Upload
barnard-burns
View
215
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Land Use Planning in the Deh Cho territory
Agenda
1. INTRODUCTION TO THE COMMITTEE
2. WHAT IS LAND USE PLANNING?
3. LAND USE PLANNING AND THE DEH CHO PROCESS
4. UPDATE ON DCLUPC ACTIVITIES & PROGRESS
5. INPUT DATA FOR LAND USE OPTIONS
6. LAND USE OPTIONS + ECONOMIC MODEL
7. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS RESEARCH
8. QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION
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 Canadien)
What is Land Use Planning?
Potential Land Uses
Decisions (Planning Partners)(Staff & Committee)
Zones (Planning & Management)
• Development Conservation• Forestry - GreenForestry - Green TLUO – Red TLUO – Red• Tourism – Orange Tourism – Orange Wildlife – BlueWildlife – Blue• Oil and Gas – Purple Oil and Gas – Purple Archaeology - BlackArchaeology - Black• Minerals – BrownMinerals – Brown• Agriculture – YellowAgriculture – Yellow
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
Deh Cho Process
• The Deh Cho Process is the process of negotiations on lands and resource management and self-governance between the Deh Cho First Nations, Government of Canada and the Government of the Northwest Territories
• Began in 1993 and is on-going• May 2001- Signed a Framework Agreement and Interim
Measures Agreement• April 2003 – Signed Interim Land Withdrawals and
Interim Resource Development Agreement• Currently working towards an Agreement in Principle
(AIP)• Aiming for a Final Agreement by 2008
Interim Land Withdrawals
Interim Land Withdrawals
• Land Withdrawals identified critical areas for interim protection
• Land Use Plan will revise Land Withdrawals
Land Use PlanningLand Use Planning
Interim Land WithdrawalsInterim Land Withdrawals
5 years in parallel5 years in parallel
Approval
Deh Cho Process
• Will address ownership/sovereignty over land
• Not following the typical land selection model
• Negotiating Shared Stewardship over entire 210,000 km2
• For more information go to:– http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/dehcho/ or – http://www.dehchofirstnations.com/
Land Use Planning and the Deh Cho Process
• Land Use Planning is only one part of the larger Deh Cho Process
• Land Use Plan must be completed before the Deh Cho Process to be used by the three parties to negotiate in the Deh Cho Process
• Draft Land Use Plan (2005)– Final Land Use Plan (March 2006)
• Complete Deh Cho Process (~ 2008)• Land Use Plan will be revised to be consistent
with the final agreement and every 5 years after
Planning Partners
+ +
Approve Plan
2nd Priority
Businesses, Associations, non- governmental organizations
1st Priority
Residents
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
Land Use Options
• Draft 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 – little community or planning partner input yet
• Will be revised based on feedback and presented at the next round of meetings
Options Development
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 and maintained by DCFN • Consulted 386 harvesters and mapped
information• Harvest areas, kill sites, sacred sites, berry
patches• DCFN approved publication and use at Kakisa
Assembly 2004 • Planning Committee only gets generalized
density of use, not raw data
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
Minerals
• Knowledge-driven mineral potential mapping approach based on geological favourability and known mineral occurrences
• Assessed 9 mineral types thought to have the most potential in the region– Sedimentary Exhalative Sulphides (SEDEX)– Sedimentary-hosted Stratiform Copper– Mississippi Valley-type Lead-Zinc– Vein Copper– Skarn Lead-Zinc-Silver– Skarn Gold– Skarn Tungsten– Granitic Pegmatite– Primary Diamonds
Information Sources
• Geological Base: 1:1,000,000 digital map by Journey and Williams (1995)
• Mineral Occurrences: NORMIN Database
• Mineral Deposit Type Information: Geology of Canadian Mineral Deposit Types by Eckstrand (1996)
Mineral Potential RankingsMINERAL POTENTIAL RANKING(Based on GSC MERA ranking system)
*X denotes field unlikely to be used.
