History

• Twenty-three conditions and 12 observations are attached to this certificate. National Boreal Standard (NBS) criteria appear to be considerably more demanding than the current provincial government’s requirements. NBS requires certified companies to set aside and protect representative samples of the ecosystems found across the landscape in which they operate. Al-Pac has formally committed to defer from logging on 5,107 ha between Touchwood Lake and the Park and PRA boundaries for the next five years. However, under the specific conditions in Al-Pac’s FSC certification, Al-Pac simply commits to trying to establish protected areas.
• FSC will perform annual scheduled audits as well as random audits in order to evaluate Al-Pac’s success in satisfying the set conditions.
• Al-Pac’s ability to hold on to this “green” certificate demands that Al-Pac fulfills the certificate’s conditions and complies with FSC principles and the NBS criteria. These conditions are outlined in Al-Pac’s Certification Assessment report (pdf 177KB). • Nearly 300,000 ha of the lands found in the Al-Pac FMA are removed from the certified landscape. No discussion is offered, however, of how the FSC policy on excision and its 5 percent limit were applied to this certification decision.
• Certification Condition 6.4(b) stipulates: “By the end of Year 1 of certification, Al-Pac shall document progress in terms of permanent protection of ecological benchmark areas within the Al-Pac FMA area. Al-Pac shall have worked with the provincial government, First Nations, the forest and energy industries and ENGO’s to achieve the protection of the Gypsy-Gordon, Athabasca Rapids and Lakeland deferral areas.” AWA is disappointed that this condition demands no more than that Al-Pac “document progress” and work towards establishing legislative protection in Lakeland.
• Observation 6.4 states: “Al-Pac should consider encouraging the government to complete the Lakeland Provincial Park Management Plan, and supporting an assessment of the Cold Lake Air Weapons Range.” Again, AWA is disappointed with the timid language used here by the FSC.

AWA’s Ian Urquhart writes to Smartwood’s Director and Chief of Forestry concerning the Draft Report on Al-Pac’s FSC certification application. Urquhart reiterates AWA’s earlier position that the National Boreal Standard must demand stronger actions from Al-Pac in respect to promoting protection in lands adjacent to its FMA (such as Lakeland Provincial Park/Recreation Area and the Cold Lake Air Weapons Range). Specifically, as a condition of certification, “Al-Pac should encourage the provincial government to complete the Lakeland Provincial Park Management Plan to satisfy the IUCN’s Category II protected area criteria and support an assessment of the protected areas/ecological benchmarks potential of the forest contained in the Cold Lake Air Weapons Range.” AWA also argues that the certification decision must include an explanation of how the FSC policy on excising areas from the scope of a certification was applied in respect to Al-Pac’s FMA.

AWA’s Ian Urquhart writes to Minister of Community Development Gary Mar requesting that his department endorse the need to conduct an extensive scientific study of the CLAWR’s biodiversity potential. Urquhart notes that Minister of National Defence Bill Graham has expressed his conditional commitment to this course of action and that in the past Saskatchewan negotiated with the Canadian military and established three protected areas comprising nearly 171,000 ha on its portion of the Range. Urquhart also repeats AWA’s request for the long-awaited release of the Lakeland Management Plan and for a description of the public participation mechanisms that will be established to examine the Plan.

Minister of Community Development Gary Mar writes AWA to say he is pleased to learn of the conditional commitment from the Department of National Defence to work with the provincial government to establish a protected area on the Air Weapons Range and that his department “would be pleased to participate in discussions regarding protection of forests within the base.”

AWA’s Ian Urquhart writes to the team assembled to conduct an assessment of Al-Pac’s forestry management practices with respect to Al-Pac’s application for Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) “green” certification. Following are the main points:

• AWA does not support a certification of Al-Pac’s total FMA due to the extensive fragmentation of the FMA by petroleum operations and other forestry operations (so-called uncontrolled factors). This aligns with the FSC criteria that “the area affected by the uncontrolled factors is a very limited proportion of the Forest Management Unit.” If uncontrolled factors are affecting more than 5 percent of the landscape, then even a partial certification of Al-Pac would violate FSC policy.
• If Al-Pac receives a partial certification, a condition should be that the company work with AWA to obtain legislated protection for the Touchwood Lake deferral.
• The Annual Allowable Cut (and cutting activities) in Al-Pac’s FMU L1 must be reduced considerably to conserve the old-growth forests in that area.
• Al-Pac should be required to work with AWA to secure a Lakeland Management Plan that will satisfy the IUCN’s Category II protected area criteria and to measure the conservation potential of the Cold Lake Air Weapons Range.

AWA’s Ian Urquhart notes that a recent mapping of the locations of active petroleum, natural gas, and oil sands leases on the Cold Lake Air Weapons Range show that “some townships … appear to be characterized by more wells than forest. One oil sands company, for example, has erected 796 wells on 54 sections of land” (Wild Lands Advocate).

