Comments and Responses on the Deh Cho Working Draft Land Use Plan (condensed version)
Click here to return to Public Comments.

• View Comments/Responses by Date
• View Comments/Responses by Organization Name
• View Comments/Responses in Text Only (condensed HTML version)
  
  

Transcript (T) / Written Submission (WS)/ Presentation (P)	Organization	Comment	Response / Action
T-03-29-05	Chief Lloyd Chicot:	Include Dene Place Names	Incomplete:  The DLUPC is working with communities to collect Dene Place Names for consideration at the Summer 2005 consultations.   DFN passed a Resolution to include Dene Place Names in the Land Use Plan.
T-03-29-05	Mr. Mike Cazon	Zone 22 should be made into a conservation zone and eco-tourism should be a permitted use (there are many historical and cultural values present)	Partially Accepted:  Addressed changes to Zone 22 to include Cazon traditional areas at Fort Simpson re-zoning session (May 12th)
T-03-29-05	Chief Roy Fabian	Fishing should be included in the plan.  Dene have Insufficient representation at Great Slave Lake Advisory Committee.  Roy expects greater control of Great Slave Lake Shoreline through the Dehcho Process.	Accepted:  Commercial fishing on Great Slave Lake is a transboundary issue that requires cooperation with other regions and regulatory authorities.  The Committee has recommended a meeting between DFN and GSLAC to address the issues raised during our consultations.
T-03-29-05	Chief Lloyd Chicot	It is important to involve the community in planning commercial and sports fishing, we need to balance money for our families and overfishing.	The Draft Plan includes a Commercial Fishing Term which only permits commercial fishing on community lakes with the support of the affected First Nation(s).
T-03-29-05	Mr. Jonas Antoine	Why is an all-weather road allowed in zones 6 and 18, which are completely different areas?	The Access Term has been revised and no longer has the all-weather road exemption.
T-03-29-05	Chief Roy Fabian	The Domestic Fishing Area should be shown on the map	Accepted:  The Domestic Fishing Area will be included in future Maps.
T-03-29-05	Chief Eric Betsaka	The Greater Nahanni Eco-System Zones 18 & 6 (Page 18) should reflect the leadership resolution. Join Zone 18 & 6 and make them conservation.	Accepted: The entire Greater Nahanni Ecosystem has been revised to be a conservation zone.
T-03-29-05	Mr. Eric Menicoche	Community territories / jurisdiction is a concern and should be considered now (Also raised by Chief Lloyd Chicot, Chief Roy Fabian)	Not Accepted:  This is something that DFN is working on as part of the Dehcho Constitution and Dehcho Process negotiations.
T-03-29-05	Chief Lloyd Chicot:	How will the Committee deal with enforcement i.e. sports fishing problems?	This is addressed in Chapter 6 on Regulations and Implementation.  By approving the Plan Governments agree to implement and enforce the terms.
T-03-29-05	Eric Menicoche	Who will implement the plan?	The Plan will be implemented by the DLUPC, DFN, GNWT and Government of Canada.  Plan Implementation is explained in Chapter 6.
T-03-29-05	Chief Berna Landry	Concern over future and existing enforcement / clean up issues i.e. Horn River Barge	Enforcement is dicussed in Chapter 6.
T-03-29-05	Chief Roy Fabian, Mr. Jonas Antoine	The TLUO Term requires us to get permission from the local community. This will cause problems.	Accepted:  The sentence regarding seeking permission from the local community has been removed.
T-03-29-05	Chief Lloyd Chicot:	Include Dene Trails	Accepted:  DLUPC will include trails where communities can provide maps or digital data.
T-03-29-05	Chief Lloyd Chicot:	We need to document Traditional Harvesting, how much meat we harvest and present this to Canada.	Partially Accepted:  A review of existing studies is provided in the Chapter 2 of the Draft Plan.
T-03-29-05	Na	Need to connect with localized planning initiatives	Chapter 3 includes a section discussing integration with community planning initiatives.
T-03-30-05	Chief Floyd Bertrand:	Requested follow up mapping session to redefine Conservation and Special Management  Zones	Accepted: A Re-zoning session was completed on May 10th.
T-03-30-05	Chief Floyd Bertrand:	Requested follow up mapping session/ consultation with Sambaa K’e and Nahanni to address zoning of overlapping traditional lands including PAS	Accepted: Re-zoning session held May 25th, 2005 at Fort Liard Leadership Meeting.  Communities agreed to new zoning.  Sambaa K’e and Fort Liard agreed to meet and review overlapping interests.
T-03-30-05	Chief Floyd Bertrand:	How old are the seismic lines?	We don't know the age but we determine re-growth - the critical factor - by what's visible from satellite imagery.  See discussion of cumulative effects methodology in Chapter 4.
T-03-30-05	Chief Floyd Bertrand:	How are thresholds determined? (e.g. transects population studies)	See discussion of cumulative effects conformity determinations in Chapter 5.
T-03-30-05	Mr. Stanley Sanguez:	Be careful how you use cumulative effects.  We have to ensure we meet community needs.	The DLUPC has requested feedback from communities and planning partners on cumulative effects.
T-03-30-05	Chief Eric Betsaka:	Plan should not suggest “acceptance” to Prairie Creek Winter Road	The Access Planning term has been revised to remove all mention of zone specific or project specific exemptions.  It is not the Committee's intention or mandate to set project specific requirements.  This will be handled under the EA process.
T-03-30-05	Chief Keyna Norwegian:	Requested another Mapping Session.  Concern that community participation at consultations in Fort Simpson was not representative.  Traditional areas including the dance circle at Redknife gathering site are very important.  Important Rivers including the Root River not totally protected.  Page 11, Zone 20 and 27, in-between Zone 3 & 6.  Concerned that most of Simpson area is conserved. How will future generations be sustained?	Accepted: A re-zoning session was held in Fort Simpson on May 12th with excellent participation of Elders, Leadership, Families and Harvesters.
T-03-30-05	Chief Keyna Norwegian:	Interested in joint meetings with 2 communities with shared interest in lands (PKFN and Nahanni)	Accepted: Re-zoning session held May 25th, 2005 at Fort Liard Leadership Meeting.  Communities agreed to new zoning.
T-03-30-05	Chief Keyna Norwegian:	Concern that development in zones 19 and 20 also 25 and 27 is restricted unless accessed across protected area.	Accepted:  The Access Planning Term has been revised to ensure access is permitted across conservation zones in keeping with current legislation and regulations, while providing more guidance to protect ecological and cultural values.
T-03-30-05	Chief Keyna Norwegian:	Concern that DLUPC provided only 30 days to review Draft Plan whereas Mackenzie Valley provides 40 days to review documents.	We will endeavor to provide more review time for future meetings.  However, we are restricted by the time remaining for us to complete the Plan and submit it for approval.  Communities are urged to take advantage of presentations the Committee makes at Leadership meetings to understand the Plan and ask questions to help them prepare for future consultations.
T-03-30-05	Chief Keyna Norwegian:	How are new access roads delineated? Some permanent and all weather access will be required.	Accepted:  The Access Planning Term has been revised to ensure access is permitted across conservation zones in keeping with current legislation and regulations, while providing more guidance to protect ecological and cultural values.