MINERAL OCURRENCE RANKING
Confidence Ranking
Rank 1: Abundant Reliable Information
Rank 2: Moderate amt of information
Rank 3: Some information
Rank 4: Very little/ unreliable information
Rank A – Very High: Geologic environment favourable. Significant deposits are known. Presence of undiscovered deposits is very likely.
X
Rank B – High: Geologic environment favourable. Occurrences are present but significant accumulations may not be known to be present. Presence of undiscovered deposits likely.
Rank C – Moderate to High: Intermediate between moderate and high.
Rank D – Moderate: Geologic environment favourable. Occurrences may or may not be known. Presence of undiscovered deposits is possible.
Rank E – Low to Moderate: Intermediate between low and moderate.
Rank F – Low: Some aspects of the geologic environment may be favourable but are limited in extent. Few if any occurrences are known. Low probability that undiscovered deposits are present.
Rank G – Very Low: Geologic environment unfavourable. No occurrences are known. Very low probability that an undiscovered deposit is present.
X
Rank H – Not Assessed: Deposit types unknown, overlooked, beyond scope of study or not worth mentioning at the time
X X
Stratiform Iron (CMDT 3.0)
SEDEX (CMDT 6.1)
Sediment-Hosted Copper (CMDT 8.3)
MVT Lead-Zinc (CMDT 10.0)
Vein Copper (CMDT 17.0)
Skarn Lead-Zinc (CMDT 20.1)
Skarn Gold (CMDT 20.3)
Skarn Tungsten (CMDT 20.5)
Pegmatites (CMDT 21.0)
Primary Diamonds (CMDT 25.0)
Minerals
• Produced a final cumulative mineral potential map showing geological favourability and ranking of Resource Assessment Domains (RADS)
• The highest potential is in the western tip of the territory • There is significant potential for:
– Sedimentary exhalitive sulphides (SEDEX) zinc-lead,– Sediment-hosted stratiform copper,– Mississippi Valley-type lead-zinc,– Vein copper,– Skarn deposits (emerald, gold, tungsten, copper, and lead-zinc).
Cumulative Mineral Potential
Mineral Priority Areas
• Combines geological information with synoptic level economic factors to identify priority areas for development– Geographical factors (remoteness, infrastructure)– Size of potential deposit– Inclusion of precious metal in a base metal deposit increases
development potential– Reduced emphasis on Stratiform Fe, Sedimentary Cu and Vein
Cu and increased emphasis on SEDEX, MVT Pb-Zc and Skarn deposits.
– World markets– Ease/Costs of mineral extraction – Presence of existing deposits
Mineral Priority Areas
Mineral Development Potential
Oil and Gas Potential
• Canadian Gas Potential Committee estimates 69,177x106m3 natural gas has been discovered in the Deh Cho plus 31,075x106m3 in undiscovered nominal marketable gas
• 419 hydrocarbon wells drilled, most are wildcat wells (exploratory) but 127 have found hydrocarbons
• Hydrocarbon Potential was assessed by defining hydrocarbon plays and identifying the number of confirmed and conceptual plays existing in a given region
• 20 hydrocarbon plays in the Deh Cho– 9 confirmed– 11 unconfirmed
• Current producing regions are Fort Liard (natural gas) and Cameron Hills (gas with oil); 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
Forestry Potential
• Productive timber stands around Fort Liard, Nahanni region, Jean Marie River and the Cameron Hills
• Current timber harvest well below sustainable harvest levels (20 years harvest)
• Low prices $ and difficult access may impact commercial viability
• Potential for community use for log houses and cut lumber in fly-in communities
Forestry 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
Preliminary Land Use Options
• Change Priority of Conservation and Development • Create 5 Land Use Options • Shows a range of possibilities available
• Compare to Current Land Withdrawals• Use Economic model to compare effects on economy
High High DevelopmentDevelopment
Low Low ConservationConservation 1 2 3 4 5
Low Low DevelopmentDevelopment
High High ConservationConservation
Options
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 Traditional Use Allowed EverywhereEverywhere