• It is almost certain that many rare, at risk, or sensitive species and ecosystems occur within the CLAWR.
• Much of CLAWR is under strong development pressure due to abundant reserves of oil sands. The overwhelming source of landscape disturbance within the CLAWR proper is due to the petroleum industry.
• The peatlands and mineral wetlands in the CLAWR occupy a large portion of the landscape, are little documented, and are at risk due to the activities of the petroleum industry.
• Within the CLAWR, the data available indicate that forests older than 100 years occupy 11.6 percent of the area. There may be extensive old-growth in the widespread wooded fens and bog-fens, but age data are lacking.
• No recent cutblocks are evident within the CLAWR, but logging is evident near the boundary and is intense in some areas.
• Expansion of agriculture and settlement continues at the southern fringe of the CLAWR.
• One of the current strengths of the region is its connectivity, which improves from west to east.
• To the south of the CLAWR, the Elizabeth and Fishing Lake Metis settlements appear to be the least disturbed areas in the region and may hold high conservation value. Common goals may be found through discussion with the local Metis Associations.

AWA writes to Al-Pac and urges the company to defer from logging in several cutblocks north of the Touchwood Lake road. AWA argues that deferrals in these areas are well-supported by the High Conservation Value Forests analysis conducted for Al-Pac/WWF Canada and by the commitments expected by signatories to the Boreal Forest Conservation Framework (Al-Pac is a signatory).

The Population Research Laboratory at the University of Alberta releases the results of its Alberta Survey, an annual survey of public opinion in Alberta. The seven questions AWA added to the survey include several pertaining to Lakeland. Albertans’ responses to these questions indicate their strong support for promoting a protected areas agenda in Lakeland. For details on the survey see the relevant links in AWA’s Lakeland Archive.

• Alberta’s oil and gas industry is impacting almost as much forested land each year as is harvested through all forestry operations.
• Approximately 70,000 km of seismic lines touch virtually all of Al-Pac’s FMA and 143,500 ha of the FMA have been recently disturbed by oil and gas activity.

• Al-Pac was going to begin harvest operations this year between the north boundary of the Provincial Park and the Touchwood Lake road. AWA and partner ENGOs succeeded in negotiating a harvest deferral for the area but remain concerned about any logging here because of the presence of self-perpetuating, old-growth mixedwood forest – excellent habitat for neotropical migrants.
• Intense oil and gas development continues in the Primrose-Lakeland area.
• The lack of data on boreal ecosystems means that we still have only a rudimentary understanding of biological ecosystems within the boreal forest zone. Precautionary measures, therefore, should be adopted. AWA feels strongly that for protection of the old-growth and High Conservation Value Forests, the precautionary principle must be used.

The final draft of the AWA “Strategic Plan for Primrose-Lakeland” is prepared. The goals are to identify and protect the remaining High Conservation Value Forests in the area; to promote the restoration of ecological integrity; to consult with local communities; to inform management plans for the area; and to promote alternative, economically diversified and ecologically sustainable models of development for local communities.

The plan will be implemented in three stages:

• Phase 1: Produce a series of regional maps with the following eight map layers: general area of concern, ESAs, natural regions, road density, FMAs, forest cover (historical vs. present), well site density, and areas for restoration.
• Phase 2: Consult with the public to engage stakeholders using focus groups with directed questions as well as ongoing meetings with stakeholders.
• Phase 3: Uses a multi-stakeholder process to develop a Memorandum of Understanding about conservation values, management, and protection of the Primrose-Lakeland area.

Al-Pac responds to AWA’s request that it defer from logging north of Lakeland Park and PRA. Al-Pac says that, pending the completion of the High Conservation Value Forests analysis commissioned by Al-Pac and WWF Canada, Al-Pac “will not harvest cutblocks south and east of the Touchwood Lake Road, adjacent to Lakeland Provincial Park and Lakeland Recreation Area.”

On October 19, the Special Places Local Committee studying the area between Beaver Lake and Elinor Lake has its first meeting, and “member Mel Kuprowsky walks out of the meeting early, saying the ‘advisory’ status of the committee was just not good enough” (Lac La Biche Post 9 Nov. 1999). Kuprowsky believes that the government has frequently used advisory committees to diffuse the heat. “You and I both know the minister can grant whatever he wants to grant,” he says. “If this government really believes in citizens having a say, they can give the committee the authority.” Kuprowsky later leaves the Committee when the Environment Minister says that he cannot guarantee support of the Committee’s recommendations.

Peter Lee, WWF Regional Director for Alberta, writes in a letter to the editor of the Edmonton Journal (Jan. 9): “The proposed utility corridor is in addition to the gross disturbances that have already been approved in Lakeland Provincial Park and Recreation Area: for example, allowing 493 km of linear disturbances, cutting 49 percent of the old-growth white spruce forest, issuing 42 subsurface oil and gas leases that translate into 40 percent of Lakeland’s area, allowing many petroleum well sites and associated infrastructure to be constructed, and reducing the sport fishery through over-exploitation.”

