Land Use Planning in the Deh Cho territory

Agenda 1.INTRODUCTION TO THE COMMITTEE 2.WHAT IS LAND USE PLANNING? 3.LAND USE PLANNING AND THE DEH CHO PROCESS 4.UPDATE ON DCLUPC ACTIVITIES & PROGRESS 5.INPUT DATA FOR LAND USE OPTIONS 6.LAND USE OPTIONS + ECONOMIC MODEL 7.CUMULATIVE EFFECTS RESEARCH 8.QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION

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 Canadien)

What is Land Use Planning? Potential Land Uses Decisions (Planning Partners) (Staff & Committee) Zones (Planning & Management) Development Conservation Forestry - Green TLUO – RedForestry - Green TLUO – Red Tourism – Orange Wildlife – BlueTourism – Orange Wildlife – Blue Oil and Gas – Purple Archaeology - BlackOil and Gas – Purple Archaeology - 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

Deh Cho Process The Deh Cho Process is the process of negotiations on lands and resource management and self-governance between the Deh Cho First Nations, Government of Canada and the Government of the Northwest Territories Began in 1993 and is on-going May Signed a Framework Agreement and Interim Measures Agreement April 2003 – Signed Interim Land Withdrawals and Interim Resource Development Agreement Currently working towards an Agreement in Principle (AIP) Aiming for a Final Agreement by 2008

Interim Land Withdrawals

Land Withdrawals identified critical areas for interim protection Land Use Plan will revise Land Withdrawals Land Use Planning Interim Land Withdrawals 5 years in parallel Approval

Deh Cho Process Will address ownership/sovereignty over land Not following the typical land selection model Negotiating Shared Stewardship over entire 210,000 km 2 For more information go to: – orhttp:// –

Land Use Planning and the Deh Cho Process Land Use Planning is only one part of the larger Deh Cho Process Land Use Plan must be completed before the Deh Cho Process to be used by the three parties to negotiate in the Deh Cho Process Draft Land Use Plan (2005) –Final Land Use Plan (March 2006) Complete Deh Cho Process (~ 2008) Land Use Plan will be revised to be consistent with the final agreement and every 5 years after

Planning Partners + Approve Plan 2 nd Priority Businesses, Associations, non- governmental organizations 1st Priority Residents

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 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

Land Use Options Draft Land Use Options represent different visions for the final land use map Represent 5 different levels of development Based on information (mostly scientific) gathered to date – little community or planning partner input yet Will be revised based on feedback and presented at the next round of meetings

Options Development

Wildlife Traditional Knowledge & Expert Research Regional Wildlife Workshop - Held: November 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 Lifestyles Information gathered and maintained by DCFN Consulted 386 harvesters and mapped information Harvest areas, kill sites, sacred sites, berry patches DCFN approved publication and use at Kakisa Assembly 2004 Planning Committee only gets generalized density of use, not raw data

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

Minerals Knowledge-driven mineral potential mapping approach based on geological favourability and known mineral occurrences Assessed 9 mineral types thought to have the most potential in the region –Sedimentary Exhalative Sulphides (SEDEX) –Sedimentary-hosted Stratiform Copper –Mississippi Valley-type Lead-Zinc –Vein Copper –Skarn Lead-Zinc-Silver –Skarn Gold –Skarn Tungsten –Granitic Pegmatite –Primary Diamonds

Information Sources Geological Base: 1:1,000,000 digital map by Journey and Williams (1995) Mineral Occurrences: NORMIN Database Mineral Deposit Type Information: Geology of Canadian Mineral Deposit Types by Eckstrand (1996)

