ESRF BEAUFORT DELTA CUMULATIVE EFFECTS PROJECT

1
ESRF BEAUFORT DELTA CUMULATIVE EFFECTS PROJECT

• NWT THRESHOLDS FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE
• Dillon Consulting Limited Kerry Brewin, Bruce
  Greenfield
• Salmo Consulting Inc. Terry Antoniuk
• in association with
• Keano Social Analysts Joan Ryan, Allice Legat

2
ESRF

• Environmental Studies Research Funds sponsor
  environmental and social studies designed to
  assist government decision-making related to oil
  and gas exploration and development on Canadas
  frontier lands
• Cumulative effects and thresholds identified as a
  funding priority in 2002 with Beaufort
  Sea-Mackenzie Delta as priority area

3
ESRF

• Independent Technical Advisory Group established
• Scientific Authority Chuck Brumwell/Laura
  Johnston Environment Canada
• Ray Case GNWT Environment and Natural Resources
  
• Roger Creasey, Carol Barsky Canadian
  Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP)
• Alan Ehrlich Mackenzie Valley Environmental
  Impact Review Board
• Kim Hawkins Gwichin Tribal Council
• Laurie McEachern/Meredith Seabrook Indian and
  Northern Affairs Canada
• Sheilagh Montgomery Canadian Arctic Resources
  Committee (CARC)
• Bill Ross University of Calgary
• Norm Snow Inuvialuit Joint Secretariat
• National Energy Board (ESRF Administrator)
• Terms of Reference and call for proposals issued
  in early 2004
• Final Report to be issued by ESRF mid-2006

4
ESRF Project Objectives

• Identify Valued Components of interest
• Identify practical environmental and
  socio-cultural Indicators
• Develop Thresholds or Limits of Acceptable Change
  
• Improve project decision-making and performance

5
Project Activities

• Initial literature review
• Discussion paper Sept 2004
• Inuvik workshop Oct 2004
• ½ day with community representatives only
• Full day with community, aboriginal, government,
  industry representatives
• Workshop summary circulated
• Draft report February 2005

6
Workshop Purpose

• How will information from this workshop be used?
• We believe in these tools, but want to make sure
  the report recommendations are of value to you
• Make sure were on the right track and help
  define reasonable indicators and thresholds
• Need direct input on socio-cultural Valued
  Components, Indicators, and how to best define
  Thresholds
• Workshop summary will be sent for your review and
  included in final report

7
COMMUNITY COMMENTS

• Many components of a CE framework are in place
• Settled land claims
• Land use plans and studies
• Protected areas mean no development
• Our involvement in this workshop doesnt mean
  endorsement we cant speak for others in our
  communities
• What makes this important enough for us to be
  involved?
• Why did ESRF decide to do this without consulting
  us?
• May be opportunity to help provide consistency
  between communities

8
CE Frameworks
9
Beaufort Delta Vision

• Valued Components and Indicators should reflect
  the strong linkage between environmental
  conditions and community well-being
• Indicators should be selected to help integrate
  social and environmental management and programs

10
Beaufort Delta Vision

• Thresholds/Limits should be conservative
  (precautionary) in designated areas with
  sensitive or valued resources
• Thresholds/Limits should accommodate increased
  economic development while improving existing
  social problems
• Thresholds/Limits should be linked to existing
  land use plans

11
Valued Components

• Broad VCs recommended by TAG
• Air
• Nearshore Marine
• Freshwater
• Land
• Sensitive and Protected Areas
• Traditional Culture and Land Use
• Community Well-being
• Economic and Business Opportunities

12
Selecting and Using Indicators

• Issue-specific (CIMP and GNWT approach)
• Caribou calf numbers
• Single parent numbers
• Impractical for small project reviews
• Generalized
• Habitat loss and alteration
• Traditional harvest participation rate
• Most practical for project reviews, but may not
  protect sensitive sites
• Both needed for Beaufort Delta region

13
Selecting and Using Indicators

• Selection criteria
• Clear and understandable
• Easy and practical to collect, measure or
  calculate for both small and large proposals
• Assess pathways for low through intensive land
  use
• Useful for long time frames
• Provide information for multiple Valued
  Components
• Taken together, describe overall conditions

14
(No Transcript)
15
(No Transcript)
16
AIR

• Air quality
• Reflects cumulative effect of emissions
• Valued resource in Inuvialuit Community
  Conservation Plans
• Established standards and methods
• Measure of local and sub-regional CE risk
• Noise considered indirectly

17
AIR

• Air quality
• Critical Threshold approved ambient standards
• Targets? consider for areas where pristine air
  quality is objective

18
NEARSHORE MARINE

• Total area disturbed
• ha and of region directly disturbed
• Core (interior/undisturbed) habitat available
• of region remaining gt1 km from disturbance, and
  greater than specified size
• Specialized environmental features
• Category E lands, Beluga Management Zone
• Monthly aircraft and vessel activity
• ha and of region in travel corridors
• Polar bear mortality
• Total mortality including industrial and research

19
NEARSHORE MARINE

• Total area disturbed
• Target
• no more than 5 on ICCP Category C and D lands
• Critical
• no more than 10 on ICCP Category C and D lands
• no more than 0.5 on ICCP Category E lands

20
NEARSHORE MARINE

• Monthly aircraft and vessel activity
• Target
• no more than 20 combined footprint on ICCP
  Category C and D lands
• 0 on Beluga Management Zone 1 during beluga
  harvest
• 0 on KIBS during the nesting season
• Critical
• no more than 30 combined footprint on ICCP
  Category C and D lands
• no more than 5 on Beluga Management Zone 1
  during beluga harvest
• no more than 5 on KIBS during the nesting
  season