Lund’s solution to the contradiction of bulldozing a corridor through a protected area is simple: “We can simply move the boundary of the recreation area a mile or half mile to the west. I would sooner move the boundary than bring in that economic activity” (Lac La Biche Post 8 Dec. 1998). This is in complete contradiction to the department’s Environmental Resource Committee’s recommendations to further restrict access and expand the boundaries of the Lakeland area, recommendations that arose from public hearings in the region (Edmonton Journal 24 Nov. 1998).

Former Lac La Biche mayor Tom Maccagno says, “[Lund’s solution] left most thinking people here breathless. If this is how you solve a problem it’s a stunning exercise in logic” (Edmonton Journal 13 Jan. 1999).

The publisher of the Lac La Biche Post asks for the resignation of Environment Minister Lund and writes that “all levels of municipal government in the area are opposed to the idea of an energy corridor, including the Chamber of Commerce.”

Environmental Protection spokesperson Jim Law insists that there have been no discussions with the military to put the proposed utility corridor inside the Air Weapons Range (Lac La Biche Post 8 Dec. 1998).

The Department of National Defence appears to have changed its stance on allowing a proposed utility corridor through the Cold Lake Air Weapons Range (see January). Wing Operations Officer Lt.-Col. Jim Grecco says there is room for another pipeline through the range without disrupting weapons training. There are already two pipelines through the range and a third would be acceptable, says Grecco (Edmonton Journal 25 Nov. 1998). Energy Minister Steve West, however, is loathe to cede control of the corridor to the federal government and would prefer it to go through the PRA: “Future generations of Alberta are going to thank us for setting aside this pathway through this recreation area.… Anybody who denies that today is only doing it to be politically correct” (Alberta Hansard 24 Nov. 1998).

In a letter to Environment Minister Gary Mar (August 17), WWF’s Peter Lee expresses concern about Lakeland Provincial Park and PRA, including linear disturbances, clearcut logging, oil and gas activity, OHV use, declining health of fishery, floatplane landings, approval of utility corridor, and the permitting of hunting in the Provincial Park beginning in fall 1999.

In a letter to Environment Minister Ty Lund, AWA’s Sam Gunsch expresses opposition to the proposed utility corridor through Lakeland. Lund responds by saying, “This route is being considered to provide one possible option for a corridor. A route through the military range could still be explored in the future and is a preferred option.”

In a letter to Premier Klein (July 24), AWA points out that Lund’s decision to open the area to commercial logging completely contradicts previous government commitments, Local Advisory Committee recommendations, scientific reports, and regional tourism development plans. Klein responds by saying that “the moratorium on timber harvesting within the PRA, which was instituted in 1993, remains in effect.” This is in contradiction to Ty Lund’s letter to Mayor Langevin in March indicating that logging would be permitted, resulting in possible changes in the preservation objective for the PRA.
 

West initially makes the suggestion that the utility corridor be arranged before the Lakeland Management Plan is released (see January 1998) and Lund concurs: “I hope to conclude all matters related to the corridor so that the Draft Lakeland Management Plan can be brought forward to Standing Policy Committee” (memo to Minister West, June 12). Lund states that the route will follow the east side of the PRA, around the west side of Spencer Lake, east to the east boundary of the PRA, and south to Seibert Lake.

Deputy Energy Minister Bob King writes to Deputy Environment Minister Jim Nichols outlining the predicament the government is in regarding the proposed utility/pipeline corridor, given the Department of National Defence’s opposition to a corridor through the Air Weapons Range: “As discussions are actively underway to reconfigure this protected area, and possibly further restrict access, I ask that you delay any decision on the boundary, on new access restrictions, or a different designation … pending the outcome of our discussion with industry on the best location for a corridor” (Edmonton Journal 24 Nov. 1998).

In his response to an inquiry by MLA Denis Ducharme, Environment Minister Ty Lund indicates that floatplane access to Lakeland may be extended: “The present policy in Lakeland Provincial Park is not to allow floatplane access except for emergency, safety or resource management reasons. This policy is in keeping with other provincial parks in the province.… The Lakeland Open House Panel Committee recommended that limited aircraft use be allowed in Lakeland Provincial Park for recreation purposes. This recommendation will be submitted to Standing Policy Committee for approval.”

• The department’s Environmental Resource Committee supports additional oil and gas activities along existing corridors within the PRA with conditions to minimize environmental disturbances.
• The public supports honouring existing oil and gas activities but does not support any new activities, including new utility corridors.
• Lt.-Col. Oullette of the Air Weapons Range supports a corridor along the common Range and PRA boundary but does not support new, additional lines along the existing corridor within the Range.

Liberal Environment Critic Debbie Carlson points out that arsenic levels in excess of the Canadian drinking water standards have recently been found in some wells in the Cold Lake area. A 1979 groundwater study in the area showed that arsenic was undetectable at that time in most wells. Environment Minister Ty Lund admits the truth of Carlson’s statements and states that the source of the contaminant remains unknown and that his department has asked Imperial Oil “to do more work on it” (Alberta Hansard 6 Apr. 1998).

