide picnic sites, viewpoints or to stock fish in a local pond or lake. The point is
clear – forest companies are involved in forest recreation.
Obviously, campgrounds, picnic sites, trails and recreation are not the core business of forest companies.
However, as the government downsized in the 1990s and the ASRD reduced its involvement in forest
recreation sites, some companies saw a need and had the interest to fill it. Recreation is just one of the
many uses associated with the forests of Alberta. Although the growing and harvesting of trees is still the
main use of the FMAs and timber quotas, these companies recognize that forests provides many other
opportunities.
Recreational opportunities are another way the forest industry shows that integrated land management is
important and a priority. Although the energy sector is the main industrial user on most FMAs and quota
areas, we need to consider all users. With good forest management and long-term planning, there is room
for the loggers and the recreation users as well as the energy industry.
AFPA Green Paper– Integrated Land Management: A Win-Win Solution
7
What are the issues for forest companies in ILM?
The AFPA members survey results noted a number of issues regarding integration and implementation.
Most issues are opportunities for change and improvement. The key findings are summarized as follows:
Keep the Green Area green.
Reclamation. It is very clear from the survey that reclamation of dispositions and returning abandoned
sites back to productive forest land is a priority for most forest companies. Although there are some
roadblocks (cost, lag time, poor records, regulations, etc.), it is also clear that these roadblocks can be
reduced or even eliminated with good planning and co-operation between the two sectors.
Government enables and rewards industrial integration
without increasing costs.
Staff time and resources. Integration takes time and resources and is not always a priority for woodland
operations. Integration requires additional planning, meetings, public involvement, record keeping, field
work, etc. However, reducing the industrial footprint usually means decreased cost, especially if these
costs are shared with other resource users or the energy sectors. And good planning also can lead to
reduced cost. Therefore, the increased overhead cost associated with integration and working with the
energy sector can often be offset by reduced operating costs plus the benefit of minimizing the impact on
the forest land base and annual allowable cut (AAC).
A long-term vision is required to make successful ILM a reality.
Joint planning and collaboration. The issue of different planning horizons usually comes up when joint
planning between the energy and forest sectors is discussed. However, joint planning comes in many
forms. The bottom line is that any form of joint planning is beneficial. Energy and forest companies
meeting and planning together will reduce cost, reduce the industrial footprint and minimize the impact
on AAC and lead to improved working relationships. This will increase the opportunity for more joint
planning in the future and the possibility of longer planning horizons and lead time.
Integrated Landscape Management is a win-win, made-in-Alberta
solution that delivers benefits in three critical dimensions:
environmental, economic and social.
For more information about the Alberta Forest Products Association’s commitment to sustainable public
forests and Integrated Landscape Management please contact:
Mr. Jeff Reynolds MBA, RPFT
Director of Forestry
Alberta Forest Products Association
500, 10709 Jasper Avenue NW
Edmonton, Alberta T5J 3N3
(780) 452-2841
[email protected]
AFPA Green Paper– Integrated Land Management: A Win-Win Solution
8
Appendix A
Summary of practices
Appendix A provides a detailed listing of forest industry practices that could contribute to ILM
and the benefits obtained from them.
DESCRIPTION
BENEFITS
1. Planning (strategic, operational, access)
a) DFMP/GDP/AOP Development. The Detailed Forest
Management Plan (DFMP), the General Development Plan
(GDP) and/or the Annual Operating Plan (AOP) are used to
promote the development and integration of access roads with
other resource users (energy sector, other forest companies) in
timber licences or Forest Management Areas (FMAs).
• Reducing the area of productive forest
b) Compartment Design (CD). Input into the company’s CD is
obtained from all interested stakeholders in the area. This
includes the energy sector, trapping, grazing and public advisory
groups. This also includes referrals to various government
departments such as Fish and Wildlife. All the input is used by
the company to address the ways the various values will be
integrated into the road, harvest and silviculture plans for the
area.