21
LAND

• Core (interior/undisturbed) habitat available
• of region remaining gt1 km from disturbance, and
  greater than specified size
• Considers indirect effects of noise
• Sensitive environmental features
• Pingos, dens, nests, etc.
• Seasonal aircraft and vehicle activity
• ha and of region in travel corridors
• Grizzly bear mortality
• Total mortality including industrial and research

22
LAND

• Core (interior/undisturbed) habitat available
• Target
• more than 40 on ICCP Category A and B lands and
  GLUP General Use Zones
• more than 60 on ICCP Category C and D lands and
  GLUP Special Management Zones
• Critical
• more than 50 on ICCP Category A and B lands and
  GLUP General Use Zones
• more than 70 on ICCP Category C and D lands and
  GLUP Special Management Zones
• more than 90 on ICCP Category E lands and GLUP
  Conservation/Heritage Conservation Zones
• Consider cautionary thresholds to initiate
  monitoring for sensitive species in special
  management areas

23
LAND

• Sensitive environmental features
• Target
• no disturbance or activity within 250 m
• Critical
• no net loss (taking into account mitigation or
  compensation)

24
FRESHWATER

• Total land area disturbed
• ha and of watershed directly disturbed
• Total aquatic and riparian area disturbed
• ha and of watershed directly disturbed
• Water quality
• Concentration of regulated discharge parameters
• Specialized environmental features
• Overwintering and spawning areas, etc.
• Char harvest
• Harvest of sensitive lake trout and Dolly Varden

25
FRESHWATER

• Total aquatic and riparian area disturbed
• Cautionary
• Stream crossing density less than 0.25
  crossings/km2 where fisheries values are a
  primary objective
• Critical
• no net loss (taking into account mitigation,
  compensation, or enhancement)

26
FRESHWATER

• Char harvest
• Cautionary
• all industry-associated harvest and mortality
  monitored and reported
• Target
• no more than 1 of total annual allowable harvest
  for Dolly Varden
• no more than 10 of previous years recorded
  subsistence harvest for lake trout

27
(No Transcript)
28
(No Transcript)
29
TRADITIONAL CULTURE LAND USE

• Project-specific
• Significant cultural features
• archaeology, cultural, heritage, historic,
  spiritual, subsistence use locations
• Area unavailable for traditional use
• area within 1 km of highly visible industrial and
  urban sites and established safety exclusion
  zones

30
TRADITIONAL CULTURE LAND USE

• Significant cultural features
• Target
• no disturbance or activity within 100 m
• Critical
• no net loss (taking into account mitigation or
  compensation)

31
TRADITIONAL CULTURE LAND USE

• Area unavailable for traditional use
• Target
• no more than 10 on ICCP Category A and B lands
  and GLUP General Use Zones
• more than 5 on ICCP Category C and D lands and
  GLUP Special Management Zones
• Critical
• more than 20 on ICCP Category A and B lands and
  GLUP General Use Zones
• more than 10 on ICCP Category C and D lands and
  GLUP Special Management Zones
• more than 0.5 on ICCP Category E lands and GLUP
  Conservation/Heritage Conservation Zones

32
TRADITIONAL CULTURE LAND USE

• Regional
• Aboriginal language use
• Time spent on traditional activities

33
COMMUNITY WELL-BEING

• Project-specific
• Project employment
• full and part-time employment by community
• Training
• resident and non-resident training
• Community population
• permanent and transient population change by
  community

34
COMMUNITY WELL-BEING

• Training
• Target
• all residents to complete at least 2 skill
  training programs and all non-residents to
  complete a cross-cultural skill training program
  every five years
• Critical
• all residents to complete at least 1 skill
  training programs and all non-residents to
  complete a cross-cultural skill training program
  every five years

35
COMMUNITY WELL-BEING

• Community population
• Target
• no more than 10 change from ten year average
  population growth/decline rate (final target
  limit to be defined by community)
• Critical
• no more than 25 change from ten year average
  population growth/decline rate (final target
  limit to be defined by community)

36
COMMUNITY WELL-BEING

• Regional
• Suicide rate
• Crime rate

37
ECONOMY AND BUSINESS

• Project-specific
• Project employment
• full and part-time employment by community
• Project income
• projected business and part-time employment
  (expenditures) by community

38
ECONOMY AND BUSINESS

• Project employment
• Target
• labour force participation higher than ten year
  average rate (final target limit to be defined by
  community)
• Critical
• labour force participation no lower than ten year
  average rate (final target limit to be defined by
  community)

39
ECONOMY AND BUSINESS

• Project income
• Target
• average household income higher than ten year
  average rate (final target limit to be defined by
  community)
• Critical
• average household income no lower than ten year
  average rate (final target limit to be defined by
  community)

40
ECONOMY AND BUSINESS

• Regional
• Household micro-economy
• Net regional assets
• link subsistence economy, wage economy, and
  community well-being
• recommended for Alaskan North Slope

41
REFINING LIMITS

• Report provides first step, not final answer
• Appears to be reasonable starting point for
  threshold discussion / implementation
• Consultation
• wider discussion on indicators to be used and
  associated limits/thresholds
• build community and political support

42
REFINING LIMITS

• Evaluation
• calculation methods and decision rules
• probably need to simplify
• evaluate benefits and costs to confirm
  appropriate balance
• Implementation Framework
• define project-specific and cooperative
  management actions (mitigation, monitoring,
  research)
• regional database
• Pilot project to test and refine

43
(No Transcript)