Land Use Planning in the Deh Cho territory. Agenda 1)INTRODUCTION 2)WHAT IS LAND USE PLANNING? 3)UPDATE ON DCLUPC ACTIVITIES & PROGRESS 4)INPUT DATA (INFORMATION.

Land Use Planning in the Deh Cho territory

Agenda

1) INTRODUCTION

2) WHAT IS LAND USE PLANNING?

3) UPDATE ON DCLUPC ACTIVITIES & PROGRESS

4) INPUT DATA (INFORMATION USED TO CREATE LAND USE

OPTIONS)

5) LAND USE OPTIONS + ECONOMIC MODEL

6) COMMUNITY VISION AND LAND USE PRIORITIES

7) GENERAL DISCUSSION

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

Update on Activities

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

• From 1st Round of 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

Resource Potential and Conservation Values

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

Tourism• Deh Cho Territory

– Vast Pristine Wilderness Landscapes (210,000 km2), wild flowing rivers, lakes teeming with fish, flourishing Aboriginal cultures, and a place where caribou outnumber people

– Potential for Tourism

• Deh Cho ~ 2,120 visitors or 4 % of NWT visitation of ~50,000 (RWED, 1998)

• Yukon ~ 300,000 visitors in 2002 (P. Gort, pers. comm., 2002).

• Reasons for low visitation:– Competition from more established northern destinations (i.e. Yukon and Alaska);– Marketing and Product of the Deh Cho not distinguished from similar, more accessible

destinations (i.e. Northern Ontario, B.C. and Alberta, etc.); – Emerging destination with few market-ready products and little recognition in the global

tourism marketplace.

• Canada 9th most popular global destination 2.9 % of the global tourists (www.canadatourism.com).

• Of the non-resident NWT leisure visitors: – 54.1 % Canadian, 16 % U.S.A. and 29.9 % from overseas (Japan, Germany & UK)\

• NWT Tourists arrive by road (71 %) and by air (29 %) (RWED, 1998)

Tourism

“Rubber Tire” Adventure, Driving the Deh Cho travel Connection

(Loop along Mackenzie & Liard Highways from Northern BC and Northern Alberta).

Sport Hunting or Fishing,

i.e. Hunting Dall’s Sheep in the Mackenzie

Mountains.

Backcountry Adventure i.e. Guided canoe trip down the

South Nahanni River through the Nahanni National Park Reserve

Tourism Product CategoriesHARD ADVENTURE

Requires experience, element of risk, Physical and mental fitness

Prepared for all weather conditions, sleeping arrangements and dietary restrictions,

Multiple days in unusual / exotic wilderness destination, high levels of activity

e.g. rock climbing, whitewater river rafting/canoeing, kayaking, multi-day backpacking Icons: Nahanni

National Park Reserve, South Nahanni River whitewater canoeing, multi-day Mackenzie River

canoeing etc..

SOFT ADVENTURELittle experience required, risks minimized,

Low / modestly physically demanding, Standards of safety and comfort above average,

Typically a day product not overnightLess demanding than hard adventure

e.g. flat-water rafting/canoeing/kayaking, day camping, day hiking, wilderness lodge experience,

Icons: boating the Mackenzie or North Nahanni Rivers, Nahanni Mountain Lodge, North Nahanni Naturalist

Lodge, Virginia Falls flight etc.

ECO-TOURISMEngaging, participatory and socially responsible travel,

Focus on experiencing environment visited, Economic contribution to local community,

Small groups and leader with local knowledge, Possible component of a hard & soft adventure product.

e.g. bird and wildlife viewing, cultural tours, cultural camps, geological interest, etc.

Icons: cultural camps along the Mackenzie or Liard Rivers, Mackenzie Bison Sanctuary, wildlife viewing in

the Ram Plateau.

CONSUMPTIVE TOURISM

Tangible products / materials removed from natural environment as part of tourist’s commercial experience.

e.g. fishing and hunting (Catch and release popular). Icons: sport hunting concession area or fishing lodges.

Data Collection

PRIMARY SOURCES– Northern Land Use Information

Series maps– Arctic Development Library CD– Stakeholder Interviews (phone

or in person) • Tourism Officers, Owner

Operators, Biologists etc..

SECONDARY SOURCES– Print Documents

• Guides, Brochures, Surveys, Regulations

– Websites• Travel, Tourism Operators

and Government

CATEGORIZE DATA (Product, Service or Natural Attraction PSN)

(Existing and Potential Tourism)

RANK TOURISM POTENTIAL

MAPPING

Categorizing Data• Site Reference Number

– Location of specific PSN.• Source

– Where data was collected, reinforced through multiple sources.• Type of Activity

– Descriptors: Mountain Climbing (MC), Backpacking/ Hiking (B), Scenic Viewpoint/Flightseeing (S), Wildlife Viewing (W), Canoeing/Rafting/Sea Kayaking (C), Boating (Bo), Lodge (L), Geological Feature (G), Camping Opportunities (Ca), Interpretive Attraction (I), Fishing (F), Hunting (H).

• Location Name – Actual name of location i.e. “area around Cli and Little Doctor Lakes”.

• Additional Information – To provide a greater sense of location

• Product/Market Category – Hard Adventure (H), Soft Adventure (S), Eco-tourism (E), Fishing (F) and Hunting (Hu).

• Day/Multi-Day – Specify length activity i.e. backpacking routes close to a community could be done either in

a day or stretched out into two or three days with overnight camping. • Tourism Potential Ranking

– Rank (1-4) indicating lowest to highest levels of tourism potential• General Rationale for Ranking

– Overall reason for the ranking was briefly explained.