•
c) Regional Planning (access). Key stakeholders in a particular
region or area working together to develop and integrate main
access to all resources; development of an overall, master access
plan.
i) Little Smoky River Corridor Management Strategy
ii) Chungo Creek Access Plan
iii) Kakwa – Copton Corridor Plan
iv) Vista Creek Road (shared road to access multiple resources)
• Reducing the area of productive forest
landbase required for access roads
• Reducing the number of permanent, allweather roads in critical or sensitive
areas (wildlife, riparian)
• Reducing the number of water course
crossings
• Reducing the impact on wildlife habitat
• Improved communications and working
relationship between various resource
sectors and/or companies
• Increased public support and
confidence in industry’s management
of the resource
• Enhanced SRD review and approval
• Cost savings
AFPA Green Paper– Integrated Land Management: A Win-Win Solution
landbase required for access roads
• Meeting the requirements of some
certification systems by showing
examples of resource operators
working together to minimize the
impact on the land base
• Improved communications and working
relationships between various resource
sectors and/or companies
• Cost savings
•
•
•
•
•
Various forest values are addressed
early in the planning process
Identifying and resolving conflicting
interests before field operations are
planned
Involvement and input from other
stakeholders, therefore, a better plan
Meet certification requirements
Improved public confidence
Enhanced SRD review and approval
9
DESCRIPTION
d) Joint Forest Management Area (FMA). With ASRD support and
approval, coniferous and deciduous operators working together on
the same forest land base under one (jointly held) FMA
i) Tolko-High Level/Footner Forest Products
ii) Buchanan and Tolko – High Prairie
BENEFITS
• Joint development of all plans (DFMP,
GDP, AOP)
• Joint or only one Public Advisory
Committee
• Joint coordination of land use and
integration with energy sector
• Potential increase or uplift in AAC
(when compared to separate AACs for
coniferous and deciduous)
• Operations (access development,
logging, reforestation, reclamation) are
shared and/or coordinated
• Reduced impact on wildlife habitat and
riparian areas
• Improved communication and working
relationship between sectors (forestry
and energy)
• Cost savings
e) Long Term Access Plan (LTAP). Forestry companies often plan the • Used by the company’s land use
corridors for the major, permanent access roads as part of their
department to ensure future
DFMP. The purpose is to provide access to all of the contributing
applications by other users followed the
or productive landbase in the FMA. The LTAPs are given SRD
approved corridors in the LTAP
approval.
• Reduction in multiple or parallel roads
• Reduced impact on wildlife habitat,
riparian areas, watercourse crossings
• Reduced impact on forest land base and
AAC
• Cost savings
f) Integrated Land Management (ILM) Guidebook. An operational
guidebook designed and written specifically for the energy sector.
Outlines how the company conducts planning in the FMA and how
energy sector developments are assessed for integration.
• Reduced impact on forest land base and
AAC
• Reduced impact on wildlife habitat,
riparian areas, watercourse crossings
• Improved communications and working
relationship between various resource
sectors and/or companies
• Cost savings
g) Route Planning Service. Available FMA information such as aerial
photography, various operating plans, AVI, topography, GIS, etc.
is used to work with applicants to locate the best routes for roads
and/or pipelines
• Reduced impact on forest land base and
AAC
• Reduced impact on wildlife habitat,
riparian areas, watercourse crossings
• Reduction in multiple or parallel roads
• Cost savings
AFPA Green Paper– Integrated Land Management: A Win-Win Solution
10
DESCRIPTION
BENEFITS
h) AAC Action Plan. The forestry and energy sectors set up a task
force to mitigate the impact on AAC on the development of
mineable oil sands. This was an 18 month process and eventually
all parties signed off on the AAC Action Plan. Any new player to
the oil sand development area is requested to become a signatory to
this plan. The outcome was to put the oil sands development onto a
longer regeneration lag period (e.g. 25-30 yrs) instead of a
permanent deletion from the forestry land base.