Land Use Option # 1
Land Use Option # 2
Land Use Option # 3
Land Use Option # 4
Land Use Option # 5
Interim Land Withdrawals
Economic Development Assessment Model
• Determines costs & benefits for informed land use planning decisions
• Model current economy then predict the next 20 years• Driven by level of development in 5 key sectors • Allows us to see the economic impact of developing each
resource sector, and some specific projects• Apply Economic Assessment Model to each of five Land
Use Options and the existing land withdrawals• Results are regional not community based• Results are preliminary – more refinement required
Economic Development Assessment Model
Model Structure
Government Tax and Revenue
Model
Labour Force Model
Economic Impact Model (Input-Output)User Input
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:
1. Gross Production 2. GDP or Value Added by Industry3. Labour Income – Southern, Northern and Aboriginal4. Employment by Industry– Southern, Northern and
Aboriginal5. Tax revenues to the Federal Government and the
GNWT6. Population and Labour Force
Mining Development
• Large Developments – major impacts especially during construction
• Modeled 3 mines:
MINE 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
Mining Economics
• Production (tons/yr)• Value of Production ($)• Capital Investment• Operating Costs• Direct Mine Operating Resource Income• Mine Operating Resource Profits and
Taxes• Employment
Gas Development (Millions of M3)
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 CLW
Gas D
evelo
pm
en
t (M
illi
on
s o
f M
3)
Volume(Millions ofM3)
Agricultural Hectares Developed
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 CLW
Hec
tare
s D
evel
op
ed
HectaresDeveloped
Forestry Volume Produced (Millions of M3)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 CLW
Mil
lio
ns o
f M
3
Volume (Millions of M3)
Tourism Sites Developed
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 CLW
Nu
mb
er o
f S
ites
Dev
elo
ped
Number of Sites Developed
Timing of DevelopmentForestry
Mackenzie Mtns 2005
Oil and Gas
Laramide/Manetoe 2005
Tourism
Ecotourism 2006
Wrigley 2008 Laramide/Windflower 2005 Soft Adventure 2005
Fish Lake 2005 Slave Point Edge 2010 Hard Adventure 2010
Horn Plateau 2005 Slave Point Back Barrier 2015 Consumptive 2006
Fort Providence 2010 Sulphur Point / Bistcho 2013
Trout Lake 2006 Lonely Bay isolated reefs (Horn Plateau)
2011 Mackenzie Valley Pipeline
2006
Fort Liard 2005 Basal Cretaceous Clastics 2020 Deh Cho Bridge 2005
Fort Simpson 2007 Jean Marie 2018
Cameron Hills 2005 Keg River / Cordova 2016
MiningCantung 2010
Basal Devonian Clastics / La Roche
2005
Prairie Creek 2008 Arnica / Landry Platform 2014
Coates Lake 2015 Lonely Bay Platform 2010
Agriculture 2005 Kakisa / Redknife 2005
Upper Paleozoic (sub-Cretaceous subcrop)
2009
Gross Expenditure # 3Gross Expenditures
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
Time (Years)
Th
ou
san
ds o
f C
on
sta
nt
2003 D
ollars
Total
Direct
Gross Domestic Product # 3 Gross Domestic Product
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
Time (Years)
Th
ou
san
ds o
f C
on
sta
nt
2003 D
ollars
Total
Direct
Total Direct Employment # 3 Total Direct Employment
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
Time (Years)
Pers
on
Years
Deh Cho
Southern
Direct & Total Employment # 3 Total Direct and Total (Direct, Indirect and
Induced Employment)
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
Time (Years)
Pe
rso
n Y
ea
rs
Total
Direct
Federal & GNWT Tax Revenue # 3
Impact on Federal Government and GNWT Tax Revenues
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
Time (Years)
Th
ou
san
ds o
f C
on
sta
nt
2003 D
oll
ars
GNWT
Federal
Change in Population # 3Change in Deh Cho Population
5,000
5,500
6,000
6,500
7,000
7,500
8,000
8,500
9,000
Time (Years)
Nu
mb
er
Base
Adjusted
Employed & Unemployed no. # 3
Deh Cho Employed and Unemployed
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
Time (Years)
Nu
mb
er
Employed
Unemployed
