1. 1 The Lower Athabasca Regional Plan: A Case Study Biol. 595 Sept. 16, 2009

2. Lower Athabasca Planning Region 93,000 km 2 Boreal Forest Green Zone

3. Fires since 1950

4. Major Land Uses

5. Net Present Value: Petroleum and Forestry

6. Crown Revenues in the Athabasca Region (2007)

7. 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

8. 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. 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. 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 CO 2,

11. 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

13. 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. 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. 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. 16 Key Learnings Most environmental indicators will decline outside their natural range of variation (NRV) with continued development in the absence of management intervention.

17. 2100-2105 Period 20 Intensive Protected Extensive Base Case 4MM b/d peak 050 km100 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.

18. 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. 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. 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?