Land Use Planning in the Deh Cho territory

Day 1: Information

1) OPENING PRAYER

2) INTRODUCTION

3) WHAT IS LAND USE PLANNING?

4) UPDATE ON DCLUPC ACTIVITIES & PROGRESS

5) INPUT DATA (INFORMATION USED TO CREATE LAND USE

OPTIONS)

6) LAND USE OPTIONS + ECONOMIC MODEL

7) COMMUNITY VISION AND LAND USE PRIORITIES

8) GENERAL DISCUSSION

9) CLOSING PRAYER

7:00 – 9:00 P.M. OPEN HOUSE

Introduction

• Deh Cho Land Use Planning Committee Staff (Heidi, Paul & Priscilla)

• Responsible for Developing a Land Use Plan• Consultations important 2nd Round is for more

detail• Important decisions for the future of the Deh Cho • Encourage attendance (Elders, youth, families &

leaders) • Balance economic, social, environmental &

cultural issues• 2 days, a lot of information • What types of activities should occur?

Day 2 : Mapping Session

1) OPENING PRAYER

2) INTRODUCTION

3) COMMUNITY MAPPING SESSION

4) GENERAL DISCUSSION

5) CLOSING PRAYER

Exciting Door

Prize – Garmin

GPS Unit

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

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)

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

LUP ProcessMap traditional land use and occupancy for harvesters + sensitive cultural areas.

Biologist identifies critical wildlife areas.

Forester identifies areas of high timber potential.

Geologist identifies areas of high oil and gas potential.

Geologist identifies areas of high mineral potential.

Overlay maps, make decisions and prepare land use plan.

Implement Plan

Agriculturalist identifies areas of high agricultural potential

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

Question & Answers Report

• 1st Round - Information Sessions

• Report of Questions and Answers– Relationship with Deh Cho Process– Research and Information– Participation & Consultations in Planning– Development Sectors and Impacts– Trans-Boundary Issues

Wildlife Workshop

• Created New Wildlife Map (Conservation Layer)

• Held: November 24th – 28th, 2003

• Wildlife Working Group

• Hunters, trappers, harvesters and biologists from the Deh Cho territory

– To fill information gaps in Wildlife Research

– To integrate traditional and scientific knowledge

Dene Nahodhe Workshop

• Held: March 29th – April 2nd, 2004• To integrate the spiritual component into the

Land Use Plan decisions• Elders, Youth and Guest Speakers from across

the Deh Cho • Yamoria Laws, Dene Customs, Holistic

Approach to Land Use Planning• Deh Cho Dene Nahodhe Statement• Ongoing Process – People Implement Plan

“Yamoria came to the homeland of the Deh Cho Dene with laws from the Creator. These laws were given to the Dene to live by. The most important law was respect for Creation – Mother Earth. We

were put here by the Creator to take care of Mother Earth. The foundation of our Deh Cho

government and Mother Earth is Nahe Nahodhe. Nahe Nahodhe is who we are and where we came

from. We stand firm behind this belief.”Accepted by the Elders and Youth at the Deh Cho Land Use Planning Committee’s

Dene Nahodhe Workshop in Fort Providence on April 1, 2004.

Deh Cho Dene Nahodhe

• How should Dene values and principles be applied?

• New Land Uses • Can you develop Oil and Gas and continue to

respect the earth?– Ceremony i.e. Fire Feeding– Only taking what you need – pacing development– Not wasting resources – salvage logging along

pipeline corridor– Monitoring and managing Wildlife – Cumulative

Effects– Sharing and helping all Deh Cho Communities

Deh Cho Dene Nahodhe

Input Data

Conservation ZonesTraditional Land Use

and Occupancy Archeology, Rare Features, Historic Sites and Cabins

Wildlife Habitat Value

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 Lifestyle’s • Information gathered by DCFN • Consulted over 386 harvesters and

mapped information• Reflects Wildlife Habitats and Archeology• 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

Development Zones

Mineral Potential

Oil and Gas Potential Forestry Potential

Tourism Potential

Agricultural

Potential

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

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

Land Use Options + EDA

• What level of development?• 5 Land Use Options + Current Land

Withdrawals• Economic Development Assessment

Model to understand potential impacts• Cumulative Effects Research to consider• Refine Community Vision and Land Use

Priorities • Ensure Land Use Plan is Manageable

Preliminary Land Use Options

• Conservation and Development Layers overlaid• Change Priority for Conservation and Development • Create 5 basic Land Use Options

• Shows a range of possibilities available• Communities & Planning Partners to review Land Use

Options and Current Land Withdrawals• Begin to develop the Land Use Plan

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

Input Data

Interim Land Withdrawals

• Use the same process• Land Withdrawals are a rough estimate• Land Use Planning is a longer process, more

information is collected and allows for informed decisions

• 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

Land Use Option # 1

• Priority given to development sectors (Multiple Use Zones)

• Other factors determine if development occurs• Labor demand and inward migration of skilled labor• Education, training and management a priority to

secure benefits for communities• Question’s remain for Uncertain Zones • Fragmented habitats• High disposable income and modern lifestyle• Loss of traditional knowledge culture and

language

Land Use Option # 1

Land Use Option # 2

• Development emphasis although more weight to conservation than Option # 1

• Conservation Zones protect key wildlife habitats and traditional areas i.e. Nahanni National Park

• Strong Economy – good employment opportunities, high disposable income, especially in the South Deh Cho

• Education, training and management a priority to secure benefits for communities

• No Uncertain Zones – clear what is permitted development

• Habitat fragmentation - may impact traditional harvesting

• Lifestyle changes may result in loss of traditional knowledge culture and language

Land Use Option # 2

Land Use Option # 3

• Balance of Development and Conservation Priorities• Uncertain Zones cover 40% of the Deh Cho - special

conditions for development may apply• 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

• Conservation Zones better able to sustain wildlife populations, traditional harvesting and seasonal employment

• Opportunity to balance maintaining a traditional lifestyle and the benefits of development

Land Use Option # 3

Land Use Option # 4

• Focus on Conservation layers, Wildlife and TLUO• Some Multiple Use Zones for Development - no Uncertain

Zones• 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 government administrations would

continue to be a major employer and play a lead role in skills development

• Expanded Conservation Zones around protected areas promote subsistence harvesting and traditional activities

• Social pressures of development may begin to impact traditional culture and values

Land Use Option # 4

Land Use Option # 5• Conservation Zones a Priority• Development restricted to areas away from communities

with high potential• A few Uncertain Zones where decisions have to be made• Lack of revenue and income from development may limit

services and opportunities• Lack of opportunities may increase social problems with

alcohol and drugs• Also expanded Conservation Zones provide opportunities

for subsistence harvesting • Young people may leave communities or even the Deh Cho

for employment or education• Key role for local and regional government in employment,

training and controlling development

Land Use Option # 5

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)• Will include 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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 and Cultural Values

• Social and Cultural 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 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

• Major factor in managing overall development in the Deh Cho

• Planning Partner must agree on Threshold Values

• Requires Community feedback and discussion

• Working to meet the Objectives of the Land Use Plan

Community Vision & Land Use Priorities

• Look at Community 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

• Mapping Session• Digitize map from Community Mapping Session• Copy for Communities • 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!