• Minimizes the impact on AAC by large
clearings (such as associated with the
mineable oil sands)
• Improved communication and working
relationship between the energy and
forestry sectors
• Agreed to government approval process
to handle AAC impact in the mineable
oil sands
i) Timber Salvage Planning. Mineable oil sand companies provide the
forestry sector with their long term development plans. These are
then inputted into the GDP and eventually in the AOP so the
potential Miscellaneous Surface Lease (MSL) is logged before the
oil company needs it. This ensures that the forest company gets the
timber and it is quota chargeable thus minimizing the AAC loss.
Acquisition of the MSL is simplified since the land has already
been harvested. Although some issues had to be resolved regarding
the impact of this process on other forest companies and the ASRD
(in regards to ground rules and standard forestry regulations), the
process is now working.
• Minimizes the impact on AAC by large
clearings (such as associated with the
mineable oil sands)
• Reduces timber loss (more timber is
salvaged in a planned and orderly
manner) and is charged to the quota
• Increased planning horizon for MSL
application
• Process for obtaining a MSL is
simplified since the timber has already
been harvested
• Normal forestry ground rules not
applied to lands designated for other
uses (such as mineable oil sands)
j) Planning Input into Area Operating Agreements (AOAs). More and
more energy sector companies are submitting AOAs to the
government. Although not as specific or detailed as an AOP, this
can be a tool or mechanism for forest industry input into the
planning process for the energy sector.
Opportunity for forest industry input at
the operational level
Opportunity for the forest industry to
address specific issues earlier in the
planning process
Improved communication and working
relationship between the energy and
forestry sectors
Reduced impact on forest land base and
AAC
Improved public confidence
Save time and money
k) Environmental Field Report (EFR). EFR’s are submitted by the
energy sector for every disposition. The form includes
opportunities to identify other stakeholders and to integrate
activities with other resource users including the forestry sector. If
there is a good working relationship, the EFR provides an
opportunity for forest industry input into the approval of all
dispositions.
Opportunity for forest industry input at
the operational level
Improved communication and working
relationship between the energy and
forestry sectors
Reduced impact on forest land base and
AAC
Save time and money
AFPA Green Paper– Integrated Land Management: A Win-Win Solution
11
2. Public Involvement/Information (general public, other resource users, government)
DESCRIPTION
BENEFITS
a) Open Houses for DFMP and/or AOP. Open houses are hosted by
forest companies to display information about the DFMP and/or
AOP. This provides an opportunity and forum to discuss and
review plans and to get input from interested stakeholders.
Invitations are by local advertising or direct invitations to known
stakeholders such as energy sector companies.
Opportunity for involvement and input
from other stakeholders, therefore, a
better plan
Coordinate activities (especially road
development) between the two sectors
Avoid potential conflicts in land use
Meet certification requirements
Improved public confidence
• Improved communication among the
various stakeholders
b) Forest Management Advisory Committees. The Forest
Management Advisory Committee is comprised of a broad
spectrum of public stakeholder representatives (municipalities,
energy, trappers, NGO’s, First Nations, Metis, general public)
who provide input into the development of Sustainable Forest
Management Plans and DFMP’s. Also, the forest company or
companies reports regularly to the committee on progress toward
management objectives and targets, and issues that are affecting
company operations and the industry.
• Meet certification requirements
• Improved public confidence
• Opportunity for input into management
c) Annual Meetings. Meetings between forest and energy companies
to discuss areas of mutual interests and opportunities including
operating plans and access development or use. The purpose is to
maintain communications and to promote integration. Meetings
are held regionally or at head offices in Calgary.
