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 Day 2 : Mapping Session 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) OPENING PRAYER INTRODUCTION COMMUNITY MAPPING SESSION GENERAL DISCUSSION CLOSING PRAYER What is Land Use Planning? Potential Land Uses Decisions (Planning Partners) (Staff & Committee) • • • • • • Development Forestry - Green Tourism – Orange Oil and Gas – Purple Minerals – Brown Agriculture – Yellow Conservation TLUO – Red Wildlife – Blue Archaeology - Black Zones (Planning & Management) 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 + + 1st Priority 2nd Priority Residents Businesses, Associations, nongovernmental organizations Approve Plan 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 • 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 • 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 • Created New Wildlife Map (Conservation Layer) 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 Deh Cho Dene Nahodhe “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 Dene Nahodhe Workshop in Fort Providence 2004. Committee’s on April 1, 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 Resource Potential and Conservation Values Conservation Zones Traditional Land Use and Occupancy Wildlife Habitat Value Archeology, Rare Features, Historic Sites and Cabins 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 Tourism Potential Agricultural Potential Oil and Gas Potential Forestry 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 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 High Development Low Conservation Low Development Options 1 2 3 4 5 High Conservation • 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 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 Everywhere 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 Land Use Planning Approval 5 years in parallel 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 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 User Input Economic Impact Model (Input-Output) Labour Force Model Government Tax and Revenue Model 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: Gross Production GDP or Value Added by Industry Labour Income – Southern, Northern and Aboriginal Employment by Industry– Southern, Northern and Aboriginal 5. Tax revenues to the Federal Government and the GNWT 6. Population and Labour Force 1. 2. 3. 4. Agricultural Hectares Developed 8,000 Hectares Developed Hectares Developed 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 CLW Forestry Volume Produced (Millions of M3) 200 Volume (Millions of M3) 180 Millions of M3 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 CLW Gas Development (Millions of M3) Gas Development (Millions of M3) 70,000 Volume (Millions of M3) 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 CLW Mining Development • Large Developments – major impacts especially during construction • Modeled 3 mines: 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 MINE Tourism Sites Developed Number of Sites Developed 100 Number of Sites Developed 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 CLW Total Direct Employment # 3 Total Direct Employment 1,800 1,600 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 Deh Cho 200 Southern 0 20 05 20 06 20 07 20 08 20 09 20 10 20 11 20 12 20 13 20 14 20 15 20 16 20 17 20 18 20 19 20 20 20 21 20 22 20 23 20 24 Person Years 1,400 Time (Years) Thousands of Constant 2003 Dollars Impact on Gross Expenditure 30,000,000 Total 25,000,000 Direct 20,000,000 15,000,000 10,000,000 5,000,000 0 Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 CLW Impact on Gross Domestic Product Thousands of Constant 2003 Dollars Impact on Gross Domestic Product 14,000,000 Total 12,000,000 Direct 10,000,000 8,000,000 6,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 0 Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 CLW Direct & Total Employment 60,000 Total 50,000 Direct People 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 CLW Thousands of Constant 2003 Dollars Impact on Tax Revenue 3,000,000 GNWT Federal 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 CLW Population Trends 12,000 Adjusted Base 10,000 People 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 CLW Unemployment Rate (%) 16.0% Adjusted % Unemployed 14.0% Base 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 CLW Employment Rate (%) 78.0% Adjusted 77.0% Base 76.0% % Employed 75.0% 74.0% 73.0% 72.0% 71.0% 70.0% 69.0% 68.0% 67.0% Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 CLW Population 11,000 10,000 Option 1 9,500 Option 2 Option 3 9,000 Option 4 8,500 Option 5 8,000 Option 6 7,500 Time (Years) 20 21 20 23 20 17 20 19 20 11 20 13 20 15 20 07 20 09 7,000 20 05 Population 10,500 Indications! Development Higher Inward migration / fly-in workers Development / Capital Works Gross Domestic Product Gross Expenditure Labor Demand Employment Opportunities Lower Tax Revenue • Terms and conditions of development • Manage Potential Development Impacts 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 60 km roads, trails, seismic = Density 0.6 km / square km 100 sq 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 Habitat 100 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 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 Traditional Land Use Forestry Tourism Oil & Gas Agriculture Mining 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!