Land Use Planning in the Deh Cho territory

1. Land Use Planning in the Deh Cho territory

2. Agenda • INTRODUCTION • WHAT IS LAND USE PLANNING? • UPDATE ON DCLUPC ACTIVITIES & PROGRESS • INPUT DATA (INFORMATION USED TO CREATE LAND USE OPTIONS) • LAND USE OPTIONS + ECONOMIC MODEL • COMMUNITY VISION AND LAND USE PRIORITIES • GENERAL DISCUSSION

3. What is Land Use Planning? Potential Land Uses Decisions (Planning Partners) (Staff & Committee) ? ? ? ? • DevelopmentConservation • Forestry - Green TLUO – Red • Tourism – Orange Wildlife – Blue • Oil and Gas – Purple Archaeology - Black • Minerals – Brown • Agriculture – Yellow Zones (Planning & Management)

4. 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

5. Plan Area

6. 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)

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

8. 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)

9. 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

10. Update on Activities

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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)

14. 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

15. Deh Cho Dene Nahodhe “Yamoria came to the homeland of the Deh Cho Dene with laws from the Creator. These laws were given to the Dene to live by. The most important law was respect for Creation – Mother Earth. We were put here by the Creator to take care of Mother Earth. The foundation of our Deh Cho government and Mother Earth is Nahe Nahodhe. Nahe Nahodhe is who we are and where we came from. We stand firm behind this belief.” Accepted by the Elders and Youth at the Deh Cho Land Use Planning Committee’s Dene Nahodhe Workshop in Fort Providence on April 1, 2004.

16. Deh Cho Dene Nahodhe • How should Dene values and principles be applied? • New Land Uses • Can you develop Oil and Gas and continue to respect the earth? • Ceremony i.e. Fire Feeding • Only taking what youneed – pacing development • Not wasting resources – salvage logging along pipeline corridor • Monitoring and managing Wildlife – Cumulative Effects • Sharing and helping all Deh Cho Communities

17. Resource Potential and Conservation Values

18. Conservation Zones Traditional Land Use and Occupancy Archeology, Rare Features, Historic Sites and Cabins Wildlife Habitat Value

19. 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

20. Wildlife Potential

21. 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

22. Traditional Use Density

23. 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

24. Archeology, Rare features, Historic Sites & Cabins

25. Conservation Value Map

26. Development Zones Tourism Potential Mineral Potential Agricultural Potential Oil and Gas Potential Forestry Potential

27. 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)

28. Tourism Backcountry Adventurei.e. Guided canoe trip down the South Nahanni River through the Nahanni National Park Reserve “Rubber Tire” Adventure, Driving the Deh Cho travel Connection (Loop along Mackenzie & Liard Highways from Northern BC and Northern Alberta). Sport Hunting or Fishing, i.e. Hunting Dall’s Sheep in the Mackenzie Mountains.

29. Tourism Product Categories

30. 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

31. 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.

32. Tourism Potential Ranking ·

33. 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)

34. Tourism Potential

35. Tourism Day Use

36. Ecotourism Sector

37. Soft Adventure Sector

38. Hard Adventure Sector

39. Outfitter Areas

40. 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

41. Tourism Potential

42. 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)

43. Minerals

44. 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)

45. Oil and Gas Potential

46. 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

47. Forestry Potential

48. 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

49. Agricultural Potential

50. Composite of Development Potential