• Reduced impact on forest land base and
plans and forest industry operations
• Opportunity for the forest industry to
address specific issues raised by
various stakeholders
• Improved communication among the
various stakeholders
• Partially meeting the obligation to
consult with Aboriginals
AAC
• Reduced impact on wildlife habitat,
riparian areas, watercourse crossings
• Building relationships and improving
communications
• Meet certification requirements
• Enhanced SRD review and approval
• Cost savings
d) Public Information. Using kiosks and signs on trails to provide
the public and trail users information on forest management,
active operations and contact names.
AFPA Green Paper– Integrated Land Management: A Win-Win Solution
• Improved communications with the
public
• Public support
• Education of the public on forestry
practices and operations
• Public safety
12
3. Reclamation
DESCRIPTION
BENEFITS
a) Reforestation of dispositions. Maintaining a data base of all
dispositions and working closely with the energy sector provides
an opportunity for forest companies to reforest dispositions or
sites that are abandoned. This includes well sites, roads, seismic
lines and any other site no longer required or in use by the energy
sector. This is in lieu of the traditional method of seeding sites
with grass.
Maintaining the productive forestry land
base and AAC
Providing wildlife habitat
Improving/protecting the soil
• Meets certification requirements
• Potential to save money if reclamation
planning and work is done jointly
b) Post Reclamation Study. Cooperative research program with
forest company, Public Lands, SRD and the energy sector to
determine how different reclamation activities affect the soil and
potential for tree growth on abandoned dispositions. This will
provide future direction on reclamation procedures and policy.
• Maintaining the productive forestry
land base and AAC
• Cooperative approach to solve
problems or issues
• Working together; building
relationships
• Pooling resources to maximize benefits
• Maintaining the productive forestry
land base and AAC
• Ensuring energy sector have sufficient
and the best seed for their reclamation
• Improved communication and working
relationship between the energy and
forestry sectors
• Cost savings
c) Reforestation of Oil Sand Developments. Major oil sand
companies have joined the tree improvement program for white
spruce. The forestry sector is managing the program on behalf of
the energy sector for a certain volume of seed that will be used to
reforest reclaimed oil sand lands.
AFPA Green Paper– Integrated Land Management: A Win-Win Solution
13
4. Roads/Right-of-Ways/Linear Disturbances
DESCRIPTION
BENEFITS
a) Coordinated Pipeline Corridors. The forest company working
with energy companies as they develop their pool plans;
requesting pipeline route information before approving well site
applications. This provides the opportunity to coordinate
pipelines with proposed or existing road corridors.
• Maintaining the productive forestry
land base and AAC
• Reduced impact on wildlife habitat,
soils, riparian areas
• Fewer roads or linear disturbances.
• Public confidence
• Enhanced SRD review and approval
• Meets certification requirements
• Cost savings
b) Joint Road Development and Use. Forestry and energy companies
jointly construct and/or maintain access roads. Ownership, road
use and maintenance may be shared depending upon individual
circumstances.
• Fewer roads
• Maintaining the productive forestry
land base and AAC
• Reduced impact on wildlife habitat,
riparian areas
• Meets certification requirements
• Cost savings
c) Parallel Dispositions. Promoting the location of new ROW’s for
pipelines or power lines immediately adjacent to existing roads or
ROW’s and using the existing ROW or road as work space for the
new ROW.
• Reduction in the total width of new
ROW
• Maintaining the productive forestry
land base and AAC
• Less soil disturbance; reduced impact
on soils and riparian areas
d) Tree Free Power Lines. Removing all danger trees along power
lines. Logging is done as part of approved cut blocks; cut blocks
are reforested to normal standards; land is not removed from
forest land base.
• Reduction in the risk of forest fires by
removing danger trees along power
lines
• No loss in land base and AAC (tree free
area is reforested and maintained as
part of the productive land base)
AFPA Green Paper– Integrated Land Management: A Win-Win Solution
14
5. Administrative (consent process, fees, dispute resolution)
DESCRIPTION
BENEFITS
a) Road Use Fees/Master Road Use Agreements. No charge for
commercial use of forest industry roads (LOC’s) by the energy
sector; or reciprocal road use agreements that do not include a
charge for commercial use on company roads by the other sector.