T-03-30-05	Mr. Jonas Antoine:	Concern grass roots people not being involved from Fort Simpson (Casey and Steve Soto, John Tsetso, Mouse Family)	Accepted: A re-zoning session was held in Fort Simpson on May 12th with excellent participation of Elders, Leadership, Families and Harvesters.
T-03-30-05	Mr. Jonas Antoine:	What is happening to our land? Who is going to manage it?  Is it still going to be ours?	Not Accepted:  This is something that DFN is working on as part of the Dehcho Constitution and Dehcho Process negotiations.
T-03-30-05	Chief Keyna Norwegian:	One of her members was concerned that "Notana Lake" (phonetic) has not been zoned appropriately.	Accepted: A re-zoning session was held in Fort Simpson on May 12th re-zoning according to interests and traditional areas.
T-03-30-05	Chief Fred Norwegian:	Requested joint mapping session to discuss overlapping areas where they want to do a forestry inventory.	Accepted: Re-zoning session held May 25th, 2005 at Fort Liard Leadership Meeting.  Communities agreed on new zoning.
T-03-30-05	Chief David Moses:	Interested in having a ski lodge or fishing lodge in the area.	The area is open for tourism.
T-03-30-05	PAS - Ms. Pauline De Jong:	How did you go about making decisions about connecting corridors and buffering?	Smoothing consisted of removing jagged edges and harmonizing very small holes or patches with the surrounding designation.  Connectivity involved linking neighboring areas together into a fewer number of zones where appropriate. Further explanation is provided in Plan Preparation section of Chapter 4.
T-03-30-05	PAS - Ms. Pauline De Jong:	Is eco-region representation considered in identifying conservation zones?	Yes.  World Wildlife Fund has an automated GIS analysis routine called Area of Representation. They have done the analysis for us.  The results are included in Chapter 6.
T-03-30-05	PAS - Ms. Pauline De Jong:	Will access to special management zones and general use zones be managed?	Yes.  The Access Term has been revised to provide clear criteria for access planning through Conservation Zones - see Chapter 5.
T-03-30-05	PAS - Ms. Pauline De Jong:	Were renewable energy sources considered?	Renewable energy development is primarily a municipal issue so has not been explored at this time.
T-03-30-05	PAS - Ms. Pauline De Jong:	What happens to areas where high potential for both renewable and non-renewable resources are present in the same location as high conservation potential?	Those areas were moved into a Special Management Zone. Further details are provided under Plan Preparation in Chapter 4.
T-03-30-05	PAS - Ms. Pauline De Jong:	How were low medium, high and very high potential defined?	The ranking of individual resources is explained under the different sectors in Chapter 2.
T-03-30-05	Mr. Tom Lakusta:	Recommended and offered to work to provide a more appropriate definition for Forestry.	Accepted:  Worked with ENR Forestry to agree on a new definition for the Draft Plan.
T-03-30-05	Mr. Tom Lakusta:	Suggested detailing operational practices in the Forestry term is not be advisable to ensure community operations are not constrained	Accepted:  Worked with ENR Forestry to develop an appropriate forestry term for the Draft Plan.
T-03-31-05	Chief Eric Betsaka:	Prairie Creek is vulnerable to landslides and the watershed flows to the land and water the community relies on.	DLUPC must recognize the rights of 3rd party dispositions.  Concerns may be addressed through Terms and Zoning.  Future development will be subject to the EA process.
T-03-31-05	Chief Eric Betsaka:	Concerned an all season road to Prairie Creek would open up other opportunities for further development.	Accepted: The entire Greater Nahanni Ecosystem has been revised to be a conservation zone which will not permit any new development, regardless of access as per community interests.
T-03-31-05	Mr. Jonas Antoine:	An access road would not be permitted nowadays, it is over grown already and environmental laws are stricter, material (gravel and fill) would be required also.	DLUPC must recognize the rights of 3rd party dispositions.  Concerns may be addressed through Terms and Zoning.  Future development will be subject to the EA process.
T-03-31-05	Chief Roy Fabian:	Concern over consultations with industry.  Communities must consent to the development.	Consultation requirements are a legal issue best defined through legislation, agreements such as the IMA, and case law.  Requirements for consent should be negotiated through the Dehcho Process.  The Committee has revised the Consultation Term to reflect this.
T-03-31-05	Chief Roy Fabian:	Operating in a municipality involves additional costs i.e. Taxes. This can be a problem for agricultural businesses.	The TFA have been invited to bring specific areas of interest to our attention.  The summer 2005 consultations will provide an opportunity to review zoning.
T-03-31-05	Mr. Chuck Blyth:	Noted that Park Canada's Ecological Integrity Statement, developed by Dehcho First Nations and Parks Canada, definitely does describe the protection of the watershed as required to protect the ecological integrity of the Park.	Accepted: The entire Greater Nahanni Ecosystem has been revised to be a conservation zone.
T-03-31-05	Wes Hardisty	What will be the DLUPC terms associated with best practices in concerns to forestry, oil and gas cycles, and mining? Wanted to get community people involved in what they consider as best practice for the land use plan and if there are differences in overlapping areas.	Accepted: Addressed at Fort Simpson re-zoning session (May 12th).  Further discussions can occur on this subject during summer consultations.
T-03-31-05	Chief Roy Fabian:	Are you using Dene language in the development of the land use plan? Need to develop these kinds of processes in the Dene language to make it more conducive to the way we see things.	Incomplete:  The DLUPC is working with communities to collect Dene Place Names.   A summary of the final plan will be translated into the Dene language.
T-03-31-05	Chief Dennis Deneron: Speaking On Behalf Of Mike Cazon	Zone 22 Trout River is currently in the conservation zone, why is it classified as a Special Management Zone? Request that Zone 22 should change to a conservation zone.	Accepted: Addressed at Fort Simpson re-zoning session (May 12th) and communities agreed on new zoning at Fort Liard Leadership Meeting held May 25th, 2005.
T-03-31-05	Anon	Document traditional travel routes on maps, not the cut lines.	Not Accepted: Traditional travel routes are part of DFN’s confidential dataset belonging to DFN.  They cannot be shown on our maps.
T-03-31-05	Mr. Jonas Antoine:	Incorporate Dene's spiritual concept in land use plan with help of elders.	Accepted:  This is the foundation for the Plan.  We have integrated Dene culture into our workshops, Terms and Zoning.  A section on Integrating Traditional Knowledge is included in Chapter 4. Elders have been present at all our consultations, workshops and mapping sessions to provide guidance.
T-03-31-05	Chief Fred Norwegian:	Wish to do some sort of Forest Inventory in Zone 19.  Requested that neighbours in Fort Simpson and Trout Lake work on this with them.	Zone 19 has been revised in consultation with Trout Lake and Fort Simpson to allow for this activity.
T-03-31-05	Mr. Wesley Hardisty:	Suggested that Youth and Elders meet together in the summer.	Accepted: DLUPC will be holding a session with Youth and Elders at Kakisa Assembly and youth are encouraged to attend the summer consultations.  The Committee is available to attend Elders meetings upon request.
T-03-31-05	Mr. Wesley Hardisty:	We still have some inaccurate data which could be filled in i.e.  Contours around the Ebbutt Hills and Martin Hills, between map sheets.	Accepted: We will be using a revised contour file.
