M
EGANS
QUIRESPreamble.In 1997, theCalgary Heraldnewspaper issued a special report entitled,Kananaskis:
a ‘country’ at a crossroads. In it, author Bruce Masterman wrote, ‘paradise is under pressure’
and he suggested that the inevitabletug of war between development, resource extraction, conservation and recreational interests had raised concerns about the future of Kananaskis Country. In this case study, Megan Squires provides a glimpse into the complex world of resource management in Canada in one of Alberta’s most spectacular regions by offering examples to illustrate the challenges that decision makers face in trying to manage resources and provide opportunities for an increasingly diverse range of interests.
Introduction
Kananaskis Country is located in the Eastern Slopes region of the Canadian Rocky Mountains, covering an area of approximately 4160 km2. Situated on the western border of Alberta, the area known as Kananaskis Country is home to alpine and subalpine environments, native grasslands, deciduous and coniferous mixed wood forests, and glacial streams and rivers.
Resource planning and management in Kananaskis Country is implemented through a system of IREM – a system that has been in existence since the area was first established in 1977.
Within this integrated framework, planners and managers work to provide opportunities for a broad spectrum of interests including environmental protection and conservation, outdoor recreation, mineral exploration and development, rangeland activities, energy development and forestry.
A fisherman on Upper Kananaskis Lake. Note the dam controlling flow to the Kananaskis River and subsequently to the Bow River. The Bow River flows through the city of Calgary. Photo by Glyn Bissix.
Kananaskis Country is divided into five management areas: Kananaskis/Spray; Upper Elbow/Upper Sheep; Elbow/Jumping Pound; Sheep/Threepoint; and Highwood. A zoning scheme is applied within each area, and the designations, in order from the highest level of environmental protection to the lowest, include: prime protection, critical wildlife, special use, general recreation, multiple use, industry and facility.
Background
The Elbow/Jumping Pound resource management area is located along the eastern boarder of Kananaskis Country. It is part of the foothills ecoregion and contains the greater Elbow River and Jumping Pound Creek drainage. The main priorities for management within the Elbow/Jumping Pound area include the following:
● Maintenance of water quality and quantity
● Provision for recreational opportunities
● Provision for mineral resource development
An oil company interpretative sign in Kananaskis Country emphasizing the importance of multiple-use resource management. Photo by Glyn Bissix.
● Maintenance of fish and wildlife resources for conservation and recreation
● Ecological and archaeological protection (Alberta Forestry Resource Evaluation and Planning Division, 1986, pp. 55–56)
The Elbow/Jumping Pound area contains four management zones: (i) prime protection;
(ii) critical wildlife; (iii) general recreation; and (iv) multiple use. In conjunction with the identified zones, management objectives and guidelines are also required to ensure that opportunities for recreation, oil and gas development, ranching and environmental protection are maintained and enhanced.
In 1994, Grey Wolf Oil initiated a licensing application to the Provincial Resource Devel- opment Board to gain permission to drill three wells from three different surface well locations within a 6400 ha area located near Magpie Ridge in the Elbow/Jumping Pound region of Kan- anaskis Country. Concurrent with this application, Grey Wolf also submitted an application to Kananaskis Country for approval to develop access roads and well sites. Grey Wolf’s proposed application generated a considerable amount of public interest among recreational users, ranchers, environmentalists, First Nations groups and surrounding communities. As a result of the overwhelming concern and in light of the significant opposing evidence, the Resource Development Board ordered a public hearing to review the merits of Grey Wolf’s application.
The Current Issue
In 1924, the Federal Department of the Interior initiated the transfer of responsibility for mineral resources to the Province of Alberta. A ‘wet gas’ discovery at the Turner Valley Royalite No. 4 sparked immediate interest in mineral development, and it forever changed the face of oil and gas exploration in Alberta. However, it was not until 1930 that the province gained formal control over all of its mineral resources (Warne, 1981, p. 33). Once in charge, the provincial government and industry representatives were under pressure to devise and maintain a legislative and regulatory framework to ensure that mineral exploration and development would be efficient as well as consistent with the present and future needs of Albertans. Responding to this pressure, the Provincial Resource Development Board (PRDB) was established in 1971 to assist with legislative and regulatory responsibilities. Through its evolution, the PRDB has successively broadened its mandate to include regulation for all energy resources in Alberta including oil, natural gas, oil sands, coal and electrical energy, as well as the pipelines and transmission lines that transport energy to market. As part of its regulatory function, the PRDB handles, processes and issues decisions on new or amended applications for energy activities throughout Alberta. A fundamental aim of the process is to ensure that energy development activities are conducted in a manner that is consistent with the public interest.
