Transcript Land Use Planning in the Deh Cho territory

Land Use Planning
in the Deh Cho territory
Agenda
1.
WHAT IS LAND USE PLANNING?
2.
UPDATE ON DCLUPC ACTIVITIES & PROGRESS
3.
INPUT DATA FOR LAND USE OPTIONS
4.
LAND USE OPTIONS + ECONOMIC MODEL
5.
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS RESEARCH
6.
QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION
7:00 – 9:00 P.M. OPEN HOUSE
Committee & Staff
• Committee Members
– 2 DCFN reps (Tim Lennie and Petr Cizek)
– 1 GNWT rep (Bea Lepine)
– 1 Federal Government rep (Adrian Boyd)
– Chairman selected by the 4 members (Herb
Norwegian)
• 5 Staff Members
– Executive Director (Heidi Wiebe)
– Office Manager (Sophie Bonnetrouge)
– GIS Analyst (Monika Templin)
– Land Use Planner (Paul Wilson)
– Land Use Planner Trainee (Priscilla A. Canadien)
What is Land Use Planning?
Potential
Land
Uses
Decisions
(Planning Partners)
(Staff & Committee)
•
•
•
•
•
•
Development
Forestry - Green
Tourism – Orange
Oil and Gas – Purple
Minerals – Brown
Agriculture – Yellow
Conservation
TLUO – Red
Wildlife – Blue
Archaeology - Black
Zones (Planning &
Management)
Land Use Planning in the Deh Cho
•
•
•
Land Use Planning means determining what
types of land use activities should occur and
where they should take place
“The purpose of the plan is to promote the
social, cultural and economic well-being of
residents and communities in the Deh Cho
territory, having regard to the interests of all
Canadians.”
Our planning area extends to the whole Deh
Cho territory, excluding municipal areas and
Nahanni National Park Reserve
Plan Area
Land Use Planning and
the Deh Cho Process
• Land Use Planning is only one part of the
larger Deh Cho Process of negotiations
looking at land, resource management and
governance issues
– Draft Land Use Plan (2005)
– Final Land Use Plan (March 2006)
• Land Use Plan used by three parties to
negotiate in the Deh Cho Process
• Complete Deh Cho Process (~ 2008)
Planning Partners
+
+
1st Priority
2nd Priority
Residents
Businesses, Associations, nongovernmental organizations
Approve Plan
Planning vs. Management
• Our mandate is to plan for future resource
development – map potential, identify issues,
write final plan to show “what” and “where”
• We are not involved in past or current resource
applications – current government structures do
that (DCFN, GNWT and Gov of Canada)
• May change with Deh Cho Process – Future
Deh Cho Resource Management Authority
Update on DCLUPC
Activities & Progress
 Staff Recruitment
 Round 1 Consultation Feedback
 Q & A Report
 Further Research:
 Wildlife Workshop,
 Dene Nahodhe Workshop
 Economic Development Model Completed
 Reviewing Various Land Use Options
Resource Potential and
Conservation Values
Wildlife
•
•
Traditional Knowledge & Expert Research
Regional Wildlife Workshop - Held: November 2003
•
308 species in the Deh Cho territory (3 amphibians, 36 fish,
213 birds and 56 mammals)
•
Key species include:
– Caribou, Moose, Bison, Fish and Waterfowl for consumption
– Trumpeter Swan, Whooping Crane, Peregrine Falcon (Endangered)
– Black Bear, Grizzly Bear, Furbearers, Dall’s Sheep, and Mountain Goat
(Trapping & Hunting species)
•
Critical wildlife areas include:
– Nahanni National Park Reserve
– Mackenzie Bison Sanctuary (denning, staging and
calving, etc.)
– Edehzhie
– Central area between Fort Liard & Wrigley
•
Important consideration for Cumulative Effects
Management
Wildlife Potential
Traditional Use Density
• Important to Traditional Dene Lifestyles
• Information gathered by DCFN
• Consulted over 386 harvesters and
mapped information
• Harvest areas, kill sites, sacred sites,
berry patches
• DCFN approved publication and use at
Kakisa Assembly 2004
Traditional Use Density
Archeology, Cabins, Historic Sites
& Rare features
• Evidence of past human use
• Important small sites i.e. fire rings,
cabins, trails
• Buffer required for protection
• Development must avoid these areas
• Rare Features:
– i.e. Hot Springs and Karst Formations
Conservation Value is determined by
distance from these important sites
Archeology, Rare features, Historic
Sites & Cabins
Conservation Value Map
Forestry Potential
• Timber stands:
– Fort Liard, Nahanni Region, Jean Marie River and the Cameron Hills
• NWT 137,000 km2 Timber Productive Land
• Northern Portion of Boreal Forest
• 4 Major Tree Species:
– White Spruce, Black Spruce, Trembling Aspen and Balsam Poplar +
Jack pine and Lodgepole Pine
• Fringe of Economic Timber Zone
• Current < Sustainable Harvest Levels
– Low Prices $
– Access
• Community Use
Commercial Viability
Forestry Potential
Sawlog Potential
• RWED Sawlog Utilization Standards
– 17.5 cm dbh, 10 cm top, 5.0 m log length
Minimum Attributes
• White Spruce Stands
– Class 3 (medium) sites that are 15 m tall and 80 years old.