T-03-31-05	Mr. Wesley Hardisty:	Are the birth rates and death rates accurate? Aboriginal people as a whole across Canada are the fastest growing population.	The EDA model uses birth and death rates from Statistics Canada's 2001 Census (www.statcan.ca).  The current Dehcho birth rate is relatively low compared to Nunavut for example.  Dehcho Birth Rates are expected to decline further in the next 20 years and Death rates are increasing.
T-03-31-05	Mr. Wesley Hardisty:	It would have been good to have a young person in the Committee as they could have learned a lot about Land Use Planning	The DLUPC is not funded for that.
T-03-31-05	Mr. Stanley Sanguez:	Can't close off all opportunities, need to plan for employment in the future.	Communities are encouraged to identify areas for both development and conservation through the consultations and mapping sessions.
T-03-31-05	Chief Floyd Bertrand:	Concerned that time line is too short to complete the Land Use Plan.	Our timeline is driven by our funding and cannot easily be changed (as per IMA).
T-03-31-05	Chief David Moses:	Since we are talking about self government, perhaps some of this work could be delegated down to First Nation communities	DLUPC is mandated to develop a Regional Land Use Plan so it cannot be completed at a community scale.  Chapter 3 includes a section on integration with community planning initiatives.
WS-1	RWED	Compliance - The documents contain suggested conditions for specific land use zones.  For some of these conditions, enforcement may be required (e.g. sport fishing restrictions, and Zone 27 hunting restrictions: Table 7. pg. 21).  How is the DLUPC envisioning that these conditions be enforced?	Enforcement and implementation of terms will be done by the appropriate regulatory authorities using the existing regulatory regime.  If our terms present problems for enforcement, those issues should be raised immediately so they can be resolved prior to Plan approval.
WS-1	RWED	On the critical wildlife maps (Map 4) there are extensive areas indicating no critical wildlife habitat.  If these areas result from data gaps (e.g. caribou travel corridors south of Nahanni National Park Preserve), we suggest this be noted on the maps.	Incomplete:  DLUPC has requested that ENR indicate which Wildlife data gaps are a concern, so they can be addressed appropriately.
WS-1	RWED	We have noted there is overlap between critical wildlife habitat (Map 4) and zones of permitted agricultural activity.  Is there a mechanism to prioritize which activity will prevail?	The definition for agriculture and CEAM terms encourage agriculture that does not disturb or significantly affect wildlife habitat.  Intensive agriculture is not supported by the communities.
WS-1	RWED	Need to clarify which type of agricultural practices are allowed (e.g. crops only, livestock and crops, livestock only) is important in order to assess impacts on wildlife accurately.	Agriculture is now defined in the definitions section.
WS-1	RWED	We are aware that RWED data on fire history was utilized.  GNWT’s forest fire policy recognizes forest fire as a natural phenomenon, which means that changes to the landscape will occur over time.  The evolving landscape needs to be considered to ensure the Land Use Plan remains up-to-date to reflect areas impacted by fire.	Accepted: Plan revisions occurring every 5 years should capture this.  Data will always be kept up to date as it becomes available.  If significant revisions are required before this, the Committee will consider an amendment to the plan in advance of 5 years.  Ecological processes are discussed in Chapter 2 of the Draft Plan.
WS-1	RWED	An adequate supply of fuel wood and community needs for other timber products should be ensured. It should also be ensured that the definitions and their application in the zoning do not result in this not being able to be achieved.	Accepted:  DLUPC worked with ENR Forestry to agree on an appropriate forestry definition and terms for inclusion in the Draft Plan. These issues are also addressed by communities through community mapping.
WS-1	RWED	The document defines forestry as the selected harvest of sawlogs. This is not considered an acceptable definition of the term. Defining terms in a manner inconsistent with generally accepted practice may lead to confusion or be seen to support unacceptable management practices. The definition should be broadened to be more inclusive of other forest management activities.	Accepted:  Worked with ENR Forestry to agree on a new definition for the Draft Plan.
WS-1	RWED	It is important that restrictions associated with terms are appropriate to a land use plan and do not contain conditions that are more appropriately identified through a resource management planning process or through terms and conditions of authorizations. While Community–Based Forest Management is supported, identification of utilization standards, operational practices and types of markets are considered to be better determined through other types of process.	Accepted:  Worked with ENR Forestry to develop an appropriate forestry term for the Draft Plan.
WS-1	RWED	It should be recognized that the Special Management Zones may have a distinct seasonal component (e.g. fall hunting, spring hunting).  In these areas, some resource development activities could occur at other times.  Map 1 does not distinguish between which special management zones have these seasonal components.  Zones could be given a polygon to illustrate a season, for example, accessible during winter, traditional trapping area in the winter, protected during spring migration/staging areas, accessible during summer for vegetation work, fall hunting grounds.	The Committee has provided guidance for seasonal use through our Seasonal Restrictions Term.  As long as the Developer can demonstrate their work will not affect wildlife during critical seasons, they will be permitted to operate.  This provides greater flexibility and is an accepted practice in land use planning.  Detailed seasonal analysis is more appropriately done at the EA stage where more project specific information is available or expected to be captured.
WS-1	RWED	Sport Fishing – should also be checked off for Nahanni Greater Ecosystem and Upper Mackenzie.	Incomplete:  The submission contains conflicting statements on this item.  DLUPC requested clarification but no response has been received to date.
WS-1	RWED	Lake Tourism – should identify that Sibbeston Plains has a Naturalist Lodge at Cli Lake that isn’t being utilized now, but may be in the future if tourism increases.	Accepted: Included Naturalist Lodge at Cli Lake within zone description.
WS-1	RWED	Has there been any consideration given to the fact that there may be an all-weather Mackenzie Highway in Zone?  Any consideration for road access should be considered concurrently with development of the Mackenzie Gas Pipeline.	Both the Access and Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Terms have been revised to provide greater flexibility and guidance.
WS-1	RWED	Why is Big Game Outfitting referenced in the non-consumptive tourism section of Table 7?	Accepted:  It is now called Big Game Outfitting
WS-1	RWED	Achieving the need identified in the table may be better met by ensuring that revegetation is carried out using a  northern Canadian seed mix developed for use in the NWT.	Partially Accepted: The MVLWB stated that no such seed mix exists.  The term has been revised to deal with the current absence of such a mix while requiring the use of such seed mixes as soon as they become available.
WS-1	RWED	Local guides should be familiar with area of interest and be proficient on the land (incorporate somehow).	Accepted:  The term has been reworded accordingly.
WS-1	RWED	GHL Term: There are established residential hunter camps within Zone 27.  Will these be grandfathered?	Incomplete: Existing dispositions are permitted as non-conforming uses within the Draft Plan. Followed up with ENR for definition of a residential hunter camp.  No response was received.
WS-1	RWED	In our view, not allowing Catch and Release will weaken tourism in the Dehcho.  A lot of tourists come to the north for the great northern experience.  Catch and release provides tourists with an opportunity to experience the north first hand, while preserving this resource for future visitors and local residents.  Not having catch and release will harm the tourism industry including northern residents that come to the Dehcho for fishing.  In 2004, use of barbless hooks became mandatory throughout the NWT.  Was the recent introduction of this legislation considered by the DLUPC when developing the terms and conditions for this land use zone?	Not Accepted: The Term is limited to two small areas based on community concern with tourist activities.  RWED is directed to discuss the concerns with the communities to determine a different solution under Action #28.