In 1992/1993, Grey Wolf Oil acquired the rights to drill a discovery well in the Magpie Ridge area in Kananaskis Country. As a result of that well, Grey Wolf confirmed the presence of hydrocarbons. However, the company’s inability to perform adequate testing to determine the extent of the well’s productivity was the basis for this current application. Grey Wolf repre- sentatives argued before the PRDB that there was a significant need for five additional wells in order to determine adequately whether further development of the Magpie field was necessary. In theory, by the time that an application is presented in front of the PRDB, appli- cants should already have assessed the economic, social and environmental impacts of their proposed development. The pre-hearing preparation is viewed as an important step to ensure that companies such as Grey Wolf Oil establish their credibility and their commitment to the long-term interests of sustainability in the area where they are proposing to drill.
At its application hearing in 1995, Grey Wolf acknowledged its uncertainty regarding the commercial productivity of the proposed wells. The company argued that without clear documentation of the drilling potential, it was neither economically feasible nor procedurally efficient to initiate a detailed environmental assessment of the impacts that might ensue if extensive development were to occur. While Grey Wolf recognized the gaps in its understand- ing of the environmental factors, the company stated upfront that it would commit to a full-scale environmental assessment if and when the proposed wells were proven to be pro- ductive. In the assessment, Grey Wolf would address issues related to wildlife and aquatic habitats, recreational use, public safety and rangeland productivity. Prior to the hearing, Grey Wolf Oil undertook a public consultation process in order to present the details of their application and to hear the issues and concerns of key stakeholders. The elements of their consultation programme included research, distribution of an information circular, exposure through various forms of media (television, radio and newspapers), and meetings with local communities and interest groups.
The Interest Groups
Recreation
Recreation in the Elbow/Jumping Pound managing area represents a diverse range of activity groups including hiking, camping, fishing, mountain biking, horse riding, dirt biking, off-highway vehicle use and hunting (Alberta Forestry Resource Evaluation and Planning Division, 1986). The characteristics of the different recreational users including their distinct patterns – type, timing and frequency of use as well as group size and equipment requirements – are fundamental in developing an understanding about the motivations and expectations that different users have for their recreation experiences. Likewise, recognition of the charac- teristics of various recreational groups can provide insight into different users’ levels of under- standing about IREM and multiple use and the presence of oil and gas development in Kananaskis Country. Recreational representatives attending the Grey Wolf Oil hearing were tasked with the complex challenge of presenting a unified account of the issues despite concerns that many diverse and often conflicting opinions existed within the recreation community. Table 8.1 provides an overview of the recreational interest groups and their issues regarding Grey Wolf’s proposal.
Environment (aquatic and terrestrial habitats)
Context plays an important role in understanding how and why certain decisions are made.
Oil and gas exploration and development have long been the driving force behind Alberta’s robust economy. In fact, it is widely accepted that Alberta’s social, environmental and eco- nomic well-being is inherently linked to the price of oil. Therefore, it stands to reason that oil and gas companies in Alberta maintain a significant amount of power in the decision-making process. However, despite what may appear to be an uneven playing field, environmental groups have continued to fight for tougher environmental legislation, regulation and enforce- ment in Alberta. Presenting information before the PRDB was a welcome opportunity for these groups to give voice to the hitherto unspoken amenity values of natural environments. Several representatives from the environmental community presented information at the Grey Wolf Oil hearing. Among their concerns, the representatives expressed regret for the level of degradation that had already compromised the ecological integrity of Kananaskis Country,
and specifically the Elbow/Jumping Pound management area. The environmental groups also communicated their concerns about the ‘big picture’ issues and the impacts of development on regional resources. A complete listing of the environmental community’s concerns is documented in Table 8.1.