• Lodgepole or Jack Pine Stands
– Class 3 (medium) sites that are 19 m in height.
• Aspen Stands
– Medium sites, in the Liard Valley and Cameron Hills only, that are
15m in height (Pers. Comm. RWED-FMD).
Timber Potential Analysis
• PACTeam Canada - Timber Potential
• Inventory (Deh Cho Productive Areas) 1961-1997
– Spatial Forest Management Inventories RWED
– Non-Spatial Forest Management Inventories RWED
– Digital Compilation of Vegetation Types of the Mackenzie Valley
Transportation Corridor (Wright et al.2003)
– NWT RWED Vegetation Classification Project
– National Forest Inventory (Productive Forest Inventory)
100 km
1 km
1 km
100 km
Distance to Linear
Feature
Species, Size, Access,
Fire History
Inventory Areas – White Spruce
Inventory Areas - Pine
Inventory Areas - Aspen
Linear Features Rating
Minerals
• Assessed 9 mineral types thought to have
the most potential in the region
• The highest potential is in the western tip
of the territory, moderate in the west-central
portions and low in the remaining areas
• The most significant minerals types are
Copper, Lead-Zinc & Tungsten (existing
mines)
• The western portion has high to very high
potential for Skarn (Lead-Zinc, Gold and
Tungsten)
Minerals
Oil & Gas
• 20 hydrocarbon plays in the Deh Cho
– 9 confirmed
– 11 unconfirmed
• 419 hydrocarbon wells drilled, most are wildcat wells
(exploratory) but 127 (25%) found hydrocarbons
• Current producing regions are Fort Liard and
Cameron Hills; other significant discoveries found but
not yet developed
• Greatest potential is in the Liard Plateau and the Great
Slave Plain (northern extension of the western
sedimentary basin)
Oil and Gas Potential
Tourism
• The greatest potential is along the Mackenzie and
Liard River valleys and radiates out from communities
(the “hub and spoke” effect.)
• Exceptionally scenic, offer various types of tourism
experiences and have good access
• Key tourism destinations include Nahanni National
Park Reserve, the Ram Plateau and North Nahanni
River, Little Doctor Lake, Cli Lake, Trout Lake and some
lodges
• Deh Cho tourism is not well developed but has lots of
potential - it can still offer tourists pristine wilderness
free from commercial interruption
Tourism Potential
Agricultural Potential
• Agriculture is small scale generally within
community boundaries
• Potential not developed – minor land use
• Limitations include; climate, soil type, difficulties
with access and power requirements
• South have competitive advantage
• Cost of food - opportunities and potential for
community use
Agricultural Potential
Composite of Development
Potential
Land Use Options
Land Use Options
• Land Use Options represent different
visions for the final land use map
• Represent 5 different levels of
development
• Based on information (mostly scientific)
gathered to date – no community or
planning partner input yet
• Will be revised based on feedback and
presented at the next round of meetings
Preliminary Land Use Options
• Change Priority of Conservation and Development
• Create 5 Land Use Options
• Shows a range of possibilities available
High
Development
Low
Conservation
Low
Development
Options
1
2
3
4
5
High
Conservation
• Compare to Current Land Withdrawals
• Use Economic model to compare effects on economy
Options Development
Zones
• Multiple Use Zones: all development uses
permitted subject to general regulations
• Conservation Zones: no development
permitted
• Uncertain Zones: conservation and
development hold equal priority, no decision
possible
• Traditional Use Allowed
Everywhere
Land Use Option # 1
Land Use Option # 1
• Priority given to development sectors (Multiple Use Zones)
• Some Uncertain Zones
• Few conservation areas outside Nahanni and Edehzhie
• Employment: 51,339 new person-years of employment (~3000 per
year)
• In-Migration: 3041 people need to move here to fill jobs
• Tax Revenues: $3 billion over 20 years ($150 million/yr)
• GDP: $11.6 billion over 20 years ($580 million/yr)
• Move to wage employment and modern lifestyle
• Education, training and management a priority to secure benefits
for communities
• Fragmented wildlife habitat and population declines
• Loss of traditional knowledge culture and language
• Other factors determine if development occurs
Land Use Option # 2
Land Use Option # 2
• Development focus although more weight to conservation than
Option 1
• Conservation Zones protect key wildlife habitats and traditional
areas i.e. Nahanni National Park
• No Uncertain Zones – clear what is permitted development
• Employment: 41,000 new person-years of employment (~2044 per
year)
• In-Migration: 1941 people need to move here to fill jobs
• Tax Revenues: $2.0 billion over 20 years ($100 million/yr)
