Land Use Planning in the Deh Cho territory - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Land use planning in the deh cho territory
1 / 107

  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General


I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.

Download Presentation

Land Use Planning in the Deh Cho territory

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript

Land use planning in the deh cho territory

Land Use Planning in the Deh Cho territory











What is land use planning

What is Land Use Planning?

Potential Land Uses


(Planning Partners)

(Staff & Committee)

? ? ? ?

  • DevelopmentConservation

  • Forestry - Green TLUO – Red

  • Tourism – Orange Wildlife – Blue

  • Oil and Gas – Purple Archaeology - Black

  • Minerals – Brown

  • Agriculture – Yellow

Zones (Planning & Management)

Land use planning in the deh cho

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

Plan Area

Land use planning and the deh cho process

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

Planning Partners

+ +

2nd Priority

Businesses, Associations, non- governmental organizations

1st Priority


Approve Plan

Committee staff

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

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 Activities

Update on dclupc activities progress

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

    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

    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

    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

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

    Deh cho dene nahodhe1

    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 youneed – 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

    Resource Potential and Conservation Values

    Conservation zones

    Conservation Zones

    Traditional Land Use and Occupancy

    Archeology, Rare Features, Historic Sites and Cabins

    Wildlife Habitat Value



    • 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

    Wildlife Potential

    Traditional use density

    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 density1

    Traditional Use Density

    Archeology cabins historic sites rare features

    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

    Archeology, Rare features, Historic Sites & Cabins

    Conservation value map

    Conservation Value Map

    Development zones

    Development Zones

    Tourism Potential

    Mineral Potential

    Agricultural Potential

    Oil and Gas Potential

    Forestry Potential



    • 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(

    • 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)



    Backcountry Adventurei.e. Guided canoe trip down the South Nahanni River through the Nahanni National Park Reserve

    “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.

    Tourism product categories

    Tourism Product Categories

    Data collection

    Data Collection


    • Northern Land Use Information Series maps

    • Arctic Development Library CD

    • Stakeholder Interviews (phone or in person)

      • Tourism Officers, Owner Operators, Biologists etc..


    • Print Documents

      • Guides, Brochures, Surveys, Regulations

    • Websites

      • Travel, Tourism Operators and Government

    CATEGORIZE DATA (Product, Service or Natural Attraction PSN) (Existing and Potential Tourism)



    Categorizing data

    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

    Tourism Potential Ranking


    Mapping methods

    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 Potential

    Tourism day use

    Tourism Day Use

    Ecotourism sector

    Ecotourism Sector

    Soft adventure sector

    Soft Adventure Sector

    Hard adventure sector

    Hard Adventure Sector

    Outfitter areas

    Outfitter Areas

    Tourism potential1

    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 potential2

    Tourism Potential



    • 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)



    Oil gas

    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

    Oil and Gas Potential

    Forestry 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 potential1

    Forestry Potential

    Agricultural 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 potential1

    Agricultural Potential

    Composite of development potential

    Composite of Development Potential

    Land use options

    Land Use Options

    Preliminary 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

    Low Development

    High Conservation

    High Development

    Low Conservation


    1 2 3 4 5

    Input data

    Input Data



    • 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

    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 11

    Land Use Option # 1

    Land use option 2

    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 21

    Land Use Option # 2

    Land use option 3

    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 31

    Land Use Option # 3

    Land use option 4

    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 41

    Land Use Option # 4

    Land use option 5

    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 51

    Land Use Option # 5

    Interim land withdrawals

    Interim Land Withdrawals


    Land Use Planning

    • 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

    5 years in parallel

    Interim Land Withdrawals

    Interim land withdrawals1

    Interim Land Withdrawals

    Interim land withdrawals2

    Interim Land Withdrawals

    Economic development assessment model

    Economic Development Assessment Model

    Economic development assessment model1

    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 model2

    Economic Development Assessment Model

    Economic assessment model outputs

    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

    • Tax revenues to the Federal Government and the GNWT

    • Population and Labour Force

    Tourism economics

    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

    Tourism Sites Developed

    Trends and planning implications

    Trends and Planning Implications

    Agricultural hectares developed

    Agricultural Hectares Developed

    Forestry volume produced millions of m 3

    Forestry Volume Produced (Millions of M3)

    Gas development millions of m 3

    Gas Development (Millions of M3)

    Mining development

    Mining Development

    • Large Developments – major impacts especially during construction

    • Modeled 3 mines:

    Total direct employment 3

    Total Direct Employment # 3

    Impact on gross expenditure

    Impact on Gross Expenditure

    Impact on gross domestic product

    Impact on Gross Domestic Product

    Direct total employment

    Direct & Total Employment

    Impact on tax revenue

    Impact on Tax Revenue

    Population trends

    Population Trends

    Unemployment rate

    Unemployment Rate (%)

    Employment rate

    Employment Rate (%)





    • Terms and conditions of development

    • Manage Potential Development Impacts


    Inward migration / fly-in workers

    Development / Capital Works

    Gross Domestic Product

    Gross Expenditure

    Labor Demand

    Employment Opportunities

    Tax Revenue



    Social cultural and ecological values

    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

    Cumulative effects research

    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

    Limits of Acceptable Change

    Ecological response curve and tiered habitat thresholds

    Ecological response curve and tiered habitat thresholds.

    Indicators and thresholds 1

    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


    Significant Cultural Features

    Community Population

    Labour Participation

    Area and Revenue by Sector

    Visual Quality

    Indicators and Thresholds 2

    Core area

    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 area1

    Core Area

    Total corridor density

    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 density1

    Total Corridor Density

    Stream crossing 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 density1

    Stream Crossing Density

    Feedback required

    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 Priorities and Mapping

    Community vision land use priorities

    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

    Community Priorities

    What is


    to you?






    Oil & Gas



    Next steps

    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)



    Mahsi Cho!

  • Login