Company usually maintains the right to charge or share road
maintenance cost and for any road damage.
• Promotes use of existing access by
energy sector
• Promotes joint planning and use of
roads by both sectors
• Maintaining the productive forestry
land base and AAC
• Reduced impact on wildlife habitat,
soils, riparian areas
• Cost saving for energy and/or forest
sectors
• Promote future cooperation with the
energy sector
• Improved communication and working
relationship between the energy and
forestry sectors
b) Land Withdrawal Consent. Assessment by Land use Coordinator
of all new energy sector disposition applications to look for
integration opportunities (i.e. joint corridors, identifying future
pipeline crossing locations, etc.). Use the consent process to
negotiate conditions to mitigate impact on forestry operations and
the forest landbase.
• Maintaining the productive forestry
land base and AAC
• Reduced impact on wildlife habitat,
soils, riparian areas
• Enhanced SRD review and approval
• Meets certification requirements
• Cost savings
c) Joint Agreements. Individual forest and energy companies
signing a memoranda or letter of agreement that spells out the
principles on how the two companies will work together in the
broad area of “integration”. Includes detailed action plans in
agreed to areas of interest such as planning, access management,
reclamation, safety, wildlife, data management, etc.
• Managing or reducing the industrial
footprint
• Maintaining the productive forestry
land base and AAC
• Improved communication and working
relationship between the energy and
forestry sectors
• Increased public support and
confidence in industry’s management
of the resource
• Enhanced SRD review and approval
• Meets certification requirements
• Cost savings
d) Dispute Resolution. An agreed to dispute resolution process
through SRD to quickly and efficiently resolve any differences on
a disposition application (such as location, timing, etc.)
• Improved communication and working
relationship between the energy and
forestry sectors
• Disputes or disagreements resolved
quickly
AFPA Green Paper– Integrated Land Management: A Win-Win Solution
15
DESCRIPTION
BENEFITS
e) LOC Consent. Energy sector’s LOC’s are placed in the name of
the FMA holder or forestry company.
• Cost saving for energy sector (no TDA)
• Reduced administrative burden
including liability for energy sector
• Promotes joint use of access roads with
associated benefits
f) Municipal Setback Policy. Lobby or negotiate with local
municipalities to reduce or modify the standard setbacks to
theoretical right of ways (road allowances) in counties and MD’s.
• Reduces forest fragmentation and
isolation of patches of timber
• Reduced impact on the forest land base,
wildlife habitat, soils, riparian areas
• Change already accepted by some
municipalities
g) Geophysical Waiver. Provide waiver for all crown dues and TDA
on low impact seismic lines (average width of 2.0 m or less)
• Maintaining the productive forestry
land base and AAC
• Reduced impact on wildlife habitat,
soils, riparian areas
• Meets certification requirements
• Cost saving (administrative fees) for
energy sector
h) Long Term Planning – Mineable Oil Sands. Negotiating a
Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) with mineable oil sand
companies. The MOU outlines an agreement between the forestry
and energy sectors on how to work together to minimize the
impact of large clearings on the forestry landbase and AAC.
Agreement on access planning, salvage procedure, reclaimation,
etc. are all described in the MOU. Once signed, the MOU can
facilitate the EUB approval process.
• Minimizes the impact on AAC by large
clearings (such as associated with the
mineable oil sands)
• Improved communication and working
relationship between the energy and
forestry sectors
• Provides an opportunity and
mechanism for input into each sector’s
business
• Input into EUB approval process;
facilitates approval
AFPA Green Paper– Integrated Land Management: A Win-Win Solution
16
6. Fish and Wildlife
DESCRIPTION
BENEFITS
a) Caribou Habitat Management. Participation in multiindustry/government groups interested in caribou and the
management of caribou habitat.