• GDP: $8.8 billion over 20 years ($440 million/yr)
• Strong Economy – lots of opportunities, especially in the South
Deh Cho
• Habitat fragmentation - may impact traditional harvesting
• Lifestyle changes may result in loss of traditional knowledge
culture and language
• May increase social problems
Land Use Option # 3
Land Use Option # 3
• Balance of Development and Conservation Priorities
• Uncertain Zones cover 40% of the Deh Cho - special conditions for
development may apply
• Conservation Zones better able to sustain wildlife populations,
traditional harvesting and seasonal employment
• Employment: 25,128 new person-years of employment (~1250 per
year)
• In-Migration: 1000 people need to move here to fill jobs
• Tax Revenues: $1.25 billion over 20 years ($62.5 million/yr)
• GDP: $5.4 billion over 20 years ($270 million/yr)
• Economic benefits available from development including
employment given sufficient education and training
• High disposable income for some, immigration and pressure on
housing and social and medical services
• Opportunity to balance traditional lifestyle and development
Land Use Option # 4
Land Use Option # 4
• Focus on Conservation layers, Wildlife and TLUO promotes
subsistence harvesting and traditional activities
• Some Multiple Use Zones for Development - no Uncertain Zones
• Employment: 24,951 new person-years of employment (~1248 per
year)
• In-Migration: 1057 people need to move here to fill jobs
• Tax Revenues: $1.2 billion over 20 years ($60 million/yr)
• GDP: $5.4 billion over 20 years ($270 million/yr)
• Some benefits from development i.e. employment and tax revenue
• Young people may leave communities or Deh Cho for employment
or education
• Local and regional governments are a major employer and have a
lead role in skills development
Land Use Option # 5
Land Use Option # 5
• Conservation Zones a Priority to promote traditional use and
culture
• Development restricted to areas away from communities with high
potential
• A few Uncertain Zones where decisions have to be made
• Employment: 14,514 new person-years of employment (~726 per
year)
• In-Migration: 700 people need to move here to fill jobs
• Tax Revenues: $628 million over 20 years ($31.4 million/yr)
• GDP: $2.5 billion over 20 years ($125 million/yr)
• Lack of revenue and income may limit services and opportunities
• Lack of opportunities may create social problems
• Young people may leave communities or even the Deh Cho for
employment or education
• Key role for government in employment, training and controlling
development
Interim Land Withdrawals
Land Use Planning
Approval
5 years in parallel
Interim Land Withdrawals
• Land Withdrawals identified critical areas for
interim protection
• Land Use Plan will revise Land Withdrawals
Interim Land Withdrawals
Interim Land Withdrawals
Current Land Withdrawals
• 50% of the Deh Cho is protected
• Other 50% available for development subject to IMA conditions
• No uncertain zones
• Employment: 41,000 new person-years of employment (~2,045 per
year)
• In-Migration: 2099 people need to move here to fill jobs
• Tax Revenues: $2.5 billion over 20 years ($125 million/yr)
• GDP: $9.0 billion over 20 years ($450 million/yr)
• Assumes full development – currently not the case
• Many other factors determine whether or not development proceeds
– Environmental factors
– Political factors and regulatory certainty
– Market values of natural resource products
– Infrastructure and access
– Interest and marketing
Economic Development
Assessment Model
Economic Development
Assessment Model
• Determines costs & benefits for informed land use
planning decisions
• Example: If a pipeline is developed how many jobs will be
created, how much revenue?
•
•
•
•
Model current economy then predict the next 20 years
Turn on and off 5 key sectors (Development Layers)
Includes traditional and wage economies
Allows us to see the economic impact of developing each
business sector, and a few specific projects
• Apply Economic Assessment Model to each of five Land
Use Options and the existing land withdrawals
• Results are regional not community based
Economic Development
Assessment Model
Model Structure
User Input
Economic Impact Model
(Input-Output)
Labour Force
Model
Government Tax
and Revenue
Model
Population and
Demographic Model
Economic Assessment Model
Outputs
Economic Assessment Model: generates direct,
indirect and induced estimates reflecting the level of
development in 5 key sectors for the following:
Gross Production
GDP or Value Added by Industry
Labour Income – Southern, Northern and Aboriginal
Employment by Industry– Southern, Northern and
Aboriginal
5. Tax revenues to the Federal Government and the
GNWT
6. Population and Labour Force
1.
