CRP Ecological Conservation and Protection Initiative

May 2015 UPDATE  

Summary  of  April  9  Steering  Committee  Conservation  Themes  Workshop  

Summary   The April 9, 2015 CMP and Regional Services Steering Committee meeting was used as a workshop to 1) test the initial ecological data and planning themes, 2) present the preliminary work on creating a GIS-based Land Use Intensity model for the CRP, and 3) initiate the creation of an advisory group for the project.

What  Occurred   A summary presentation was given by the Miistakis Institute (Guy Greenaway) on the approach being taken to develop both the data models and the planning framework to support the Ecological Conservation and Protection Initiative. The Ecological Data and Planning Themes are a handful of conservation themes, drawn from the CMP and existing CRP and member resources, which will guide (and synthesize) the Ecological Data Update and the Ecological Conservation Plan. The Ecological Conservation Planning Process was outlined, with emphasis on the roles of themes, measures, targets and strategies (see Appendix)

 

… Page 2

CRP Ecological Conservation and Protection Initiative

For the workshop exercise, the meeting participants (electeds and staff) were divided into groups to answer three questions:

• Initial feedback on proposed themes? • Where should Miistakis go for support

in determining / refining themes? • What barriers might exist to the

acceptance of these themes? Quincy Brown, Jessica Letizia, and Kelly Learned facilitated the groups. The results/analysis are summarized below. Miistakis (Greg Chernoff) presented the results to date of the ecological data update, focusing on the work to develop a Land Use Intensity model based on human ‘footprint’ in the Calgary Region at 2007, 2010, and 2012 (see Appendix). Using an up-coming facilitated process, the CRP members will scale the different types of footprint based on the ‘intensity’ of land use they represent. Once completed, the model will allow members to assess the change in human activity which may have an impact on ecological infrastructure and services at three different spatial resolutions (1000 hectare, 100 ha, and 10 ha). Lastly, the Miistakis Institute identified the need for a working group (more correctly, an advisory group), to assist them throughout the development of both the ecological data update and the ecological conservation plan. Drawn from the Steering Committee members and designates, this group would provide insight based on the Committee’s mandate and perspective, as well as connecting the research team to municipal (and other) personnel who can provide the necessary expertise and/or perspective. A draft terms of reference was presented.

What  Was  the  Upshot   Feedback from the workshop participants was gathered by the three facilitators on flip charts, then later analyzed and summarized to guide the next steps in the research. Summaries of each question, as well as overall observations, are listed below:

Ecological Data and Planning Themes  

• Watershed health  • Ecological infrastructure  • Open space  • Food production  

 

… Page 3

CRP Ecological Conservation and Protection Initiative

QUESTION 1: The initial feedback: • Greater clarity is needed on the themes; how are they defined, what are the

components; especially open space and ecological infrastructure • Missing themes include connectivity, air quality and floodways • Food production and environmental protection not always congruous • Data collection needs to be objective; specificity in requests will aid this

QUESTION 2: Where to go for support in refining themes:

• Municipal strategies: City of Calgary BiodiverCity plan, Chestermere Wetland Strategy, Airdrie Ecological Inventory

• Provincial strategies: Environmental Significant Areas, species protection plans, public lands policies (grazing, energy, OHV), Wetland Policy

• NGOs: Bow River Basin Council, Alberta Recreation and Parks Association, Calgary Region Airshed Zone

• Provincial agencies: AESRD monitoring, Alberta Health, Human Services, Culture • Potential implementation strategies: Transfer of Development Credits

QUESTION 3: What might be barriers:

• Language – terms like ‘ecological infrastructure’ are jargony, need direct language

• Each member (and non-member) will have different priorities and opinions • Multiple ‘publics’ exist (developers, landowners) • Potential conflict between ‘sprawl’ and protection of open spaces • Difficulty will exist in showing how it will be implemented, apply to the ‘local’

level, what are the consequences • Poorly identified stakeholders

Overall, the following observations were made, and will guide the next steps of the research project:

• There is a lack of clarity on the purpose / role of the Ecological Conservation Plan, and how it will be used by / useful to member municipalities as well as the partnership as a whole;

• There is a strong commitment to the principles of conservation as articulated in the Calgary Metropolitan Plan, but how those principles will put into practice is unclear

• Linkages at the conceptual level are well supported, but (i.e., between conservation and other CRP priorities, between the CMP and municipal plans, between planning and data development, between CRP and GoA plans)

• Communication (clarity, engagement) will be a paramount issue in developing the data tools and conservation plan

 

… Page 4

CRP Ecological Conservation and Protection Initiative

What’s  Next   The next steps for the research project are:

• Conservation Theme Development - Continue to refine the themes based on the feedback provided; research the CRP member approaches to conservation planning; explore if the engagement approach is robust enough

• Themes Feedback – Circulate the ‘Conservation Theme Workshop Questions’ to the broader Committee / partnership for feedback

• Human Footprint / Land Use Intensity – Continue to process the footprint data sets, develop the land use intensity protocols, and structure the engagement for the user-defined scaling exercise

• Land Use Zoning Maps – Begin work on creating a set of harmonized land use zoning maps for the Calgary Region

• Advisory Group – Establish the advisory group, identifying standing and ad hoc members, and finalizing the terms of reference

 

What’s  Needed    

Are  you  eager  to  get  involved?  Here  are  a  couple  of  opportunities:  • The Land Use Intensity mapping exercise requires user input in order to give

‘intensity’ scores to each human footprint type. We need to assemble a group of CMP and Regional Services Steering Committee members in a short workshop to accomplish that. We’ll be contacting people, but volunteers are welcome! (contact Greg)

• The Conservation Themes research requires a review of all existing conservation / biodiversity / ecological / etc. plans (past and current) from member CRP municipalities. We’ll be getting in touch with all member municipalities, but call if you have something you think we’ll miss (contact Guy).

     

 For  more  information,  contact:  

 Guy  Greenaway  Miistakis  Institute  P:  403-­‐440-­‐8444  C:  403-­‐835-­‐4891  E:  guy@rockies.ca    Greg  Chernoff  Miistakis  Institute  P:  403-­‐440-­‐8444  E:  greg@rockies.ca    Quincy  Brown  Calgary  Regional  Partnership    C.  403-­‐510-­‐7838  P.  403-­‐851-­‐2509  quincy.brown@calgaryregion.ca    

 

… Page 5

CRP Ecological Conservation and Protection Initiative

Appendix    

Ecological  Conservation  Planning  Process                                            Human  Footprint  /  Land  Use  Intensity  Mapping  Example  (10  ha  hexagons)