1

The Lower Athabasca Regional Plan: A Case

Study

Biol. 595Sept. 16, 2009

Lower AthabascaPlanning Region

• 93,000 km2

• Boreal Forest• Green Zone

Peace

River

AthabascaRiver

Fires since 1950

Major Land Uses

Net Present Value: Petroleum and Forestry

Crown Revenues in the Athabasca Region (2007)

4

3,000

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

Forestry Oilsands

Crow

n Re

venu

e ($

mill

ions

)

7

Management Approach

• Environmental impact assessments and review (large projects)• Mineral surface leases (oil and gas)• Forest Management Agreements and Detailed Forest Management Plans• Operating plans, permits, regulations:

Mitigation of environment damage

Many land managers: SRD, Env, Energy, ERCB

1999

A Framework for:• support for continued economic development that addresses environ- mental needs• creating an enhanced management framework• foundation of environ- mental information• identifying priority issues

9

Cumulative Env. Mgmt. Assoc. (CEMA)

Multi-Stakeholder Association with over 40 member organizations:

Industry (forest sector, energy sector)

Environmental NGOs

Municipal, Provincial and Federal governments (multiple depts)

Aboriginal

provides recommendations to government on how to manage cumulative environmental effects

Working Groups for Air, Land and Water:

NOxSOx

Surface Water

Reclamation

Trace Metal Air Contaminants

Traditional Ecological Knowledge

Sustainable Ecosystems

10

Conflicts

• Oilsands vs. gas producers• Oilsands vs. forestry companies• Resource industry vs. Native People• Social issues in Fort McMurray• Ecological issues:

• Rapid decline in caribou populations• Loss of old growth along river valleys

• Reduced quantity and quality of water in the Athabasca River

• Reclamation of tailings ponds (lakes)

• Release of CO2,

11

Priorities of Albertans (2006) 62% of respondents agree with the statement,

“I feel that no industrial activity should occur in areas which are habitat for endangered species, no matter how careful companies try to be.”

84% of respondents agree with the statement, “Access and use of forests should be based firstly on preserving and protecting the environment and sustaining wildlife habitat at the expense of sustained economic benefits and jobs”

76% of respondents agree with the statement, “I feel that the government needs to put limits and set priorities on who is able to use the forest, how, when and where.”

Alberta Forest Products Association

Key Points:• supported by extensive stakeholder-driven scenario analyses • acknowledges energy as the key driver; trade- offs will be necessary• triad proposed as central management approach with 20-40% protection• range of natural variation concept

14

Management Goals: Environmental

• Preserve the diversity of species, ecosystems and landscapes• Sustain viable and healthy populations of wildlife and fish• Sustain the natural range of vegetation communities, successional patterns, and ecological processes• Sustain natural watersheds and their elements

15

Management Goals: Economic

• Sustain a land base for timber harvest• Maintain opportunities for oilsands and hydrocarbon reserves development• Maintain opportunities for mineral resource development• Maintain opportunities for tourism development

• Maintain opportunities for consumptive use of fish and wildlife and for traditional Aboriginal use

16

Key LearningsMost environmental indicators will decline outside their natural range of variation (NRV) with continued development in the absence of management intervention.

2100-2105

Period 20

Intensive

ProtectedExtensive

Base Case Bitumen Production (bbl/d)

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

4,000,000

4,500,000

2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065 2075 2085 2095

Year

Bitu

men

Pro

duct

ion

(bbl

/d)

Base Case 4MM b/d peak

0 50 km 100 km

Key Learning:An 20% network of protected areas could be designed without limiting the ability to deliver a 4 million bbl/d peak bitumen production scenario.

Key Points:• completion within 1 year• led by government planning team• supported by modeling team and a public advisory committee• time horizon = 50 years• plan will articulate desired outcomes• plan will integrate provincial policies• plan will set thresholds to manage cumulative impacts• 20% protection target

2009

19

Reasons for Concern

A regional plan is not the only source of objectives for decision makers:

Existing sectoral policies and mandates

Municipal officials answerable to local voters

Resource companies answerable to shareholders

Momentum of existing land-use trajectory

Lessons from past planning initiatives

20

Who is the Land Manager?

Who is accountable for ensuring that management thresholds or limits are respected within a system characterized by considerable decentralization in decision making?

Who is responsible for monitoring progress and taking action to keep the regional plan on track if and when problems are encountered?