Employed & Unemployed % # 3
Deh Cho Employment and Unemployment Rates
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
Time (Years)
Perc
en
tag
e
Employment
Unemployed
Impact on Gross Expenditure
0
5,000,000
10,000,000
15,000,000
20,000,000
25,000,000
30,000,000
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 CLWTh
ou
sa
nd
s o
f C
on
sta
nt
20
03
Do
llars
Total
Direct
Impact on Gross Domestic Product
Impact on Gross Domestic Product
0
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 CLWTh
ou
san
ds
of
Co
nst
ant
2003
Do
llar
s
Total
Direct
Direct & Total Employment
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 CLW
Peo
ple
Total
Direct
Impact on Tax Revenue
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 CLW
Th
ou
san
ds o
f C
on
sta
nt
2003 D
oll
ars
GNWT
Federal
Population Trends
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 CLW
Peo
ple
Adjusted
Base
Unemployment Rate (%)
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
14.0%
16.0%
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 CLW
% U
nem
plo
yed
Adjusted
Base
Employment Rate (%)
67.0%
68.0%
69.0%
70.0%
71.0%
72.0%
73.0%
74.0%
75.0%
76.0%
77.0%
78.0%
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 CLW
% E
mp
loye
d
Adjusted
Base
Population
7,000
7,500
8,000
8,500
9,000
9,500
10,000
10,500
11,000
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
2019
2021
2023
Time (Years)
Po
pu
lati
on
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Option 5
Option 6
Indications!
• Terms and conditions of development
• Manage Potential Development Impacts
Higher
Lower
DevelopmentInward migration / fly-in workers
Development / Capital Works
Gross Domestic Product
Gross Expenditure
Labor Demand
Employment Opportunities
Tax Revenue
Feedback
• Input and output values are preliminary and need refining
• Requesting feedback and assistance to ensure we model costs and values appropriately (Volunteers?)
• Is there a way to model the economic value of mineral potential?
Social, Cultural & Ecological Values
• Social, Cultural and 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 Research• Cumulative Effects identify the overall impact of
many developments together, over time
• Guided by Land Use Objectives (Vision and priorities)
• Indicators – Environmental or social parameter to monitor
• Thresholds - The point at which indicator changes to an unacceptable condition
• To be 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
• Considerations include size of study area and age / regrowth of cutlines
100 sq km
60 km roads, trails, seismic = Density 0.6 km / square km
Total Corridor Density
Stream Crossing Density
• Cautionary – to be set in important areas (e.g. spawning)– 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
• DCLUPC would like feedback and discussion on the report and proposed indicators
• All recommendations are under consideration by the Committee
Next Steps
• Community Mapping Sessions– Identifying community priorities, where lands
should be protected, where development should be permitted and general terms and conditions
– Identifying compatible and incompatible uses
• Refine: – social and economic analysis – cumulative effects research
Next Steps
• Present Revised Land Use Options (2-3) at future consultations (late fall 2004/early 2005)
• Revise based on feedback to one or two options
• Hold regional gathering for all planning partners to discuss final land use map
• Develop Draft Land Use Plan (2005)• Final Land Use Plan (March 2006)
Feedback
• Have we captured the information for your sector appropriately / accurately (please review appropriate reports and provide feedback if necessary)
• Are there important areas your sector would like to see opened up over the next 20 years?
• Review and comment on economic modeling of the mining industry in the Deh Cho.
• Are there any points you would like to see the land use plan address relating to your industry?
• Please provide feedback on our process and methods.
Questions?
www.dehcholands.org
Mahsi Cho!