An Environmental Protection Ministry report entitled The Final Frontier: Protecting Landscape and Biological Diversity within Alberta’s Boreal Forest Natural Region, makes the following points:

• The Lakeland area is heavily fragmented. Almost 75% of the combined Park and PRA has a linear disturbance density of >1.0 km/km2 and, excluding lakes, only 1.0% of the entire region consists of core habitat areas = 10 km2 in size (from Sawyer & Haskins’ 1997 BFNR linear disturbance inventory).
• Roughly 5% of the total area is occupied by human-generated disturbances such as clearcuts, campgrounds, roads, pipeline corridors, wellsites, cutlines, etc. About 85% of the total area of these disturbances is located within the PRA.
• As of January 1998, total lengths of linear disturbances in Lakeland are the following: Provincial Park = 120.48 km; PRA = 372.25.
• Overall linear disturbance density for Lakeland’s terrestrial surface area are as follows: Provincial Park = 1.15 km/km²; PRA = 1.16 km/km².
• As of March 1996, Lakeland Park and PRA contained parts or all of 42 subsurface PNG leases (8 in the Park; 32 in the PRA; 2 in both). The combined area of all these leases is 28.4% of Lakeland’s total area, or approximately 40% of Lakeland’s forested land surface.
• The Park currently contains 3 wellsites (2 of them active) with 8 others (5 active) within 1.0 km of its boundary. In the PRA there are 23 wellsites (15 active) with another 13 (5 active) within 1.0 km from its boundary. Lakeland’s overall well density (land surface only) is 0.06 wells/km².
• In contravention of the Provincial Parks Act, OHV use has continued in the Park ever since it was established in 1992.
• Livestock grazing leases cover 4.71 km² of the PRA.
• Trapping is still occurring throughout Lakeland. In 1996/97, 1,059 animals were trapped.
• Except for McGuffin Lake, motorized boating occurs on all of Lakeland’s larger lakes. Unauthorized floatplane landings still occur in Lakeland.

The Department of Environmental Protection contacts the M.D. of Bonnyville requesting a meeting to discuss the issue of the plan for a new access to the two private properties on Snug Cove in the PRA (see June 1995). Since 1995, the Department has contacted the M.D. every year requesting a commencement date for the construction of the new access road.

Energy Minister Steve West writes to Environment Minister Ty Lund (January 29) asking Lund to ignore the recommendations of his department’s Environmental Resource Committee (ERC) to protect Lakeland by restricting resource extraction and further access, and by expanding the area’s boundaries.

• West advises Lund that the ERC’s recommended initiatives “would further restrict industry access” and that “any decision on the boundary or on new access restrictions within the Lakeland Park and PRA needs to be delayed pending the outcome of our discussions with industry on the most feasible location for a [utility] corridor.”
• The proposed corridor would facilitate the expansion of power transmission and pipeline capacity in order to serve the growing oilsands operations in northern Alberta.
• According to Lund’s assistant, “The proposed corridor should be able to accommodate all utilities including perhaps a high voltage transmission line” (Alberta Report 7 Sept. 1998).

In a memo to Environment Minister Ty Lund, Deputy Minister Jim Nichols cautions that resource extraction (e.g., timber harvesting, PNG activity) may jeopardize the area’s current inclusion in the Special Places program inventory. He also suggests downgrading protection of the area to Wildland Park designation to accommodate activities that are incompatible with Parks policy.

With respect to the proposed AEC Pipelines utility corridor through Lakeland, “National Defence is adamant that no further expansion of [the existing] right-of-way and no new right-of-way will be allowed to compromise the integrity of the Air Weapons Range” (memo from Energy Deputy Minister Bob King to Environment Deputy Minister Jim Nichols, Jan. 13).

• The Primrose-Lakeland area is one of the best representative examples of the Central Mixedwood Natural Subregion.
• Three-quarters of the area is bisected by seismic lines, roads and pipelines, and oil and gas activities.
• Other threats to the ecological integrity of the area include illegal OHV use, the increasing pressures on wildlife populations from sport fishing and trapping, and the deleterious impacts from unauthorized floatplane landings and frequent low-level flights from the Cold Lake Air Weapons Range.
• The annual rate of deforestation here is greater than that of the Amazon.

AWA, along with a host of other environmental organizations, calls upon Premier Klein to upgrade the Park and Recreation Area to a Wildland Park designation, to ban OHV use and industrial activity, and to add 1,000 km2 to the protected area. Tom Maccagno, former Mayor of Lac La Biche and a supporter of protecting Lakeland, who advocated an end to industrial activity within the proposed area, comments about the actions of the provincial government: “Everything is looked at as a resource. We should look at these things as treasures. They should be respected and cared for, they’re not for sale.”

In an undated memo responding to a memo (August 17, 1998) from MLA Denis Ducharme, Minister Ty Lund refers to aircraft use in Lakeland: “Seasonal letters of authority are currently issued to float plane pilots who request, in writing, permission to access lakes in Lakeland PRA for recreational purposes. These letters of authority … permit the pilot to access lakes during allowable periods.… Aircraft access into Lakeland Provincial Park has previously been prohibited in keeping with the department’s policy of not allowing aircraft onto water bodies in provincial parks for recreational purposes.