• Meeting certification requirements
• Enhancing wildlife habitat
• Promoting decision making based on
science
• Energy and forestry sectors working
together to solve common issues
• Cost saving through collaboration
b) Caribou Habitat Restoration. Planting and/or rollback of
designated seismic lines in caribou habitat by the forestry and/or
energy sector company.
• Reduced access
• Maintaining the productive forestry
land base and AAC
• Energy and forestry sectors working
together to solve common issues
• Habitat enhancement for caribou
c) Wildlife Habitat. Manage caribou areas to provide suitable habitat
through time by long term planning of the amount and
distribution of forest cover conducive to caribou and minimizing
the land development features that diminish the value of
conserved habitat.
• Enhancing wildlife habitat
• Meeting certification requirements
• Improved public confidence and
support
• Enhanced SRD review and approval
• Improved working relationship with
energy sector
d) Fish Monitoring. Joint fish monitoring to provide energy and
forestry sectors with fish inventories.
• Decision making based on sound
science
• Enhanced fish habitat
• Public confidence
• Cost saving through collaboration
e) Stream Crossing Monitoring. The energy and forestry sector
working together in a defined area to inspect and/or monitor all
stream crossings and to develop joint work plans to maintain and
repair crossings based on agreed to priorities.
• Improved water quality
• Improved fish habitat
• Energy and forestry sectors working
together to solve common issue
• Support of the regulators
• Save money
AFPA Green Paper– Integrated Land Management: A Win-Win Solution
17
7. Recreation
DESCRIPTION
BENEFITS
a) Integration with Trail Users. Stakeholders are invited to provide
input in the planning process to identify important trails; trails
can then be accomodated in the plan and operations. In some
cases, trails are signed to identify cut blocks and road crossings
as active operating areas.
• Maintaining and/or expanding the
existing trail system
• Public confidence and support
• Enhanced soil protection in riparian or
sensitive areas (trails can be moved
during operations to more favorable
locations)
• Enhanced SRD review and approval
• Minimizing negative impact on forest
land base and AAC
• Public safety
• Cost saving for trail users
b) Recreational Facilities. Forest companies providing and
maintaining recreational facilities in their operating areas. This
mainly includes campsites and picnic sites. Some sites were
completely developed by the forest company; others were
acquired from the Provincial Government when ASRD unloaded
many of their recreational facilities.
• Provides recreational facilities in areas
normally not serviced by the Provincial
Government
• Positive public image
• Opportunity to educate the public on
forestry and industry issues
c) Regional Planning (land use plan). Regional planning group such
as the West Yellowhead Corridor Working Group determine or
govern how commercial tourism applications will be handled in
this area. Basically this working group agrees on a land use plan.
• Maintaining the productive forestry
land base and AAC
• Meets certification requirements
• Public confidence and support
• Enhanced SRD review and approval
• Industry and government working
together
8. Operations
DESCRIPTION
a) Satellite Yard for Salvage Wood. Development of satellite log
yard or yards specifically for salvage logs.
AFPA Green Paper– Integrated Land Management: A Win-Win Solution
BENEFITS
• Maximizes recovery of salvage wood
thus minimizing the negative impact on
AAC
• Maximizes availability of log trucks
and/or configuration for hauling
salvage logs
• Improved communication and working
relationship between the energy and
forestry sectors
18
9. Others
DESCRIPTION
BENEFITS
a) Integrating Forestry Operations on Grazing Dispositions. Formal
partnership with ranchers and grazing disposition holders to
integrate forestry and grazing.
• Identification of goals and priorities for
both sectors
• Improved working relationship and
communication
• Public confidence and support
• Enhanced SRD review and approval
• Minimizing negative impact of grazing
on the forest land base and AAC
b) Tradition Cultural Studies. Supporting the Foothills Model Forest
Traditional Cultural Study and referral process, three aboriginal
communities are documenting their cultural information and the
site data is bing loaded onto the FtMF GIS. Once there is
sufficient data, forestry and energy companies will be able to take
their projects to the FtMF and find out which aboriginal
communities they need to consult with as part of their
operational planning.