2.
3.
4.
Timber Modeling
• Divided Deh Cho into 9 Forest Regions
• Identified volume (m3)/ha of conifer and
aspen in each region for each land use
option
• Identified logging costs (Loaded on Truck),
hauling costs for each region
• Determined value of wood
• Assisted by John Bartlett in Fort
Providence
Timber Volumes
• Calculated by Region and Potential:
– Very high: 350 m3/ha x % area coverage
– High: 250 m3/ha x % area coverage
– Moderate and Low: not assessed, uneconomical
• Fort Liard:
– Very High: Conifer 90 m3/ha; Aspen 60 m3/ha
– High: Conifer 7.5 m3/ha; Aspen 5.0 m3/ha
• Cameron Hills:
– Very High: Conifer 70 m3/ha; Aspen 35 m3/ha
– High: Conifer 7.5 m3/ha; Aspen 5.0 m3/ha
• Fort Simpson, Trout Lake, Fort Providence, Wrigley:
– Very High: Conifer 70 m3/ha; Aspen – 0
– High: Conifer 7.5 m3/ha; Aspen 0
• Horn Plateau, Fish Lake, Mackenzie Mountains – No Wood
Logging Costs
• Road Development Costs: $5/m3
• Loaded on Truck Costs: $25/m3 average; $20/m3 for
Fort Liard
• Log Hauling Costs:
– Fort Liard: 200 km highway + 50 km off-highway, $14/m3 spruce
and $18.50/m3 aspen
– Cameron Hills: 200 km highway +30 km off-highway, $13/m3
spruce, $17.30/m3 aspen
– Wrigley: 75 km, $6.15/m3 for spruce; no aspen
– Fort Simpson, Trout Lake, Fort Providence: 50 km, $5.04/m3
spruce, $6.70/m3 aspen
– Horn Plateau, Fish Lake, Mackenzie Mountains – No wood
Delivered Wood Value
• Spruce $45/m3
• Aspen $30/m3
• Current costs exceed this in some regions,
especially for aspen
• Have defined value in the model to equal
minimum costs
• Price must increase before logging is
commercially viable
• Good timber potential for non-commercial
community use or replacing imported lumber
Other Considerations
• Other Forest Products & Values
– Fuel wood, non-timber products, environmental &
habitat benefits
– Given low harvest level – high benefit than otherwise
expected
• Sustainability of Forest Management
Practices
– Resource base, small and non-contiguous
– Operations, harvest and reforestation costs
– Potential markets and market conditions (Sawlog
timber harvest)
Forestry Volume Produced (Millions
of M3)
200
Volume (Millions of M3)
180
Millions of M3
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Option 5
CLW
Agricultural Hectares Developed
8,000
Hectares
Developed
Hectares Developed
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Option 5
CLW
Gas Development (Millions of M3)
Gas Development (Millions of M3)
70,000
Volume
(Millions of
M3)
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Option 5
CLW
Mining Development
• Large Developments – major impacts especially
during construction
• Modeled 3 mines:
OPTION
1
OPTION
2
OPTION
3
OPTION
4
OPTION
5
CLW
Cantung
IN
IN
IN
IN
OUT
IN
Prairie Creek
IN
OUT
OUT
OUT
OUT
IN
Coates Lake
IN
OUT
OUT
OUT
OUT
IN
MINE
Tourism Sites Developed
Number of Sites Developed
100
Number of Sites Developed
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Option 5
CLW
Total Direct Employment # 3
Total Direct Employment
1,800
1,600
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
Deh Cho
200
Southern
0
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
20
21
20
22
20
23
20
24
Person Years
1,400
Time (Years)
Thousands of Constant 2003 Dollars
Impact on Gross Expenditure
30,000,000
Total
25,000,000
Direct
20,000,000
15,000,000
10,000,000
5,000,000
0
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Option 5
CLW
Impact on Gross Domestic Product
Thousands of Constant 2003 Dollars
Impact on Gross Domestic Product
14,000,000
Total
12,000,000
Direct
10,000,000
8,000,000
6,000,000
4,000,000
2,000,000
0
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Option 5
CLW
Direct & Total Employment
60,000
Total
50,000
Direct
People
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Option 5
CLW
Thousands of Constant 2003 Dollars
Impact on Tax Revenue
3,000,000
GNWT
Federal
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
0
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Option 5
CLW
Population Trends
12,000
Adjusted
Base
10,000
People
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Option 5
CLW
Unemployment Rate (%)
16.0%
Adjusted
% Unemployed
14.0%
Base
12.0%
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Option 5
CLW
Employment Rate (%)
78.0%
Adjusted
77.0%
Base
76.0%
% Employed
75.0%
74.0%
73.0%
72.0%
71.0%
70.0%
69.0%
68.0%
67.0%
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Option 5
CLW
Population
11,000
10,000
Option 1
9,500
Option 2
Option 3
9,000
Option 4
8,500
Option 5
8,000
Option 6
7,500
Time (Years)
20
21
20
23
20
17
20
19
20
11
20
13
20
15
20
07
20
09
7,000
20
05
Population
10,500
Indications!
