Agenda introduction to the committee what is land use planning?

Download 446 b.
Hajmi446 b.










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?

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 2001- 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

Interim Land Withdrawals

  • Land Withdrawals identified critical areas for interim protection

  • Land Use Plan will revise Land Withdrawals

Deh Cho Process

  • Will address ownership/sovereignty over land

  • Not following the typical land selection model

  • Negotiating Shared Stewardship over entire 210,000 km2

  • For more information go to:

    • or

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

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


  • 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)

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

Archeology, Rare features, Historic Sites & Cabins

Conservation Value Map


  • 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

Stratiform Iron (CMDT 3.0)


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)


  • 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 69,177x106m3 natural gas has been discovered in the Deh Cho plus 31,075x106m3 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


  • 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


  • 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

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:

    • 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

Mining Development

  • Large Developments – major impacts especially during construction

  • Modeled 3 mines:

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 M3)

Agricultural Hectares Developed

Forestry Volume Produced (Millions of M3)

Tourism Sites Developed

Timing of Development

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 (%)



  • Terms and conditions of development

  • Manage Potential Development Impacts


  • 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

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

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

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)


  • 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.


Download 446 b.

Do'stlaringiz bilan baham:

Ma'lumotlar bazasi mualliflik huquqi bilan himoyalangan © 2020
ma'muriyatiga murojaat qiling