Interest groups Characteristics
Issues with proposed oil and gas development
Oil and Gas (Grey Wolf Oil)
Recreation
Environment (terrestrial and aquatic conservation)
Rangeland First Nations
External communities
Government
Direct: Grey Wolf Oil (primary licence applicant)
Indirect: Oceanic Oil (also maintain an oil and gas lease in Kananaskis Country) Active: hiking, camping, fishing,
mountain biking, horse riding, dirt biking and off-highway vehicles
Hunting: large carnivores (bears, wolves, cougars), ungulates (moose, elk, sheep, deer) and game birds (grouse and ptarmigan)
Non-profit environmental advocacy groups, interested public
Local stock association Native reserve bordering
Kananaskis Country and the Elbow/Jumping Pound Region Residential and commercial
communities bordering Kananaskis Country and the Elbow/Jumping Pound Region
Alberta Environment (water issues); forestry, lands and wildlife; parks and protected areas; Alberta Energy
Uncertainty about the commercial value of the well development, concern about the loss of revenue that the companies will suffer if the well application is denied.
Access, future opportunities, com- promised amenity values (the spiritual and emotional attributes of the landscape), crowding, con- flict, and diminished quality of experience for both local and tourist populations. Potential impacts to game and habitat, and diminished wilderness
experience.
Inadequate environment assess- ment outlining: impacts to sensitive wildlife populations and habitat (ecological diversity), monitoring strategies to access cumulative effects, the impacts of proposed surface disturbances (access roads and well pads), and possible impacts to habitat resulting from a sour gas leak.
Range quality and livestock health and productivity.
Spiritual values, traditional hunting practices, involvement in the pre-hearing public consultation process.
Increased traffic through Bragg Creek, trans-boundary effects (air and water pollution), diminished tourist market resulting from poor visitor experiences in Kananaskis Country.
Development that is consistent with:
regional policy, the IRP (inte- grated resource plan) for Kananaskis Country, subregional management objectives; lack of interagency coordination.
Table 8.1. Summary of interest group characteristics and issues.
Rangeland
Domestic grazing has been an active component of the Elbow/Jumping Pound management area for over 40 years (even before Kananaskis Country was formally established). Within the area, there are four complete grazing allotments and portions of two additional allotments (Alberta Forestry Resource Evaluation and Planning Division, 1986). Ranchers tend to view themselves as ‘stewards of the land’ whose job it is to maintain and to enhance land resources through sound management. In the event that terrestrial or aquatic resources were to be damaged by oil and gas developments, range owners would be forced to consider not only the environmental impacts and the long-term health of their cattle, but also the economic investment that would inevitably be lost. In the past, ranching interests expressed concerns about being ignored in decision making. Collectively, they represent a small number amongst the broad range of stakeholders in Kananaskis Country. As a result, many ranchers believed that despite the legitimacy of their concerns, their interests had been ignored in past decision-making processes. The PRDB hearing was an opportunity to express opinions and to discuss the potential impacts of mineral development on rangeland health and cattle productivity. The issues raised by rangeland representatives are highlighted in Table 8.1.
First Nations
First Nation representatives issued a formal request for an adjournment prior to the Grey Wolf hearing. Their rationale for the request was to give affected aboriginal groups an opportunity to study the impacts of the well application on their treaty and aboriginal rights. First Nations indicated that an investigation into the impacts of development on native spirituality and hunt- ing rights in the Magpie Ridge area was needed and that Grey Wolf Oil should have addressed these issues during their public consultation process. First Nations groups intended to use the hearing process as a forum for discussing aboriginal rights to natural resources. The issues that First Nations groups brought to the table are also listed in Table 8.1.
External communities
Individuals from several surrounding communities attended the Grey Wolf Oil hearing. The community representatives indicated that trans-boundary issues were the primary reason for their participation. The representatives stated that the proximity of their communities to the Elbow/Jumping Pound area raised real concerns about public safety, water quality, public access and economic development through tourism as a result of the proposed oil and gas development. Again Table 8.1 documents the external communities’ concerns.
Provincial government
The provincial government’s role in oil and gas development within Kananaskis Country is to ensure that drilling is consistent with legislative and policy frameworks, official planning documents, and regional and subregional management objectives. Government interests are represented through multiple agencies. Also, the provincial government is responsible for con- sidering the diverse interests of recreation, industry, ranching, First Nations and environmental protection as part of its commitment to multiple use.
Conclusions
IREM and multiple-objective resource management are tools, i.e. approaches designed to aid resource planning and management. Their role is to guide and direct planners and managers in their efforts to make decisions amidst the increasing complexity of demands from various interest groups in natural resource management. This complexity is illustrated in the Grey Wolf Oil application. Based on evidence presented at the PRDB hearing, it is clear that Grey Wolf’s proposal for oil and gas development in the Magpie Ridge Region of Kananaskis Country has significant consequences for a broad range of resource interests: recreation, conservation, rangeland, First Nations, external (or surrounding) communities, and provincial government agencies (see Table 8.2). Without question, the PRDB faces an enormous challenge in reaching a decision about the proposed development.
