Transcript Land Use Planning in the Deh Cho territory

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)
•
•
•
•
•
•
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
• 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
• 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
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
Backcountry Adventure
i.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
HARD ADVENTURE
SOFT 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
Little experience required, risks minimized,
Low / modestly physically demanding,
Standards of safety and comfort above average,
Typically a day product not overnight
Less demanding than hard adventure
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..
ECO-TOURISM
Engaging, 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.
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.
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
SECONDARY SOURCES
– Northern Land Use Information
Series maps
– Arctic Development Library CD
– Stakeholder Interviews (phone
or in person)
– Print Documents
• Guides, Brochures, Surveys,
Regulations
– Websites
• Travel, Tourism Operators
and Government
• Tourism Officers, Owner
Operators, Biologists etc..
CATEGORIZE DATA
Service or Natural Attraction PSN)
Potential Tourism)
(Product,
(Existing and
RANK TOURISM POTENTIAL
MAPPING
Categorizing Data
•
Site Reference Number
–
•
Source
–
•
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
–
•
Hard Adventure (H), Soft Adventure (S), Eco-tourism (E), Fishing (F) and Hunting (Hu).
Day/Multi-Day
–
•
To provide a greater sense of location
Product/Market Category
–
•
Actual name of location i.e. “area around Cli and Little Doctor Lakes”.
Additional Information
–
•
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
–
•
Where data was collected, reinforced through multiple sources.
Type of Activity
–
•
Location of specific PSN.
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
1 source
Remote, mainly
helicopter access
near remote
communities
High market competition i.e.
affordable, close, interesting
i.e. random feature tourist
comes across
Independent Tourists, little
outfitting / local support
i.e. Mosquito Lake
FAIR
2
2-3 sources
Few transport
options for
access, far from
access point
Less competition, better match
for market, almost stand alone
PSN i.e. Fisherman’s Lake
Independent Tourists, using
some local products / services
i.e. Bovie Lake
GOOD
3
4-5 sources
Multiple options
for access, closer
to access point,
near main
corridor
Almost no competition, good
match for market, stand alone or
part of package, active viable
and valuable service
i.e Lindberg Landing
Tourists using guided
commercial services, pass
through and benefit community
i.e. Dogface Lake
EXCELLENT
4
6+
sources
Multiple options
for access, many
commercial
options, access
from main
corridor
Excellent match for market,
stand alone product, valued by
tourists, icon product
i.e. Mackenzie River
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
High
Development
Low
1
Conservation
Low
Development
Options
2
3
4
5
High
Conservation
• 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
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.
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
Number of Sites Developed (Polygons)
Tourism 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
Trends and Planning Implications
TOURISM TRENDS
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
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.
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
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
Encroachment / Competition for Land by resource-based extraction
industries
Tourism focus is on wilderness experience, but never sole economic engine
Oil & Gas, mining, forestry will encroach on land base
LAND USE PLANNING IMPLICATIONS
Preserve wilderness / wild uninterrupted
spaces - according to customer expectations,
limit encounters with resource extraction, sporthunting and other incompatible uses
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.
Protecting nature and cultural resources – key
importance
Identify Pockets of Land – free of incompatible
land-uses (i.e. oil & gas) to meet tourists
expectations for wilderness
Avoid Resource Extraction within and
immediately outside park - to ensure
expectations for wilderness.
Plan for increasing demand and access
Preserve natural and cultural environment especially backcountry used for hard
adventurers. Soft adventure tourists more
resilient if views intact.
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
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 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
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!