• Improved working relationship and
communication with aboriginal
communities
• Meets certification requirements
• Enhanced SRD review and approval
• Improved access to the resource
c) Data Management. Providing FMA data to a data management
company for on-line access by the energy sector. This will allow
them to consider forest company values early in their planning
process and at their convenience.
• Cost saving to both sectors (reduced
staff workload)
• Confidentiality of data and plans (for
the energy sector)
• Improved integration
• Early consideration of forest industry
values in energy sector plans
• Improved working relationship and
communication
• Public confidence and support
• Enhanced SRD review and approval
• Reduced impact on the forest land base,
wildlife habitat, soils, riparian areas
d) Data Management and GIS. Maintain digital GIS layer showing
all dispositions and government reservations within the FMA
boundary.
• Provides essential information for
managing the forest land base and for
integrating with other users and
stakeholders
• Improved working relationship and
communication
• Enhanced SRD review and approval
AFPA Green Paper– Integrated Land Management: A Win-Win Solution
19
Appendix B
Index of practices
Appendix B cross-references the practices in Appendix A with the forest companies submitting them,
either from the AFPA survey or through follow-up interviews, to make it easier to identify the source of
the information.
#
NAME
1.a)
DFMP/GDP/AOP Development
1.b)
Compartment Design (CD)
1.c)
Regional Planning (access)
1.d)
Joint Forest Management Area (FMA)
1.e)
COMPANY
AREA
Ainsworth
DMI
Spray Lakes
Sundre Forest Products
Grande Prairie
Peace River
Cochrane
Sundre
Alberta Newsprint Company
(ANC)
Manning Diversified Forest
Products (MDFP)
Weyerhaeuser
Weyerhaeuser
Buchanan/Tolko
Tolko/Footner
Whitecourt
Manning
Drayton Valley
Grande Prairie
Long Term Access Plan (LTAP)
Hinton Wood Products
Hinton
1.f)
Integrated Land Management (ILM)
Guidebook
Sundre Forest Products
Sundre
1.g)
Route Planning Service
Hinton Forest Products
Hinton
1.h)
AAC Action Plan
Northland Forest Products
Fort McMurray
1.i)
Timber Salvage Planning
Northland Forest Products
Fort McMurray
1.j)
Planning Input into Area Operating
Agreements (AOA’s)
DMI
Peace River
1.k)
Environmental Field Report (EFR)
DMI
Peace River
2.a)
Open Houses for DFMP and/or AOP
ANC
Spray Lakes
Whitecourt
Cochrane
2.b)
Forest Management Advisory
Committees
Canfor
Grande Prairie
2.c)
Annual Meetings
2.d)
Public Information
Ainsworth
MDFP
Spray Lakes
Spray Lakes
Grande Prairie
Manning
Cochrane
Cochrane
AFPA Green Paper– Integrated Land Management: A Win-Win Solution
High Prairie
High Level
20
#
NAME
COMPANY
AREA
Ainsworth
ANC
Hinton Forest Products
MDFP
Tolko/Footner
Weyerhaeuser
Slave Lake Pulp
Grande Prairie
Whitecourt
Hinton
Manning
High Level
Grande Prairie
Slave Lake
Reforestation of Oil Sand
Developments
Northland Forest Products
Fort McMurray
4.a)
Coordinated Pipeline Corridors
Hinton Forest Products
Hinton
4.b)
Joint Road Development and Use
4.c)
Parallel Dispositions
Canfor
Slave Lake Pulp
Tolko/Footner
Weyerhaeuser
Buchanan
Grande Prairie
Slave Lake
High Level