Opportunities Challenges
Recreation
Environmental
Economic
Improved access for recreation to areas in the Elbow/Jumping Pound Region due to road construction and subsequent reclamation; greater likelihood that Grey Wolf will partner with land management agencies and interest groups to help maintain and enhance resource opportunities; and an increased potential for the public to learn about industrial operations and to become involved in the monitoring and regulation of industrial resource use.
Industrial development in the Elbow/
Jumping Pound Region might ensure that: (i) companies comply with environ- mental regulations; (ii) regulating bodies are more consistent in enforce- ment of regulations; and (iii) public support for environmental and social advocacy increases as more people become aware of the impacts of industrial development on natural resources, wildlife and people.
Oil and gas development can contribute positively to Alberta’s economy, which can result in increased provincial spending on health, education, environment and arts and culture.
It can also result in job creation.
Loss of access for recreation to areas within the development zones; health and safety risks for human and live- stock populations resulting from water and soil contamination and air pollu- tion; and compromised spiritual and amenity value of the area for visitors.
Industrial development in the Magpie Ridge area might result in: (i) a loss of critical habitat for wildlife and aquatic populations; (ii) permanent damage to terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems;
(iii) water and soil contamination; and (iv) air pollution.
There are significant costs associated with the development application process. If the development proves unsuccessful, companies may find it difficult to recover their costs. Local communities could suffer losses resulting from diminished real estate values and the tourism industry could lose business because visitors may choose to travel to other locations, where development is not permitted.
Similarly, environmental damage could prove costly for companies in the event of a leak or spill.
Table 8.2. A summary of opportunities and challenges for Maple Ridge.
Discussion Questions
1. What does the term resource management mean? By using an example, illustrate how the term resource management differs in meaning from that of resource development?
2. Can leaving an area to natural forces be considered a form of resource management or resource development? If so, why?
3. Give an illustration as to how natural matter can have its value altered by advances in technology.
4. Using examples from your home region, describe where you believetechnocentricthink- ing has dominated resource management and whereecocentricideology has prevailed?
5. Explain why no truly rational solution can be developed for the so-called ‘tragedy of the commons’.
6. According to Van Maaren, multiple-objective resource management requires the system- atic assessment of a natural resource to deliver an optimal combination of outputs from that resource. Why does Rees argue that this is difficult or impossible to do in practice?
7. Turner’svery weak sustainability (VWS) typology is said to violate the second law of thermodynamics, which states that matter cannot be created or destroyed. In relation to the various forms of capital, such as manufactured, natural, human and moral capital, what trading between these various forms of capital would infer a creation or destruction of matter?
8. The United Nations ‘Agenda for Development’ argued that we should ‘know when to let market forces act, when to let civil society take the lead, and when government should inter- vene directly’. Give an example where market forces have worked well, where government intervention has been successful, and where civil society has provided strong leadership in resource and environmental management.
9. Give a specific example as to how environmental degradation might be usefully decoupled from development.
10. It is said that as market activities expand and production externalities increase, the need for government or state intervention increases. Provide an example of where civil society might be more successfully involved to reduce the pollution excesses of the marketplace.
11. In Western countries, it is common to find so-called gas (petrol) wars where the price of a litre or gallon of fuel changes quickly in response to local market conditions. List three diffi- culties policy makers might have in setting an appropriate size for a green tax designed to reduce environmental degradation under such quickly fluctuating market conditions.
Case Study Discussion Questions
12. Imagine you are a member of the PRDB and you are overseeing the public hearing in the Grey Wolf application for well licences in the Magpie Ridge area. Which criteria would you select to evaluate the information presented in this case?
13. In the event that the Grey Wolf application is approved, what are the potential sustainable development impacts including economic, social and environmental impacts of this decision?
14. IREM is an approach that recognizes that the use of one natural resource can affect the management and use of other resources. In many cases, the goal of IREM is to optimize resource use in order to achieve the maximum benefit (Alberta Forestry, Lands and Wildlife Resource Planning Branch, 1991). In accordance with this definition, what are the benefits of an integrated approach in Kananaskis Country? What are the most significant challenges?