WS-1	RWED	Our interpretation of 97% habitat disturbance as a threshold for moose implies that virtually the entire landscape can be modified without any impacts on moose.  Is this interpretation correct?  If yes, this statement is of considerable concern where moose habitat overlaps with woodland caribou habitat (e.g. Ebbutt Hills) as woodland caribou are more sensitive to landscape disturbance.	The “97%” was an error – it has been revised to “3%”.
WS-1	RWED	Birthing season for woodland caribou needs to be extended to be from mid-May to mid-June.  This is critical to note when restricting access or development on a seasonal basis.	Accepted: Draft Plan revised as proposed.
WS-1	RWED	The location of well sites, pipelines and oil and gas fields south of the 60th parallel will influence the future location for oil and gas infrastructure in the NWT.  This is not acknowledged throughout the entire draft land use plan.  For example, Duke Energy has well sites north of Petitot River.  Were these considerations incorporated into the zones that were developed for the land use plan?	Yes, it was considered as demonstrated by the fact that 65% of Natural Gas potential (> 50 million m3 / quarter gird), has been left open to development. This is predominantly in the southern portion of the Dehcho. Industry representatives familiar with developments south of the border assisted the Committee in modeling future oil and gas developments. However, we are not funded for detailed transboundary research so have not mapped these considerations.   If specific changes are required to address detailed cross-border issues, we invite ENR and our business partners to bring these to our attention.
WS-1	DIAND	DIAND recommends that the Committee include the complete Interim Measures Agreement and the IRDA in the Appendices to the Plan, and include key references to them throughout the Plan where appropriate and required so as to avoid any confusion on the mandate and authority of the Committee and the Plan.	Partially Accepted: Adding both documents to the appendix will expand the size of the Plan unnecessarily, given that these documents are widely available.  The Plan will reference/quote relevant sections within the body of the Plan as required.
WS-1	DIAND	The Minister may only provide written policy directions to the MVLWB with respect to the exercise of its functions.  Other functions carried out by other entities will not be subject to the Plan at that point in time.  Once the Dehcho Final Agreement is in place and has been ratified by statute, then it will be possible to put in place measures to fully implement the Plan.	The Committee has laid out its vision for implementation in the new section, including the Parties’ responsibilities to fully implement the Plan.  Any barriers to plan implementation should be brought forward immediately for resolution during subsequent Plan revisions.
WS-1	DIAND	DIAND would like to have further discussions with the Committee regarding the "managing development" concept as envisioned in the Economic Development Strategy.  It is recommended that the managing development concept as envisioned in the EDS be considered through cumulative effects monitoring and assessment as part of the environmental assessment process for each project.	DLUPC followed up with DIAND.  The Economic Development Strategy is a recommendation of the Committee, not something we are doing ourselves.  We are not proposing to "pace development" in the Plan.
WS-1	DIAND	DIAND recommends that the Committee, in the interest of supporting best practices, change the term "will" to "should" with respect to those actions which refer to specific regulatory instruments and guidelines. E.g.  "Consultation", "Water Monitoring/Management", "Air Monitoring/Management", "Mining Reclamation", & "Cumulative Impacts Management"	Not accepted: The Plan is expected to add value to the way resources are currently managed.  This will only occur if there is a requirement to adhere to agreed upon standards.  We invite comment on the specific standards chosen.
WS-1	DIAND	3rd Party Dispositions: It would remove uncertainty if the following statement were added to paragraph 6 on page 8 of the Plan: "Where the boundaries of Current Land Withdrawals crosscut existing third-party interests, the boundaries of the designations in the approved Plan which replace them will be drawn as to exclude those third party interests".	Not accepted: 3rd Party dispositions will be identified and protected through the federal Order in Council on new land withdrawals.  Therefore, the land withdrawals do not need to cut out existing dispositions.
WS-1	DIAND	DIAND feels it is important to better situate the Plan in the context of CEAM and would like to see a reference to it and the components of the Blueprint that the Plan's implementation will help address.	Accepted:  See new section in Chapter 3.
WS-1	DIAND	In light of the Department's Sustainable Development Strategy 2004-2006 and current work on developing the Northern Sustainability Lens, 2004, a section should be added to the Plan describing the current environment - baseline information on the communities [demographic information including population, employment, economy, etc.] and regional land use patterns and activities.  This new section could be structured around the focus of Map 3, namely the "Existing Activities and Third-Party Interests" information.	Accepted:  The Draft Plan includes background descriptions in Chapter 2.
WS-1	DIAND	Assuming that part of the Committee's vision for the future of the Dehcho is to strive for self-reliant and sustainable communities, then it follows that some mechanism or set of criteria is needed in the plan to help gauge the success of the Plan during formal Plan Reviews, usually held every five years.	Accepted:  The Plan now has a Vision and Goals (see Chapter 5) with which to gage the success of the Plan during Plan Reviews (described in Chapter 6).
WS-1	DIAND	It would therefore be helpful to have a separate section describing the PAS and the long-term PAS planning process, and its relationship to the Conservation Zones and the land use planning process.	Accepted:  A section referencing other land use initiatives has been added to Chapter 3, including the relationship between the PAS and Conservation Zones.
WS-1	DIAND	What process was used for the connectivity/smoothing for the CZs and the Special Management Zones [SMZs] delineation, as illustrated in Figure 1 on page 9, and was ecoregion representation considered, in addition to traditional land use and critical wildlife habitat, when determining the CZs?  If so, what ecoregion representation do these areas provide?	Smoothing consisted of removing jagged edges and harmonizing very small holes or patches with the surrounding designation.  Connectivity involved linking neighbouring areas together into a fewer number of zones where appropriate.  We asked WWF to do representation analysis for us.  This is included in Chapter 6.
WS-1	DIAND	How will access issues be addressed across the CZs  into the SMZs and the General Use Zones to help ensure that the ecological integrity of the areas are maintained, as well as providing opportunities for the development of surrounding lands?  The use of the SMZ designation in some areas, rather than the CZ zoning, could reduce some of the restrictions on access to the General Use Zones for resource development activities to take place there.	The Access Planning Term has been revised to ensure access is permitted across conservation zones in keeping with current legislation and regulations, while providing more guidance to protect ecological and cultural values.
WS-1	DIAND	Where transboundary or overlap issues exist, how will these be recognized in the Plan? There may be adjacent and linked land use and management processes put in place in the future that could impact the Plan and general resource management in the Dehcho.  For example, only the Pehdzeh Ki Deh Area of Interest shows boundaries outside of the planning area.   As well, Map 1 on page 11 shows the Edehzhie Candidate Protected Area Boundary fully within the Dehcho region, but does not show what portion overlaps with the Dogrib area.	The Committee is not funded to deal with overlap issues with surrounding settlement regions.  Those lines extending beyond the IMA are to show context.  Edehzhie is wholly within the Dehcho revised boundary so this is not an issue.  Pehdzeh Ki Deh will likely be moved forward through the PAS process for only the Dehcho portion due to delays on the Sahtu side.
WS-1	DIAND	To be consistent with the Interim Land Withdrawal negotiation process in 2003, DIAND recommends that the proposed Conservation Zones in the Plan also accommodate the proposed Mackenzie Gas Project and its ancillary needs.  Accordingly, this would require that the Committee designate a "Special Infrastructure Corridor" for the proposed pipeline within the CZs.	This has already been addressed by the DLUPC in the Regional Forum Information Package.