Edson
Slave Lake
4.d)
Tree Free Power Lines
Buchanan
Slave Lake
5.a)
Road Use Fees/Master Road Use
Agreements
5.b)
Land Withdrawal Consent
5.c)
Joint Agreements
Buchanan
MDFP
Northland Forest Products
Spray Lakes
ANC
DMI
Millar Western
Canfor
Slave Lake
Manning
Fort McMurray
Cochrane
Whitecourt
Peace River
Whitecourt
Grande Prairie
5.d)
Dispute Resolution
Hinton Forest Products
Hinton
5.e)
LOC Consent
Millar Western
Whitecourt
5.f)
Municipal Setback Policy
Millar Western
Whitecourt
5.g)
Geophysical Waiver
Hinton Forest Products
Hinton
5.h)
Long Term Planning – Mineable Oil
Sands
Northland Forest Products
Fort McMurray
6.a)
Caribou Habitat Management
ANC
Canfor
Hinton Forest Products
(And others)
Whitecourt
Grande Prairie
Hinton
3.a)
Reforestation of dispositions
3.b)
Post Reclamation Study
3.c)
AFPA Green Paper– Integrated Land Management: A Win-Win Solution
21
#
NAME
COMPANY
AREA
6.b)
Caribou Habitat Restoration
ANC
Canfor
Whitecourt
Grande Prairie
6.c)
Wildlife Habitat (caribou)
Weyerhaeuser
Grande Prairie
6.d)
Fish Monitoring
Slave Lake Pulp
Slave Lake
6.e)
Stream Crossing Monitoring
Hinton Forest Products
Hinton
7.a)
Integration with Trail Users
7.b)
Recreational Facilities
7.c)
Regional Planning (land use plan)
Spray Lakes
Sundre Forest Products
Weyerhaeuser
Ainsworth
Canfor
Hinton Forest Products
Weyerhaeuser
Hinton Forest Products
Cochrane
Sundre
Grande Prairie
Grande Prairie
Grande Prairie
Hinton
Grande Prairie
Hinton
8.a)
Satellite Yard for Salvage Wood
Tolko/Footner
High Level
9.a)
Integrating Forestry Operations on
Grazing Dispositions
Hinton Forest Products
Spray Lakes
Hinton
Cochrane
9.b)
Tradition Cultural Studies
Hinton Forest Products
Hinton
9.c)
Data Management (through third party)
Hinton Forest Products
Hinton
9.d)
Data Management and GIS (internal)
Spray Lakes
Cochrane
AFPA Green Paper– Integrated Land Management: A Win-Win Solution
22
Appendix C
Recognition of supporting companies
The Alberta Forest Products Association would like to thank the following members for their financial
support of this document and for providing information on the various practices contained in this report.
Financial support:
• Alberta Newsprint Company
• Canadian Forest Products (CANFOR)
• Millar Western Forest Products
• Northland Forest Products Ltd.
• Sundre Forest Products (A wholly-owned subsidiary of West Fraser Mills Ltd.)
• Tolko Industries Ltd.
• Weyerhaeuser Company Limited
Completed surveys and/or participated in follow up interviews:
• Ainsworth Engineered Canada LP
• Alberta Newsprint Company
• Blue Ridge Lumber Inc.
• Buchanan Lumber
• Canadian Forest Products (CANFOR)
• Daishowa-Marubeni International (DMI)
• Footner Forest Products Ltd.
• Hinton Wood Products (A division of West Fraser Mills Ltd.)
• Manning Diversified Forest Products Ltd.
• Millar Western Forest Products Ltd.
• Northland Forest Products Ltd.
• Slave Lake Pulp (A wholly-owned subsidiary of West Fraser Mills Ltd.)
• Spray Lakes Sawmills (1980) Ltd.
• Sundre Forest Products (A wholly-owned subsidiary of West Fraser Mills Ltd.)
• Tolko Industries Ltd.
• Weyerhaeuser Company Limited
AFPA Green Paper– Integrated Land Management: A Win-Win Solution
23