Amendments to the management plan will permit aircraft to land on a number of lakes. The process in place for issuing seasonal letters of authority for Lakeland PRA will likely also be instituted in the park.”

Alberta Liberal Environment Critic Debbie Carlson reports that groundwater pollution has become a major concern in the Cold Lake area. Landowners report that the quality of their well water has significantly deteriorated over the last few years, and Imperial Oil has discovered high levels of chlorides associated with oilwell activity at more than twice the Canadian Drinking Water Standard in deeper aquifers or water-bearing rock formations.

AEC Pipelines holds public open house sessions in several communities that may be affected by the proposed Fort McMurray to Hardisty pipeline.

AEC Pipelines begins the process of obtaining regulatory approvals for their Fort McMurray to Hardisty Pipeline, proposed to traverse the Lakeland PRA, by filing applications with Alberta Environment and the AEUB and by submitting a Lakeland Pipeline Project Conservation and Reclamation Plan.

According to AWA’s Ian Urquhart, “This panel [was] not nearly as inclusive as the PAC and [gave] off a decidedly ‘handpicked by the minister’ aroma” (Wild Lands Advocate October 2005). The Report summarizes approximately 50 presentations at three open houses held in Edmonton, Lac La Biche, and Glendon in November/December 1996 as well as 278 completed response forms received at the open houses and 193 letters. These public reactions came overwhelmingly from the motorized recreation community.

The following are some of the summary points made by the panel:

• Protection: strong public support for some form of protected status
• Traditional access: strong support for less restriction on access for snowmobiling, fishing, hunting, etc.
• Public involvement: user groups interested in being involved in developing management plan
• Resource extraction: support (although not unanimous) for small local timber operators to harvest some timber on a low-impact basis in the PRA (not the Park)
• New oil/gas leases: no support
• Boundary expansion: much opposition, fearing further access restrictions; some in support to provide further buffer to the park

The panel expressed the following:

• Panel is concerned about the impact of logging in the area generally (including Lakeland)
• Some old-growth forest should be maintained in the PRA for research purposes
• Extra protection is needed for sites with sensitive flora and fauna in both the PRA and Park
• Panel supports increased access within Lakeland for traditional outdoor recreation activities beyond that allowed in the Draft Management Plan
• Panel is concerned about allocation of adequate resources to properly manage the area

• The Draft Lakeland Management Plan as “an atrocious document – a textbook example of ‘how not to do it.’… It is, in reality, an Integrated Resource Management Plan dressed up in ‘Green Drag.’”
• The Management Steering Committee included representatives from the Departments of Energy, Forestry, Fish and Wildlife, and Tourism and Economic Development – “Where else but in Alberta would you have a group of people opposed to Lakeland … in charge of the planning process and the development of a management plan for the site?”
• The recommendations of the Lakeland Public Advisory Committee for the Management Plan were effectively ignored by the Steering Committee, after the PAC invested over a year in becoming familiar with Lakeland and its management issues. The PAC had called for using the precautionary principle and expressed an overarching concern with environmental protection to guide the management of Lakeland.
• While the idea of establishing a wilderness canoe circuit on the Park’s lakes was truly visionary, “the current situation (proposed to continue in the Draft Management Plan) is ludicrous” because of the presence of ATVs and motorboats on and around these lakes.

The government releases its long awaited Lakeland Draft Management Plan.

Environmental Protection puts out a Discussion Paper on the Lakeland Draft Management Plan in order to highlight instances where recommendations of the Lakeland Foundation Document, the Draft Management Plan, and the Lakeland Public Advisory Committee Summary Report and Recommendations are not in full agreement.

The Draft Management Plan for Lakeland is completed.

AWA puts out an Action Alert on Lakeland, identifying urgent issues: access, especially to motorized vehicles; hunting, fishing, and trapping; timber harvesting; and oil and gas exploration.

In the Legislature, Environment Minister Ty Lund says, “We do not allow logging in a provincial park. That’s not to say that we don’t cut some trees in a provincial park.… But the general policy is: no logging as we know it.… I can assure the hon. member that the moratorium on logging that is currently in place – it was put there in 1993 – does apply to both the recreation area and the park” (Alberta Hansard 11 Mar. 1996).

Representatives of AWA, CPAWS, and WWF meet on March 31 to discuss the possibility of working toward a Central Mixedwood Protected Area of Global Significance. The goal would be to have an integrated protected area large enough to include natural disturbance regimes such as fires and floods. This would include the Cold Lake Air Weapons Range, the whole of Lakeland as depicted on the AWA map, Cold Lake Provincial Park, and Meadow Lake Provincial Park in Saskatchewan.

In a letter to Hon. Ty Lund (February 7), Lakeland Public Advisory Committee member Tom Mccagno expresses concern that the Committee has been kept in the dark about possible logging in Lakeland, contrary to PAC’s recommendations, and about the inexplicable delay in producing a Draft Management Plan.