Mineral Potential Rankings MINERAL POTENTIAL RANKING (Based on GSC MERA ranking system) *X denotes field unlikely to be used. MINERAL OCURRENCE RANKING Confidence Ranking Rank 1: Abundant Reliable Information Rank 2: Moderate amt of information Rank 3: Some information Rank 4: Very little/ unreliable information Rank A – Very High: Geologic environment favourable. Significant deposits are known. Presence of undiscovered deposits is very likely. X Rank B – High: Geologic environment favourable. Occurrences are present but significant accumulations may not be known to be present. Presence of undiscovered deposits likely. Rank C – Moderate to High: Intermediate between moderate and high. Rank D – Moderate: Geologic environment favourable. Occurrences may or may not be known. Presence of undiscovered deposits is possible. Rank E – Low to Moderate: Intermediate between low and moderate. Rank F – Low: Some aspects of the geologic environment may be favourable but are limited in extent. Few if any occurrences are known. Low probability that undiscovered deposits are present. Rank G – Very Low: Geologic environment unfavourable. No occurrences are known. Very low probability that an undiscovered deposit is present. X Rank H – Not Assessed: Deposit types unknown, overlooked, beyond scope of study or not worth mentioning at the time XX

Stratiform Iron (CMDT 3.0)

SEDEX (CMDT 6.1)

Sediment-Hosted Copper (CMDT 8.3)

MVT Lead-Zinc (CMDT 10.0)

Vein Copper (CMDT 17.0)

Skarn Lead-Zinc (CMDT 20.1)

Skarn Gold (CMDT 20.3)

Skarn Tungsten (CMDT 20.5)

Pegmatites (CMDT 21.0)

Primary Diamonds (CMDT 25.0)

Minerals Produced a final cumulative mineral potential map showing geological favourability and ranking of Resource Assessment Domains (RADS) The highest potential is in the western tip of the territory There is significant potential for: –Sedimentary exhalitive sulphides (SEDEX) zinc-lead, –Sediment-hosted stratiform copper, –Mississippi Valley-type lead-zinc, –Vein copper, –Skarn deposits (emerald, gold, tungsten, copper, and lead-zinc).

Cumulative Mineral Potential

Mineral Priority Areas Combines geological information with synoptic level economic factors to identify priority areas for development –Geographical factors (remoteness, infrastructure) –Size of potential deposit –Inclusion of precious metal in a base metal deposit increases development potential –Reduced emphasis on Stratiform Fe, Sedimentary Cu and Vein Cu and increased emphasis on SEDEX, MVT Pb-Zc and Skarn deposits. –World markets –Ease/Costs of mineral extraction –Presence of existing deposits

Mineral Priority Areas

Mineral Development Potential

Oil and Gas Potential Canadian Gas Potential Committee estimates 69,177x10 6 m 3 natural gas has been discovered in the Deh Cho plus 31,075x10 6 m 3 in undiscovered nominal marketable gas 419 hydrocarbon wells drilled, most are wildcat wells (exploratory) but 127 have found hydrocarbons Hydrocarbon Potential was assessed by defining hydrocarbon plays and identifying the number of confirmed and conceptual plays existing in a given region 20 hydrocarbon plays in the Deh Cho –9 confirmed –11 unconfirmed Current producing regions are Fort Liard (natural gas) and Cameron Hills (gas with oil); 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

Preliminary Land Use Options Change Priority of Conservation and Development Create 5 Land Use Options Shows a range of possibilities available Compare to Current Land Withdrawals Use Economic model to compare effects on economy High Development Low Conservation Low Development High Conservation Options

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 EverywhereTraditional Use Allowed Everywhere

Land Use Option # 1

Land Use Option # 2

Land Use Option # 3

Land Use Option # 4

Land Use Option # 5

Interim Land Withdrawals

Economic Development Assessment Model Determines costs & benefits for informed land use planning decisions Model current economy then predict the next 20 years Driven by level of development in 5 key sectors Allows us to see the economic impact of developing each resource sector, and some specific projects Apply Economic Assessment Model to each of five Land Use Options and the existing land withdrawals Results are regional not community based Results are preliminary – more refinement required

Economic Development Assessment 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 Industry 3. Labour Income – Southern, Northern and Aboriginal 4. Employment by Industry– Southern, Northern and Aboriginal 5. Tax revenues to the Federal Government and the GNWT 6. Population and Labour Force