WS-1	DIAND	The definition for "Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Components" on page ii of the Plan applies only to the pipeline activities regulated by the NEB.  There are other related activities such as gravel extraction, water use, access roads, and land leases that are permitted through DIAND and the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board.  Therefore, these associated pipeline developments will not be covered off by the current definition in the Plan. It is suggested therefore that the Committee expand this definition to include these activities to insure future conformity of the proposed pipeline with the Plan.	Accepted: DIAND has supplied a more comprehensive list of ancillary infrastructure and land uses.  These have now been included in the definition.
WS-1	DIAND	The "Special Infrastructure Corridor" [SIC] as shown on Map 1 is explained in Table 7 [pg 22] in the fourth row on the "Mackenzie Pipeline", but the explanation of how this Corridor overlays the other zones is somewhat confusing.  Also, in the Land Use Zones section on page 10, there is no reference to the SIC, so it is recommended that a new paragraph be inserted between the third and fourth paragraphs.	Accepted:   The Special Infrastructure Corridor is explained in Chapter 4 under Plan Preparation and a Zone description is provided in Chapter 5.
WS-1	DIAND	It is not clear whether the Committee did any route planning work of their own for the proposed pipeline, or whether the routing shown on the maps is that of the proponent.	The Committee is not undertaking any routing studies, nor is it within our mandate to do so.  The routing comes from MGP.
WS-1	DIAND	In that new, all-weather roads are discouraged [third row on page 18 on "Access Planning"], is there a linkage to the SIC explanation on page 22?  Specifically, how will access roads, needed to support the pipeline development, be accommodated through the applicable Conservation Zones?	The Access Planning Term has been revised to ensure access is permitted across conservation zones in keeping with current legislation and regulations, while providing more guidance to protect ecological and cultural values.
WS-1	DIAND	As outlined in the Plan, the proposed Mackenzie Gas Pipeline routing currently runs through Conservation Zones, specifically the Pehdzeh Ki Deh Area of Interest.  If no development is permitted in these areas, is it possible for amendments to be made to the CZs to accommodate the pipeline?  Related to this question, DIAND recommends that a Special Infrastructure Corridor [similar to the SIC30 in the Trout Lake area] be established along the western edge of the Pehdzeh Ki Deh Area of Interest to accommodate the proposed pipeline.	This is happening through negotiations and is expected to be complete sometime this year.  The Committee will incorporate the negotiated route when it is complete.  If it is not identified by the Fall, the Committee may define an interim route.
WS-1	DIAND	In Table 5 on page 12 concerning CZs 1 and 3, the information provided with regards to the "Application of Specific Terms to Zones" [right-hand series of columns] for the "Mackenzie Pipeline" is confusing.  It is not clear whether the pipeline is a permitted use or not.  If it is permitted, the specific terms for the pipeline will need to include ancillary needs, such as gravel extraction, access roads, compressor stations, etc.	Accepted:  While the table no longer exists, the terms for the Mackenzie Gas Pipeline and the relation of this term to the applicable zones have been clarified within Chapter 5.
WS-1	DIAND	In Table 7 on page 22 for the Term "Mackenzie Pipeline", it is stated "The pipeline components will still be subject to all conditions in each of the underlying zones to the extent possible without prohibiting that use."   The underlying CZs for the pipeline are Zones 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5.   These are CZs with the primary purpose of protecting land, water, and important traditional use areas.  Potentially, the proposed pipeline conflicts with these land uses.  Therefore, in the Revised Draft Plan, there needs to be greater detail on the terms and conditions for the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline through these CZs.	Accepted: The Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Term has been revised to address access issues across conservation zones while providing guidance for the protection of ecological and cultural values.
WS-1	DIAND	DIAND recommends the Committee make reference to the various consultation options and situate the proposed Plan [Map 1: Working Draft Land Use Map] in reference to these options.  This could readily be accommodated on page 10 at the end of the "Land Use Zones" section.	Accepted: Referred to options in Planning Process Section (Chapter 4).
WS-1	DIAND	EDA model results should be described in relation to the Plan.	Accepted:  The EDA model results are discussed in relation to the Draft Plan in Chapter 6.
WS-1	DIAND	Page 10, a paragraph should be added explaining MAP 2: "Comparison of Land Use Zones with Current Land Withdrawals", and Map 3: "Existing Activities and Third-Party Interests", pages 28 and 29 respectively.	Accepted: See Chapter 6.
WS-1	DIAND	The second paragraph on "Zone Objectives" [pg. 10] needs to be expanded to clarify how the CZs will work operationally and be administered.  The word "temporary" in the first sentence is confusing.  Does this apply only to those portions of the CZs which will proceed through the PAS and related withdrawal process?  If the CZs are in fact permanent designations which will give the Committee the discretionary authority and flexibility to open up some portions of them in the future for resource development, pursuant to the amendments to the Canada Mining Regulations [CMRs] being in place, then this should be clearly stated.  This would also be consistent with the approved Gwich'in Land Use Plan.	Accepted:   References and discussion are included in Chapter 4 in regards to the intent of Conservation Zones and Chapter 6 provides details on implementation.
WS-1	DIAND	DIAND is not entirely clear as to the use of CZs as a method to apply "faster" protection to areas proceeding through the Protected Areas Strategy [PAS].  Perhaps the use of the term "faster" should be replaced with a focus on "interim protection" required to protect key areas while priority non-renewable resource assessment work is carried out.  In cases where CZs coincide with advanced Candidate Protected Areas under the PAS or the area of interest for the proposed expansion of Nahanni National Park Reserve [NNPR], it should be articulated how the outcomes of the PAS and Mineral and Energy Resource Assessment processes will relate to amendments to the CZs during review of the Plan.  In particular, the boundary decisions derived through the PAS process, or MERA in the case of the NNPR, should be duly integrated into revisions to the CZs during the Plan review process.	The relationship between conservation zones and the Protected Areas Strategy has been clarified in Chapter 3 and Appendix 5.  Further references and discussion are included in Chapter 4 in regards to the intent of Conservation Zones.  A table from DIAND discussing the similarities and differences between Conservation Zones and PAS is included in the Plan's appendices for reference.
WS-1	DIAND	It is assumed that the Committee will use the "Economic Development Strategy" [pgs. 46 & 47], primarily the EDA model, and cumulative effects analysis as important tools in exercising this discretionary authority for the benefit of those communities most affected.  However, this overall approach should be very clearly stated and explained in full so that it is very clear that the CZs are not excised land withdrawals.	Partially Accepted: Conservation zones provide a flexible form of protection that may be revised during subsequent Plan revisions, based on the goals and needs of the region.  The EDA model is a tool the Committee will use during Plan reviews to evaluate alternatives.  The cumulative effects analysis will be used on a project specific basis to evaluate conformity with the Plan.  The Economic Development Strategy is an Action in the Plan to address questions of long-term economic needs and benefits for the region.
WS-1	DIAND	Oil and gas activity is excluded from SMZs 19, 20, 25, 28 and 29 [pgs. 13 & 14].  A certain number of these areas lie close to communities in areas of low to moderate gas potential.  Prohibiting oil and gas exploration in these areas lessens the opportunities for communities to benefit from local gas discoveries for community power generation and heating.  As such, DIAND recommends that the Committee consider oil and gas exploration as a permitted activity in these SMZs.	Not Accepted:  Communities have indicated they do not want oil and gas on their door step as that is where they want to hunt and trap.  The cost to convert current community power and heating systems would require huge amounts of funds that are not available.  Should this change in the future, the Plan can be amended to address it.