The Public Advisory Committee’s 44-page Summary Report and Recommendations for the general Management Plan for Lakeland is published. Issues considered are zoning and boundaries, access, biological resource management, cultural resources management, aesthetic resource management, and dispositions and development. Some of the 100+ recommendations made include Wildland zoning of the land base and lakes in the Park; establishing a wildland canoe circuit; restricting OHV use to designated access routes; improving fisheries management; upgrading major roads to “parkway” standards; upgrading some campgrounds; and creating a visitor centre.

Alberta Environmental Protection Natural Resources Service (Parks) publishes a 215-page “Background Report for the Lakeland Provincial Park and PRA General Management Plan.” Topics covered are zoning; access; biological, cultural, and aesthetic resource management; and dispositions and development.

The Public Advisory Committee recommends a prohibition on logging in the PRA and Park, with the possibility of highly selective and low-impact logging in future to maintain the goals of ecosystem management; information gaps regarding the health and fire history of Lakeland’s forests need to be filled in order to establish an “ecological benchmark” before any forest management activities should take place. The Environment Department’s own scientists point out that 65 percent of the protected area’s old-growth forests is in the PRA. The Committee notes that the forests of the park and the recreation area are “Lakeland’s most unique vegetation feature … one of Lakeland’s most important contributions to biodiversity … [and that] it is best to leave the forest undisturbed.”

• Within the Provincial Park boundary, 20 hectares of forest have been cut. Within the PRA, 495.4 hectares have been cut. The overall area lost as effect habitat is generally greater than the size of a cutblock, since the remaining stand may be highly fragmented.
• In Lakeland, significant blocks of old-growth have escaped fire, perhaps for hundreds of years, possibly due to being adjacent to lakes and wetlands and downwind from the prevailing wind, or because of soil and topography. Studies are needed to determine the fire history of Lakeland.

Allen makes the following recommendations:

• Keep forests as intact as possible; linkages must be maintained between intact blocks.
• Identify sensitive species and areas and minimize impacts on them.
• Minimize activities that increase the fire hazard in old-growth stands.
• Evaluate, expand, and use mapping layers that have been developed to define areas critical to the ecological integrity of Lakeland.
• Develop and monitor goals and targets for ecosystem management.

AWA’s Cliff Wallis addresses the Lakeland Public Advisory Committee on the topic of birds in Lakeland, including the importance of old-growth forests and other significant bird habitats. He discusses the current and potential impact of motorized vehicles, facility development, and industrial development on the area’s birds.

Motorized traffic into the Park is restricted to two designated routes to comply with the Provincial Parks Act.

• “The key criterion used to judge the compatibility of any current or proposed use of Lakeland [Park and PRA] with Parks’ mandate for the area is: ‘Will the impacts of this use negatively affect the future ecological integrity of the resource?’”
• “Of critical importance when discussing industrial resource extraction is the principle that such activity must not detract from, impair, or jeopardize the recreational, historic, cultural, or protection values of Lakeland.”
• Parks Service identifies the following key objectives for Lakeland: maintaining, in perpetuity, Lakeland’s historic levels of biotic and forested landscape diversity; preserving Lakeland’s forest ecosystems and landscapes in as natural a state as possible; maintaining the pre-(recent) logging age-class distribution of Lakeland’s major forest types; and ensuring no net loss of its old-growth forests.

• “Given our current dearth of detailed knowledge, the most sensible and responsible Lakeland forest management strategy for Parks to pursue (during the initial 10-year planning period) is to err strongly on the side of caution. It is sobering to contemplate that any errors in judgement we make today (that result in losses of old-growth forest) will take a minimum of 80 – 120 years to ‘repair.’”
• “Current, official forestry practices in Alberta can crudely but accurately be characterised as ‘fibre farming.’ To date, forestry in Alberta remains stolidly in the ‘traditional’ camp, with little penetration of the innovative, so-called ‘new forestry’ ideas and techniques pioneered in the northwest U.S.A. over the last 30 years.”
• “Lakeland cannot be viewed in isolation from the land use patterns in northern Alberta: i.e., massive industrialisation of the boreal forest and accelerated encroachment of agricultural clearances. Given these trends, Lakeland (whose total area is less than one percent of that of Al-Pac’s Forest Management Area), will soon attain the stature of an ‘ecological island’ of inestimable value.”

According to the Daily Oil Bulletin, lakes in the Cold Lake region have dropped to their lowest levels in 30 years. Imperial Oil has announced plans to increase production in its Cold Lake heavy oil plant, but it needs government approval for controversial additional water use. There is discussion of a water pipeline from the North Saskatchewan River to accommodate water needs (including those of oil companies for processing) in the region.

