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)

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

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

+ +

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

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)

1 km

1 km

100 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

• 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

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 Traditional Use Allowed EverywhereEverywhere

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 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

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

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

100 sq km

60 km roads, trails, seismic = Density 0.6 km / square 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 Habitat100 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

TourismOil & Gas

Forestry

MiningAgriculture

Traditional

Land

Use

What is

important

to you?

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!