Upload
vanessa-blake
View
212
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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!