WS-1	DIAND	How are the SMZs, with oil and gas, mineral, forestry and tourism as permitted uses, different than the General Use Zones?  Are they separated by the need for cumulative effects management and the development of agriculture?  As stated previously, cumulative effects management should be implemented throughout the Dehcho to foster sustainable economic and human development.	Special Management Zones only permit certain land uses and have special terms including higher Cumulative Effects Thresholds compared to General Use Zones to protect important ecological and cultural values.
WS-1	DIAND	Pehdzeh Ki Deh Area of Interest, CZ1, is extensive and removes from oil and gas exploration an area with moderate potential, plus a larger area of low potential. These areas east of the Mackenzie have the most promise for low level exploration activity around the community of Wrigley.  This would be foregone by the CZ designation.  For these and other reasons, it is vitally important that the Non-Renewable Resource Assessment [NRA] review of this area, a key part of the PAS planning process, closely examine the resource potential and related boundaries of this Area of Interest, with revisions made accordingly, including the proposed CZ designation.	The mapping reflects community interests in this area and the desire to see these lands moved through the PAS process.  The Plan has been revised to reflect the importance of the NRA review and the impact this may have on the future boundaries of the actual protected area.
WS-1	DIAND	With reference to the statement in Zone Objectives on page 10 that CZs "can" complement the PAS initiatives, there is some confusion regarding this complementary relationship.  Is it the Committee's intention that the CZs will embrace and not duplicate the PAS Areas?  If this is the case, then the Committee should consider making the statement unequivocal and inherent to the overall philosophy of the Plan by stating that CZs "will" complement the PAS planning process and elaborate on how this will actually work during implementation and administration of the Plan.  Also, if watershed values and boundaries were important criteria in defining this CZ1 area, then this information needs to be included in the Zone Objectives column of Table 5.	Accepted:  The relationship between CZs and PAS has been described in Chapter 3 and Appendix 5.  Discussion of the future of individual sites is discussed in Chapter 5 under the Zone Descriptions.  Plan implementation is outlined in Chapter 6.
WS-1	DIAND	Sambaa K'e/Redknife River Area of Interest [Trout Lake] CZ5 contains high gas potential values and is almost all rated as moderate.  Some expansion to the area already withdrawn, as identified on Map 2, page 28, especially in the south, could have significant impact on prospects for development.  Seismic work in this area, required to complete geological interpretations, could be entirely excluded within a CZ designation, whereas the interim withdrawal envisaged this activity as permissible over certain areas.  For these and other reasons, it is vitally important that the NRA review of this area, a key part of the PAS planning process, closely examine the resource potential and related boundaries of this Area of Interest, with revisions made accordingly, including the proposed CZ designation.	The mapping reflects community interests in this area and the desire to see these lands moved through the PAS process.  The Plan has been revised to reflect the importance of the NRA and the impact this may have on the future boundaries of the actual protected area.
WS-1	DIAND	One of the constraints of the CZs for the oil and gas industry is that they preclude the use of reconnaissance and speculative seismic activity. This precludes their ability to conduct regional seismic surveys and effectively isolates islands of the General Use Zones surrounded by the CZs which cannot be correlated without this seismic work.  A similar concern applies to access across the CZs to conduct exploration and development work within the General Use Zones enclosed by CZs.  For example, the development of a gas field would require the construction of a pipeline which may need to cross a CZ.  The restrictions on all-weather road development are troubling as the Dehcho mineral potential is dominated by base metals which require such infrastructure.	Partially Accepted:  Seismic lines have the greatest impact on habitat fragmentation.  Given that the objective of conservation zones is to protect ecological and cultural values, it would be inappropriate to allow new activities which increase habitat fragmentation.  However, the Plan does recognize the need for access across Conservations Zones and this term has been revised to be more flexible and provide greater guidance.
WS-1	DIAND	The large amount of land that will be designated as Conservation Zones and Special Management Zones could have a direct impact on the issue of resource royalties.  This is of some concern because once the Dehcho Process is completed, there is an understanding that there may be a Self-Government Agreement in place for the DCFN to have some control over lands and resources in the Dehcho Territory.  One of the priorities that will have to be reconciled between the Plan and a Final Agreement is how to generate enough revenue to run a Dehcho Government.  The Committee should give consideration to allocating a larger area of the Territory for exploration activities.	Not Accepted: We would like to know how much is required as well hence the Economic Development Strategy recommendation.  How much is currently spent in the region annually for services and operations? The Plan has to be revised once there is a final agreement to ensure it is consistent.  If through negotiations, it is determined that more land has to be opened up to make the region viable, then we will address that as part of Plan revisions once the Final Agreement is signed.
WS-1	DIAND	Concerning the definition for "mining" on page ii, it appears to have been copied verbatim from the Canada Mining Regulations [CMRs].  This definition does not include Coal Exploration or Dredging, both of which have their own governing legislation - the Coal Regulations and The Territorial Dredging Regulations.  Perhaps something should be added to the Plan to include rights that could be granted under these two pieces of legislation.	Partially Accepted:  The mining definition has been revised to include coal mining.
WS-1	DIAND	On page 16, it is interesting to note that of 19 named zones where oil and gas is of moderate to very high resource potential, in only 4 of these is the land use permitted.  This is only 21% of the zones, compared with 26% for mining and 33% for forestry.  On the basis of the Drummond report, it appears that about 60% of oil and gas potential in terms of volume fall within the current land withdrawals and Candidate Protected Areas.  This raises the question of achieving a balance between conservation and development, and whether the amount of exclusion can ensure a viable petroleum industry in the Dehcho.	Not Accepted: Table 6 shows potential checked off even if it only has potential in a small portion of the zone.  Given that zone sizes vary widely, comparing % of zones where uses are permitted is erroneous and misleading.  You should instead compare amount of potential by volume.  We left high volume areas open where development will focus first.  Based on the EDA model results and discussions with industry representatives, there is more volume open than could possibly be developed in 20 years and the plan can be revised every 5 years.  As initial deposits dwindle, additional areas may be opened up.  As such, the plan provides sustainable opportunities for development.
WS-1	DIAND	On page 32, in the caption below the specific map entitled "Potential as per Research", it should be clarified how the Committee rated grid cells as very high, high, or moderate potential.  While it is true that as Drummond states, the Liard Plateau area "is the most prospective for undiscovered natural gas", his maps assigned numbers (remaining recoverable gas resource) to grid cells based on a probabilistic distribution of an estimated amount over a grid play area.  His estimates were for the entire play area, while the values given to the grid cells were apparently done through a computer program.	Accepted: The Oil Potential is also shown on the map.  The rankings of low, mod, high and very high potential have been replaced by numeric values from Ken Drummond's Report.  The resource potential ranking is clarified under each sector in Chapter 2.
WS-1	DIAND	P. 32: Also, the last sentence in the same caption is unclear and needs to be expanded.  Although the Committee acknowledges the high potential in the Trout Lake area, they also seem to be downplaying it at the same time.	Not Accepted: The final statement about costs and risks comes to us from industry.  Although it may sound like a lot of gas and profits, there are very high costs associated with extracting that gas so it’s not all profit - not all high potential areas are economical.