• To expedite the zoning exercise, old-growth was defined by age alone, seriously underestimating the true extent of functional old-growth forests in Lakeland. The definition should be expanded to include criteria such as forest structural complexity and the levels of biodiversity supported by individual stands.
• Alberta Culture has identified five significant historical/cultural sites and 10 others worthy of investigation. Formal delimitation of any Historical/Cultural zones must await archaeological and historical research. “In the interim, extreme care will be exercised that any recreational development or resource extraction activity does not jeopardize the integrity of any locations of potential cultural importance.”
• In the Integrated Management zones (only in the PRA), industrial activities (primarily hydrocarbon exploration and development and logging operations) “will be treated as subordinate in importance to the primary purposes, namely protection and recreation, for which Lakeland was established. Consumptive resource users will be required to demonstrate that their activities will not compromise the ecological integrity and recreational capacity of the landbase.”
• “The Provincial Parks Service will employ stringent operating guidelines and conditions to regulate the conduct of industrial/commercial resource extraction activities within Lakeland.” Operators will be required to use existing corridors for access purposes; the cumulative environmental impact of all such activities will be carefully evaluated.
• It is the Parks Service’s intent that the Lakeland PRA forests maintain their “pre-(modern) logging age-class distributions” and that there be no “net loss of old-growth.”
• Existing oil and gas agreements will be honoured within both the Park and the PRA. New oil and gas agreements within the Park may be issued but surface access will not be permitted. New agreements within the PRA will be permitted although surface access will be subject to specific restrictions.
• All “main” roads within the Park and the PRA are designated Access Zones. Any major trunk trails within the PRA on which ATV use is permitted will also be identified as Access Zones.

• That areas north and south of the Park and east of the PRA be put under reservation immediately to indicate the intention of Tourism, Parks and Recreation to acquire this land in the future.
• That funding be made available for further biophysical and cultural research in Lakeland for zoning purposes, and that zonation err on the side of caution until that information is available.
• That the Park and PRA be managed separately from management guidelines expressed in the Lakeland Sub-Regional IRP. The Park and PRA fall under the authority of the Provincial Parks Act, and the mandate of preservation, conservation, recreation, and promotion of tourism will take precedence in all cases over other resource-based uses, including oil and gas exploration and development.
• That Lakeland’s Management Plan include basic guidelines for appropriate development in the Park and PRA in relation to policies, regulations, zoning, municipal requirements, environmental impacts, economic and social impacts, and recreation.
• That stringent forestry management guidelines be developed that fully address ecological and aesthetic concerns, and that current Alberta Forest Service silvicultural practices not be deemed appropriate for the PRA.
• That OHV use in the Park and PRA be carefully controlled and that all regulations be strictly enforced. Parks should encourage low-impact, environmentally sensitive, non-consumptive, high carrying capacity recreational pursuits and increase awareness that activities such as OHV use can contribute to resource depletion and degradation if not managed under strict control.
• That no sport hunting be permitted in the Park; that hunting by Treaty status Indians for subsistence purposes be permitted to continue in the Park; that hunting in the PRA be restricted to short seasons at a time when it would cause the least conflict with non-consumptive users.
• That floatplane landings on Park lakes be prohibited except in case of emergency, resource management studies, or fire-fighting; that landings in the PRA be confined to one or two of the large lakes.
• That traplines within the Park be bought out as soon as possible; that the use and location of trappers’ cabins within the Park be reviewed.
• That Park lakes eventually be made powerboat-free.
• That currently used random campsites be charted and decisions made regarding which will be designated formal backcountry campsites; that random camping be eliminated.

A summary of public opinion is prepared by Maureen Payne & Associates.

AWA puts out a news release summarizing the results of the Public Opinion Survey conducted by Recreation and Parks in 1990, the Westworth biophysical assessment of Lakeland produced in March 1991, and an analysis of the Park and PRA proposal. It includes the following statement: “The cumulative effect of natural resource extraction and recreational development will seriously impair the ability of the greater Lakeland ecosystem to maintain the diversity of plant and animal communities found there presently. The new park options have incorporated most Forestry and Fish and Wildlife concerns expressed about the original proposal. Yet there has been virtually no move for increased conservation or preservation despite public requests and the definite and urgent need to do so.”

Liberal MLA Grant Mitchell raises suspicions in the legislature about Lakeland’s prospects, saying that the idea of a park in Lakeland is just a public relations move, a sop to Albertans troubled by the province’s decision to allocate most of Alberta’s boreal forest to multinational timber companies.

The Draft Cold Lake Sub-regional Integrated Resource Plan is completed. The Cold Lake planning area overlaps with the southern portion of AWA’s Primrose-Lakeland Area of Concern.

A biophysical assessment by D.A. Westworth and Associates recommends an expansion of the protected area to 1,124 km2 and argues that without such an expansion species will be lost over time. A public review also recommends the same. The provincial government ignores both these recommendations.

Other recommendations by the Westworth biophysical and resource assessment include the following:

• Clearly define management strategies to ensure that proposed uses for the PRA and adjacent Crown lands are compatible with management goals for the Park.
• Consider setting aside land in the interlakes region between Touchwood-Seibert-Pinehurst Lakes and the proposed park to maintain viable populations of wildlife species in the area.
• Identify requirements for biological corridors linking the park with important adjacent habitat areas.
• Develop an old-growth management strategy for the proposed Park and PRA.
• Construct no new access roads within the Park or PRA and give serious consideration to the possible adverse effects of upgrading existing roads.
• Develop a coordinated access management plan for the area: under such a plan, access use decisions are not made on a road-by-road basis but rather reflect a broader context and the full spectrum of users’ needs.