Tourism Potential Ranking

·

RANK SOURCES

10%

LOCATION / ACCESS

20%

MARKETABILITY

50%

LOCAL ECONOMIC BENEFITS

20%

POOR 1

FAIR 2

GOOD 3

EXCELLENT 4

1 source

2-3 sources

4-5 sources

6 + sources

Remote, mainly helicopter access

near remote communities

Few transport options for

access, far from access point

Multiple options for access, closer to access point,

near main corridor

Multiple options for access, many

commercial options, access

from main corridor

High market competition i.e. affordable, close, interesting

i.e. random feature tourist comes across

Less competition, better match for market, almost stand alone

PSN i.e. Fisherman’s Lake

Almost no competition, good match for market, stand alone or

part of package, active viable and valuable service

i.e Lindberg Landing

Excellent match for market, stand alone product, valued by tourists, icon product

i.e. Mackenzie River

Independent Tourists, little outfitting / local support

i.e. Mosquito Lake

Independent Tourists, using some local products / services

i.e. Bovie Lake

Tourists using guided commercial services, pass

through and benefit community i.e. Dogface Lake

Multi-day guided commercial PSN, employ local personnel and services i.e. Trout Lake

Lodge

Mapping Methods• Base Maps:- Recreation Tourism Points and Polygons, Rivers1m and Rivers, Lakes,

Elevation Contours, Outfitters Area, National Parks, All weather roads, Seasonal Roads• Regional Scale Required (100 – 10,000km2 Polygons)

• Buffered to create Polygons of Tourism Potential for Deh Cho Area • 142 Polygons (16 different products and 5 sectors, 15 included more than 1 site)

Tourism Potential

Tourism Day Use

Ecotourism Sector

Soft Adventure Sector

Hard Adventure Sector

Outfitter Areas

Tourism Potential

• Highest Tourism Potential along established corridors – Mackenzie and Liard River valleys and radiates out from communities

(the “hub and spoke” effect.) – The river valleys are exceptionally scenic, offer various types of tourism

experiences and have good access• Key tourism destinations

– Nahanni National Park Reserve, the Ram Plateau and North Nahanni River, Little Doctor Lake, Cli Lake, Keele River, Canol Road and lodges

• Characteristic of northern and rural tourism destinations – Not well developed but lots of potential, offering pristine wilderness free

from commercial interruption• Requires training, product development, positioning and marketing

for positive growth• Land use planning needs to support the general direction, growth

and vision for the destination

Tourism 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

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

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

• Economic Development Assessment Model to assess potential impacts

• Cumulative Effects Research to consider• Communities & Planning Partners to review Land Use

Options & Current Land Withdrawals• Begin to develop a manageable Land Use Plan

High High DevelopmentDevelopment

Low Low ConservationConservation

1 2 3 4 5

Low Low DevelopmentDevelopment

High High ConservationConservation

Options

Input Data

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

• 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

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

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)• 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

Tourism Economics

• Maximum of 92 polygons developed over 20 years (Option1)

• Difficult to compare with value of Resource Extraction

• Additional Benefits:

– Supports Individuals outside traditional wage economy;

– Can support Traditional and Subsistence Lifestyles;

– Can offer Low Capital or Low Infrastructure Self-employment Opportunities;

– Promotes cultural sharing and can renew interest in cultural values and Traditions (i.e. arts and crafts, oral languages, documents and interprets history);

– Minimizes Impacts on the natural environment;

– And a Sustainable Industry not subject to the boom and bust like Resource Extraction Industries

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

(P

oly

go

ns)

Number of Sites Developed

Trends and Planning ImplicationsTOURISM TRENDS LAND USE PLANNING IMPLICATIONS

Increase in Hard Adventure: Multi-day backcountry tourism; canoeing expeditions, backpacking and also rafting/kayaking, mountain and climbing Areas: Northwest of Fort Simpson, north of Nahanni National Park Reserve, west of Ft Liard, and east of Tungsten and the Nahanni Range Road

Preserve wilderness / wild uninterrupted spaces - according to customer expectations, limit encounters with resource extraction, sport-hunting and other incompatible uses

Increase in “Rubber Tire” and Soft Adventure Tourism; Alaska Highway Traffic - market to develop the Deh Cho connection / loop.Fly drives – affordable, accessible wilderness package. Physically Oriented Day or Multi-Day Trips in demand i.e. day hike, day canoe, two overnight trip at lodge.

Plan for 1 Day Access – from highway or community; typically boating, cultural camps or flight seeing.Flight Seeing Corridors – limit exposure of tourists to resource extraction industry and optimize wilderness experience.

New focus on Learning and Enrichment Travel; Engaging, cultural and nature based products (not eco-tourism). Positioned for soft adventurers i.e. multi-day birch bark canoe building or moose hide tanning. Community driven i.e. niche culturally based “ed-venture” multi-day packaged trip to communities with low visitation i.e. Jean Marie

Protecting nature and cultural resources – key importanceIdentify Pockets of Land – free of incompatible land-uses (i.e. oil & gas) to meet tourists expectations for wilderness

Nahanni National Park Reserve Expansion Increase demand for this key backcountry destination and surrounding area.Encouraging access for the soft adventure “rubber tire” or motor coach tourists for guided day products i.e. cruise ship passengers in Kluane Park

Avoid Resource Extraction within and immediately outside park - to ensure expectations for wilderness.Plan for increasing demand and access

Encroachment / Competition for Land by resource-based extraction industriesTourism focus is on wilderness experience, but never sole economic engine Oil & Gas, mining, forestry will encroach on land base

Preserve natural and cultural environment - especially backcountry used for hard adventurers. Soft adventure tourists more resilient if views intact.

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

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 and Ecological 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

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

Community Priorities and Mapping

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!