WS-1	DIAND	Exploration activity may find significant resources elsewhere, outside areas of moderate to high potential, which could be of value to the communities.  Restrictions on exploration work mean that such potential can never be realized.   DIAND therefore suggests that the Committee add a footnote to the map pointing out that "we don't know what we don't know" in regards to the actual distribution of oil and gas potential.	Not Accepted: The same concern applies equally to all data and land use sectors, not just oil and gas.  We are using the best available data.  As more research is completed to fill these gaps it will be included in the planning process.
WS-1	DIAND	The figure of 16 wells is extremely modest and apparently less than activity levels observed in the Fort Liard area in the period 1994-2004.  This level of oil and gas activity may not support sustained employment or business development in the Dehcho communities. [See also comments in section 3.1 on page 10 herein regarding the recommendation that the economic implications of the Plan be addressed through the running of the EDA model.]	Not Accepted: The scenario from the Regional Forum Information Package was updated in the report "The Economic Development Assessment Model 1.5" presented at the Regional Forum. The Full Development scenario assumes 62 new production wells and 371 exploration wells.  This reflects realistic development projections based on feedback from industry and planning partners.  Results are not expected to reflect the total potential falling within permitted zones. The Draft Plan presents results (Chapter 6) from the revised zoning, using the same assumptions (Chapter4).
WS-1	DIAND	Map. 3: This is a very busy map. The legend lists oil and gas occurrences [not clear whether these are wells with shows, or surface seeps]; oil and gas wells; and well activity, which graphically are difficult to locate.  The legend should be revised including the use of more legible symbols.  The inclusion of the "Human Disturbance" layer, particularly the seismic lines on the map, creates problems of legibility.  As this layer is neither an existing activity nor a third-party interest, but is more a view of historical presence, it is suggested that it be removed from this map and presented on a separate map, perhaps in combination with community trapline information.	Partially Accepted: This map is intended for information purposes to present existing 3rd Party Rights and Dispositions present within the Dehcho territory.  It is not comprehensive as DLUPC have had difficulty obtaining and sorting through appropriate digital files for the various land use activities.  Human disturbance has been removed from this map, as well as any other data not directly relating to an existing right or disposition in the land.
WS-1	DIAND	In the next iteration of the planning process, the Revised Draft Plan should be written as if it were the final Plan.  Accordingly, there are a number of sections that don't seem to belong in the main part of the Plan that would be more appropriately located in the Appendices.  The "Next Steps" sub-section on pages 6 and 7 should be retained and updated, including a reference to the IMA regarding the protocol for Plan approval.	Accepted: This was already planned.
WS-1	DIAND	The section on the "Working Draft Policy Recommendations" on pages 39 to 47 could also be placed in an Appendix, with several important qualifications. Buried within the nine pages of this section, there are select statements and sentences with verb phrases such as: "The Committee recommends".  Accordingly, it is suggested that the Committee give more thought to priorizing and more explicitly wording those key policy statements it feels are the minimums for application by all interests in the Dehcho, and then extracting or summarizing them in a new section further up front in the Plan to give them the prominence they would deserve.	Partially Accepted: This section has been reworked and integrated with the Terms based on issues.  All have been kept in the body of the Plan so they will be read and considered.
WS-1	DIAND	The wording in the "Economic Development Strategy" sub-section on pages 46 and 47 could be tightened up and framed in terms of how the EDA model would be used during implementation of the approved Plan by the Committee, including conformity review.  In the  first paragraph of this sub-section, last sentence, with reference to "user", DIAND suggests that the main user of the model would be the Committee, assuming that the proposed amendments to the Canadian Mining Regulations proceed.	Partially Accepted: The EDA model is a tool the Committee will use during Plan reviews to evaluate alternatives.  The EDA methodology is included in Chapter 4. and the results for the plan and role in future assessments is discussed in Chapter 6.  The Economic Development Strategy is an Action in the Plan to address questions of long-term economic needs and benefits for the region (Chapter 5).
WS-1	DIAND	A new chapter needs to be included in the Revised Draft Plan to begin defining procedures and strategies for implementation, monitoring and review of the Plan.  The new chapter should include reference to "Phase IV - Plan Implementation" of the IMA Appendix II.  This new chapter on implementation must address the on-going role of the Committee, including the determination of conformity, taking into consideration the roles and responsibilities of Regulatory Authorities.  Conformity covers more scope than assessing proposed development projects.  The Committee should explain what tools will be used in determining conformity, (see diagram in Gwich'in Plan).  The following tools could be used for determining conformity: Map 1, Table 5, Table 7, Table 8, Table 9, and perhaps some re-worked portions of the "Working Draft Policy Recommendations" section on pages 39 to 47.	Accepted: Conformity determinations are described in Chapter 5.  Overall Implementation is described in Chapter 6.
WS-1	DIAND	Also relevant to this new chapter would be a section fully explaining how the approved Plan will revise and replace the current land withdrawals, noted at the top of page v and twice on page 8 of the Plan.  Other important sections to be addressed in this chapter include the Committee's protocols [steps, terms and rules] for granting "Exceptions to the Plan" and for granting "Amendments to the Plan".	Accepted:  See Chapter 6 for revised land withdrawals and the Exception and Amendment Processes.
WS-1	DIAND	A final section in this chapter should be devoted to "Comprehensive Reviews of the Plan". A formal review is normally carried out every five years, so a framework is required to guide this important aspect of the continuing cycle of the land use planning process, and is inherent to gauging the success of the Plan over time.	Accepted:  See Chapter 6.
WS-1	DIAND	Is Table 8 meant to provide the additional thresholds in the SMZs that land users will have to meet and for the Committee to use for determining conformity?	Yes. See the revised term as described in Chapter 5.
WS-1	DIAND	Divide the Plan into Chapters and number Chapters and sections for ease of navigation.	Accepted:
WS-1	DIAND	Page iii: First para. "including crude bitumen but including condensate" - this may be a typo.	Accepted: corrected typo
WS-1	DIAND	Pages iv & v: "Executive Summary" - Explain that the Plan will apply to all lands outside of municipal boundaries; there is no reference/explanation of Table 8 and Table 9, which should be inserted right after the paragraph on Table 7.	Accepted: The Plan was amended as appropriate based on the new format and layout of this section.
WS-1	DIAND	The reasons for the termination of the Northern Land Use Planning Program in 1991 were due to funding cuts and the difficulties encountered by the Denendeh Regional Land Use Planning Commission were due to structural and political problems.  It is not accurate to place the blame on poor research, which was the best that the community-based program could produce at the time.	Accepted: This was an unfortunate error carried forward from another document that was overlooked in the initial printing run.  This is not the view of the Committee and the error has already been corrected.
WS-1	DIAND	Page 8: "Planning Process" - The last paragraph on issues should also reference the issue-based section "Working Draft Policy Recommendations", pgs. 39-47.	The policy and terms sections have now been integrated into a new comprehensive issues section (Chapter 5).
WS-1	DIAND	Page 9: Figure 1 - The plus and minus signs are pivotal to understanding and appreciating the mathematics behind the Committees overall approach, so they should be graphically highlighted so that they stand out more than shown; the use of the word "Preliminary" in the CZ and the SMZ boxes is understood, but the word "First" should be used in the Working Draft box so as to be consistent with the Committee's covering distribution letter and other references in the Plan.	Accepted:  The figure has been edited and updated to reflect the current stage of the process.