Alberta Forest Service has a clear opportunity to accommodate existing Timber Permit holders outside of the recommended 1,124 km2 when Northern Timber forfeits their Timber Quota, freeing up timber outside the proposed park for reallocation to the permit holders within Lakeland. Instead of seizing this opportunity, the AFS re-issues the quota to another company and continues to count on timber from within the protected area for small local operators.

• Continued concern with the designation of a PRA, which provides no protection and does not serve conservation goals in a meaningful way, and concern with the small land base proposed for both the Park and PRA.
• Continued oil and gas exploration and development, extensive ATV use, and timber extraction will violate protected lands status and do little to serve the recreational potential of the land.
• Old-growth forests in the area east of Seibert Lake are being threatened by logging interests, and the opportunity to select new lands for conservation of this natural region are disappearing with the continual expansion of the agriculture, forestry, and oil and gas industries.
• Only three other parks conserve a significant number of natural themes common to the Mixedwood Boreal Forest.
• Land use planning for the Lakeland area must go beyond local consideration and include provincial, national, and international strategies.

• The PRA would not afford any significant protection for the mixedwood ecosystem.
• The proposed Provincial Park is not large enough to guarantee the long-term viability of its mixedwood ecosystem.
• The proposed boundaries of the Park do not encompass important habitats such as patterned fen, so the ecosystem preserved within the boundaries would be neither viable nor representative.
• The boundaries should be expanded to include at least Elinor Lake, Touchwood Lake, Seibert Lake, the drainages of the Sand and Wolf Rivers, and Wolf Lake.
• A thorough biophysical inventory must be completed as a necessary step toward the final boundary determination and subsequent park management.
• The existing proposals do not give preservation objectives and guidelines priority in the management of the Park. The entire proposal is oriented toward recreation and tourism development.

• People support the government’s proposal to develop a park featuring wilderness type of experience, with non-mechanized recreational focus and modest facility development.
• People want a larger area set aside as a Provincial Park.
• People support concentrating the recreational facility development in the southern portion of the area, at Elinor and Ironwood Lakes.
• There are high levels of public support for an expansion to the proposed park.
• There is a general consensus that no natural resource development should occur within the park (especially commercial fishing, logging and oil and gas activity); trapping can continue as planned.
• People express concern about road access and about the impact of increased visitation on the fisheries.
• A full biophysical assessment is requested.
• Those against the proposal are concerned about increased pressure on resources, loss of livelihood, and jeopardizing the existence of CFB Cold Lake.

• The Park needs to be larger than that proposed.
• It should be managed as a “heritage class” Provincial Park.
• The wilderness core must be maintained.
• Facility development should be oriented to the south end of the Park and to other PRAs and Parks in the Lakeland region.
• A complete set of ecological information should be collected.

• The PRA should be included under the Provincial Park designation.
• The park boundaries should be expanded to include Elinor and Wolf Lakes, and the Sand and Wolf Rivers to the confluence of the Sand River and Punk Creek. AWA argues that these inclusions will allow the park to accommodate recreational uses without affecting the park’s wilderness core (i.e., the Jackson-Kinnaird-Blackett-McGuffin-Dabbs Lakes area, the Touchwood-Spencer-Siebert Lakes area and the uplands between these lakes).
• Recreation facility development should be directed toward the southern end of the Park along Elinor and Ironwood Lakes.
• Less intensive development should occur on Pinehurst Lake.
• The Park should be managed as a Heritage Provincial Park, including the proposed PRA, since such a designation focuses on the protection and interpretation of the natural environment.
• Within the park’s wilderness core, facility development, motorized vehicle use, and natural resource development should not be permitted.
• Full biophysical inventories of the land encompassing the Park must be completed to provide a firm foundation for wise park management.

In a letter to Recreation and Parks Minister Steve West, Kevin Van Tighem expresses his support of AWA’s proposal for a larger wilderness provincial park. “Compared to 170,000 square kilometers for pulp companies, 1,036 square kilometers for heritage protection and wilderness recreation/tourism is clearly less than even the barest of bare minimums.”

Existing auto-access camping areas are transferred from Alberta Forest Service to Alberta Recreation and Parks.

• Major destination areas are proposed for Beaver, Pinehurst, and Touchwood Lakes. Minor destination areas are proposed for Wolf, Fork, Square, Frenchman, Ironwood, Elinor, and Rich Lakes.
• The Jackson, Kinnaird, Dabbs, Blackett, McGuffin, and Helena group of lakes is to be managed as a wilderness boating and canoeing area.
• Most of the land base remains accessible for non-recreational uses and activities, including agricultural expansion, timber harvesting, and oil and gas development. The latter two uses will be restricted in areas of high recreation value.
• Access into and through the area will be geared to the needs of recreational development. Road developments and utility corridors will not be permitted in the central portion of the planning area.