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

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

• Estimates vary – in 1996 NEB estimated 62,265x106m3 in undiscovered marketable gas potential for 14 plays in this region

• 419 hydrocarbon wells drilled, most are wildcat wells (exploratory) but 127 have found hydrocarbons

• 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)

Petroleum Occurrences

Information Sources

• Open file reports, bulletins, memoirs and papers from GSC and C.S. Lord Northern Geoscience Centre

• Well Reports, wireline well log results and geological and seismic program reports released to open file by NEB Frontier Office

• Geological journal and books• Petroleum Industry data• Corporate literature• Annual reports and information released by

government regulatory bodies

Oil & Gas

• Hydrocarbon Potential was assessed by defining hydrocarbon plays (family of pools and/or prospects that share common geological characteristics and history of hydrocarbon generation, migration, reservoir development and trap configuration)

• 20 hydrocarbon plays in the Deh Cho– 9 confirmed– 11 unconfirmed

• Confirmed plays were given more weight than unconfirmed plays in the assessment of potential

• Potential value was assigned by overlaying plays and summing the number of confirmed and unconfirmed plays for any given area

Oil and Gas Potential Ranking

Hydrocarbon Plays

Hydrocarbon Plays

Hydrocarbon Plays

Oil and Gas Potential

Confidence Ranking

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

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

Gas VolumesPlay # Play Name Undiscovered marketable gas

potential (x106m3); min. value at 95% confidence level

1 Laramide/Manetoe 15,003.08

2 Laramide/Windflower 3,263.39

3 Slave Point Edge 6,978.89

4 Slave Point Back Barrier 7,959.88

5 Sulphur Point / Bistcho 3,503.04

6 Lonely Bay isolated reefs (Horn Plateau) 2,333.09

7 Basal Cretaceous Clastics 1,745.00

8 Jean Marie 4,306.42

9 Keg River / Cordova 543.05

10 Basal Devonian Clastics / La Roche 2,441.59

12 Arnica / Landry Platform 9,073.74

13 Lonely Bay Platform 4,390.84

14 Kakisa / Redknife 526.90

15 Upper Paleozoic (sub-Cretaceous subcrop) 196.60

SUM 62,265.51 (2,198 Bcf)

Gas Volumes

• From Natural Gas Resource Assessment of SE Yukon and NWT (NEB 1996)

• Regrouped NEB plays to match C.S. Lord plays and calculated volumes based on % within Deh Cho plays

• No information for 6 plays• Estimates are conservative• Calculated volumes developed by % of play

falling into development zone for each option• Suggestions welcome for future revisions

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)

Oil & Gas Economics

• Value of Gas: $5.97 Cdn/Mcf ($0.21/m3) • Capital Estimate = 0.1% of revenues• Federal Royalties: Starts at 1% and increases by

1% every 18 months until a max of 5%• Mackenzie Valley Pipeline assumed to go ahead

in all options and is modeled based on the Wright-Mansell Report

• No further costs available at this time• Would like assistance in reviewing economic

figures and volume estimates

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)

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

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 from resource specialists to ensure we model costs and values appropriately (Volunteers?)

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 oil and gas 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!