The Wildlife Professional - Spring 2010 2009

environmental protection. The government therefore may have to pay compensation to “buy back” industrial commitments. Among other potential solutions:

• Establish large protected areas. The provincial government’s land-planning initiative for the region underlain by the bulk of the oil sands deposits explicitly recommends protecting at least 20 percent of the area from industrial development (Government of Alberta 2009b, 14). In our view this is a modest step in the right direction, but large tracts of the remaining landscape—much of which has been leased concurrently to the forest industry and the oil sands industry—should also be considered for protection.

• Require mitigation programs. Compensatory mitigation programs would require compensation for development impacts, enhance accountability for reclamation, and limit the area available for intensive oil sands development at any given time. Other areas around the world have been implementing such conservation and biodiversity offsets for decades, restoring or conserving areas to minimize habitat loss from ecosystem disturbances.

• Halt new oil sands approvals until planning is complete. Historically, oil sands development has outpaced the development of environmental rules. By limiting approvals for new oil sands dispositions and development, Alberta would buy time to create appropriate environmental management strategies to deal with impacts.

Learning From Canada Because the U.S. also has significant unconventional reserves, such as oil sands and oil shale, U.S. wildlife managers can learn some key cautionary lessons from the Canadian experience. As its oil sands industry evolved, Canada failed to effectively limit cumulative environmental impacts, to complete land use planning prior to resource allocations, and to set environmental objectives for wildlife populations and habitat. These missteps now pose significant threats to wildlife populations and, in our view, are tarnishing Canada’s international reputation.

It is not too late to conserve habitats and moderate the pace and scale of oil sands development to protect wildlife and habitat in northeastern Alberta, but this will take conscious decisions about acceptable environmental costs and the inevitable need to cap development at levels that can sustain wildlife populations. Moving forward, goals for wildlife

and habitat must be better integrated into resource management decision making.

The U.S. could also play a role. Because the majority of oil from oil sands production is destined for consumption in the U.S., simple reductions in U.S. oil use could negate the need for the kind of oil sands expansions that are being proposed. The Natural Resources Defense Council has calculated that an achievable package of improvements in vehicle efficiency, smart growth and transit, advanced bio-fuels, and increased deployment of electric vehicles could reduce U.S. consumption by over four million barrels of oil per day by 2020 (Natural Resources Defense Council 2009). That approach contradicts the “Bigger is Better!” mentality touted on the Alberta Department of Energy’s website, yet it would ultimately prove healthier for wildlife in Canada’s boreal forest and beyond.