Development
Higher
Inward migration / fly-in workers
Development / Capital Works
Gross Domestic Product
Gross Expenditure
Labor Demand
Employment Opportunities
Lower
Tax Revenue
• Terms and conditions of development
• Manage Potential Development Impacts
Social, Cultural & Ecological Values
• Social, Cultural &Ecological Values not
reflected in the Economic Model
• Need to be considered in Land Use Planning
decisions
• Impacts may vary according to the pace and
type of development
• Should be reflected in Land Use Priorities
• Cumulative Effects addresses social and
cultural indicators
Cumulative Effects
Cumulative Effects Research
• Cumulative Effects identify the overall impact of
many developments together, over time
• Land Use Objectives (Vision and priorities)
• Cumulative Effects Indicators – characteristics:
– Physical-Chemical; Ecological; Land and Resource Use; and
Social
• Thresholds - define the point indicator changes to an
unacceptable condition in zone;
– Levels of acceptable change or tiered thresholds
– Balance human, ecological and social need
• Measure progress towards objectives
• Included in the Deh Cho Land Use Plan as Terms and
Conditions for development and management
Limits of Acceptable Change
Ecological response curve and
tiered habitat thresholds.
Indicators and Thresholds 1
• Proposed Indicators:
– Physical/Chemical
• Air Quality
• Water Quality
– Ecological
•
•
•
•
•
Habitat Availability
Specialized Habitat Features e.g. Salt Licks
Core Habitat
Fish Habitat
Woodland Caribou
Indicators and Thresholds 2
• Proposed Indicators:
– Land Use
•
•
•
•
Total Disturbed Area
Significant and Environmental Features
Total Corridor Density
Stream Crossing Density
– Social
•
•
•
•
•
Significant Cultural Features
Community Population
Labour Participation
Area and Revenue by Sector
Visual Quality
Core Area
• Conservation Zone
– Cautionary >85% Large Core Areas
– Target >75% Large Core Areas
– Critical >65% Large Core Areas
• Development Zone
– Cautionary >65% Medium Core Areas
– Target >50% Medium Core Areas
– Critical >40% Medium Core Areas
Core Area 30%
Core Area
Total Corridor Density
• Conservation Zone
– Cautionary – 1 km / square km
– Target 1.2 km / square km
– Critical 1.5 km / square km
• Development Zone
– Cautionary – 1 km / square km
– Target 1.5 km / square km
– Critical 1.8 km / square km
60 km roads, trails, seismic =
Density 0.6 km / square km
100 sq km
Total Corridor Density
Stream Crossing Density
• Cautionary – to be set by communities
– Target 0.32 / square km
– Critical 0.5 / square km
• Important for Fish Habitat
100 sq km
Density = 0.02
Stream Crossing Density
Feedback Required
• Cumulative Effects Indicators and Thresholds
will be a Major factor in managing overall
development in the Deh Cho
• Planning Partners must agree on Threshold
Values
• Requires feedback and discussion
• Working to meet the Objectives of the Land
Use Plan
Vision & Land Use Priorities
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Look at Regional Vision
What currently exists?
What do you wish to develop? protect?
What do you want to see in 20, 50,100 years?
What will be necessary? Jobs, taxes, migration
What conditions are required?
How quickly do you want to see this
development?
Community Priorities
Traditional
Land
Use
Forestry
Tourism
Oil &
Gas
Agriculture
Mining
Next Steps
• Community Mapping Sessions
• Revise and Present new Land Use Maps at
future consultations (fall 2004)
• Further consideration to:
– social and economic analysis
– cumulative effects research & landscape thresholds
• Land Use Plan Development
– Draft Land Use Plan (2005)
– Final Land Use Plan (March 2006)
Questions?
www.dehcholands.org
Mahsi Cho!