Mining Development Large Developments – major impacts especially during construction Modeled 3 mines: MINE OPTION 1 OPTION 2 OPTION 3 OPTION 4 OPTION 5 CLW CantungIN OUTIN Prairie CreekINOUT IN Coates LakeINOUT IN

Mining Economics Production (tons/yr) Value of Production ($) Capital Investment Operating Costs Direct Mine Operating Resource Income Mine Operating Resource Profits and Taxes Employment

Gas Development (Millions of M 3 )

Agricultural Hectares Developed

Forestry Volume Produced (Millions of M 3 )

Tourism Sites Developed

Timing of Development Forestry Mackenzie Mtns2005 Oil and Gas Laramide/Manetoe2005 Tourism Ecotourism2006 Wrigley2008Laramide/Windflower2005Soft Adventure2005 Fish Lake2005Slave Point Edge2010Hard Adventure2010 Horn Plateau2005Slave Point Back Barrier2015Consumptive2006 Fort Providence2010Sulphur Point / Bistcho2013 Trout Lake2006Lonely Bay isolated reefs (Horn Plateau) 2011Mackenzie Valley Pipeline 2006 Fort Liard2005Basal Cretaceous Clastics2020Deh Cho Bridge2005 Fort Simpson2007Jean Marie2018 Cameron Hills2005Keg River / Cordova2016 Mining Cantung 2010 Basal Devonian Clastics / La Roche 2005 Prairie Creek2008Arnica / Landry Platform2014 Coates Lake2015Lonely Bay Platform2010 Agriculture2005Kakisa / Redknife2005 Upper Paleozoic (sub- Cretaceous subcrop) 2009

Gross Expenditure # 3

Gross Domestic Product # 3

Total Direct Employment # 3

Direct & Total Employment # 3

Federal & GNWT Tax Revenue # 3

Change in Population # 3

Employed & Unemployed no. # 3

Employed & Unemployed % # 3

Impact on Gross Expenditure

Impact on Gross Domestic Product

Direct & Total Employment

Impact on Tax Revenue

Population Trends

Unemployment Rate (%)

Employment Rate (%)

Population

Indications! Terms and conditions of development Manage Potential Development Impacts Higher Lower Development Inward migration / fly-in workers Development / Capital Works Gross Domestic Product Gross Expenditure Labor Demand Employment Opportunities Tax Revenue

Feedback Input and output values are preliminary and need refining Requesting feedback and assistance to ensure we model costs and values appropriately (Volunteers?) Is there a way to model the economic value of mineral potential?

Social, Cultural & Ecological Values Social, Cultural and Ecological 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 Research Cumulative Effects identify the overall impact of many developments together, over time Guided by Land Use Objectives (Vision and priorities) Indicators – Environmental or social parameter to monitor Thresholds - The point at which indicator changes to an unacceptable condition To be 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 Considerations include size of study area and age / regrowth of cutlines 100 sq km 60 km roads, trails, seismic = Density 0.6 km / square km

Total Corridor Density

Stream Crossing Density Cautionary – to be set in important areas (e.g. spawning) –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 DCLUPC would like feedback and discussion on the report and proposed indicators All recommendations are under consideration by the Committee

Next Steps Community Mapping Sessions –Identifying community priorities, where lands should be protected, where development should be permitted and general terms and conditions –Identifying compatible and incompatible uses Refine: –social and economic analysis –cumulative effects research

Next Steps Present Revised Land Use Options (2-3) at future consultations (late fall 2004/early 2005) Revise based on feedback to one or two options Hold regional gathering for all planning partners to discuss final land use map Develop Draft Land Use Plan (2005) Final Land Use Plan (March 2006)

Feedback Have we captured the information for your sector appropriately / accurately (please review appropriate reports and provide feedback if necessary) Are there important areas your sector would like to see opened up over the next 20 years? Review and comment on economic modeling of the mining industry in the Deh Cho. Are there any points you would like to see the land use plan address relating to your industry? Please provide feedback on our process and methods.

Questions? Mahsi Cho!