WS-1	DIAND	Page 10: "Land Use Zones" - Explain that the Plan will apply to all lands outside of municipal boundaries.	Accepted: The Plan was amended as appropriate based on the new format and layout of this section.
WS-1	DIAND	DIAND recommends that a GIS analysis be carried out and presented in the Plan which addresses the total oil and gas resource potential value for the areas given in the Drummond study, which fall within the CZs and the SMZs.  This figure could be included in the economic implications of the Plan to be added at the end of the Land Use Zones section on page 10.	Accepted:  Chapter 6 provides an assessment of the value of resource potential falling in areas where oil and gas is permitted or not-permitted.
WS-1	DIAND	Page 11: Map1 [and all maps in the Plan] - Pehdzeh Ki Deh is an "Area of Interest", not a "Candidate Protected Area", notwithstanding Wrigley's BCR.  Candidate Protected Areas come into play only at Step 3 of the PAS.  Also, Sambaa K'e is an "Area of Interest" through the PAS and should be reflected throughout the Plan.	Accepted:  Corrections have been made.
WS-1	DIAND	Add the % figures from Table 4 [pg.10] to the map legend in brackets opposite the CZ, SMZ, SIC, and GUZ designations.	Accepted as proposed.
WS-1	DIAND	Are the trails on Map 1 permanent and in current use?	This will be reviewed during summer 2005 consultations.
WS-1	DIAND	Pages 12 to 14:  Table 5 - Consideration should be given to including a column in Table 5 under "Permitted Uses" that include Renewable Energy Sources.  In the "Definitions' section on page iii, the "Run of the River Hydroelectric Development" definition is included, but this concept is not mentioned anywhere else in the Plan.	Not Accepted: A land use plan is not meant to be exhaustive on every subject.  The term on hydro-electric development was raised to address a DFN resolution brought to our attention.  The other forms of renewable energy - solar and wind power - would be developed within municipal boundaries so the Plan does not need to address them.
WS-1	DIAND	Page 15 & 16: Table 6 - How were the values under the right-hand column "Presence of Important Wildlife Areas or Conservation Values" chosen?  It would also be helpful if the General Use Zones on Map 1 were numbered and included in Table 6 to indicate their corresponding resource values.  Finally on this Table, for the column showing the "Presence of Moderate to Very High Resource Potential", if a resource or conservation value is present in only part of the area, that this partial presence could be indicated with the use of a smaller size tick-mark.	See Chapter 5 for a description of this table.  The Committee will not split and number the General Use Zones as this would result in 24 General Use Zones and 66 zones overall - this is not a manageable number.  As General Use Zones allow all uses and are managed by the same terms, it is more efficient to keep them as one zone for the purposes of the Plan.
WS-1	DIAND	In comparing Table 6 with Map 5: "Oil and Gas" on page 32, it appears from the "Potential as per Research" map that SMZ24 has low oil and gas potential.  If this is the case, then the tick-mark in the oil and gas column on page 16 should be deleted.	Not Accepted:  Data in Table 6 was verified. There is moderate gas potential by Slave Bay / Burnt Point / Windy Point area.
WS-1	DIAND	Pages 17 - 23: Table 7 - Consider grouping similar terms together logically in the overall sequence of this Table.	Accepted:  Terms have been regrouped according to issues.
WS-1	DIAND	Table 7 is not related to definitions but actions with respect to developers, regulatory authorities etc. - may want to rename it to better reflect the objective of the Table, such as "Specific Directions or Actions Required under the Land Use Plan".	Accepted:  Terms have been redefined as Conformity Requirements, Actions and Recommendations.
WS-1	DIAND	Noise Management is not addressed - is this an issue?	This issue has not been raised during our consultations to date.
WS-1	DIAND	Also on Table 7, regarding the fourth row on Protection of Significant Cultural and Traditional Use Sites, expand the last sentence to add "within the impact area of their proposed development project".	Accepted: as proposed.
WS-1	DIAND	On page 20, third row on "Commercial Fishing", the wording is confusing - "only permit commercial fishing on all lakes except Great Slave Lake" - is this what the Committee wanted to say?	Accepted:  The term has been reworded for clarity.
WS-1	DIAND	The terms "Traditional Knowledge" [pg 17] and "viewshed" [pg 18] from table 7 should be added to the Definitions section, as should the terms "Ecosystem", "Environment" [holistic sense consistent with "land" [pg. ii] including ecological, economic, social & cultural human systems], "Renewable", and "Sustainable".  Where definitions have been used from other sources, these should be referenced, perhaps putting the sources in brackets after each definition.	Accepted:  The definitions section has been revised.
WS-1	DIAND	Page 24: Table 8 - Following the title, in brackets put the following important qualifier: "Applies to all Special management Zones and General Use Zones".	Not Accepted:  This is clarified better in the term itself and in the table.  The text and table are now back to back.
WS-1	DIAND	Pages 24 & 25: Table 8 - Descriptions should be given for the threshold terms [critical, target, cautionary, moderate, high habitat capability etc.] to provide clearer direction for conformity.  The "Minimum Core Area" indicator at the bottom of page 24 is confusing.  Is it a minimum area required for large/medium core area, and are these a form of conservation zone within the SMZs?  How will source areas be differentiated and by whom?   Wouldn't the "Minimum Patch Size" indicator on page 25 be incorporated into core areas since they cover home range?	Accepted: Minimum Patch Size and Minimum Core Area are related and have been combined in this Draft.  See Chapter 4 for a description of the cumulative effects terms, Chapter 5 for a detailed discussion of CEAM related conformity requirements and the methods for conformity determinations, and Chapter 6 for an assessment of results based on the current zoning and best available data.
WS-1	DIAND	Page 26: Table 9 - Following the title, in brackets add the important qualifier: "Applies Dehcho-Wide".	Accepted: This is also clarified better in the term itself and in the table.  The text and table are now back to back.
WS-1	DIAND	Page 28: Map 2 - "Comparison of Land Use Zones with Current Land Withdrawals" is difficult to read.  It would be helpful to state what the total area of the current land withdrawal is and the comparable figure after the proposed changes.  For example, it would be helpful to match Table 4 on page 10 with Map 2 and add an extra column to the Table to show the land total changes.  As well, does Table 4 show current withdrawals or the totals for the proposed amendments in this working draft?	Accepted: The maps for current and new land withdrawals are now side by side for easy comparison.  Current land withdrawals cover ~33% of the Dehcho territory.  The new subsurface withdrawals cover ~62% but include Edehzhie, other PAS Areas of Interest and the Nahanni Park Expansion area.
WS-1	DIAND	Page 29: Map 3 - The legend is missing the notation of green dots for "Area of Interest, PAS/Nahanni Park Expansion" as shown on Maps 1 and 2.	Accepted:  As proposed.
WS-1	DIAND	Page 29: Map 3 - Coates Lake [bottom of legend] is not a mine site.  It may have been used in the Committees economic modeling, but its not a mine.	Accepted:  Coates Lake will not be shown as a mine site.
WS-1	DIAND	Page 30: "Land Use Summaries" - Following this title, put in brackets the following: "Maps 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, & 9".  Make reference to Map 4 in the second paragraph and to Maps 5 through 9 in the third paragraph.	Accepted:  This section has been revised.  The maps are now referenced in the text.
WS-1	DIAND	Page 31: Map 4 - The two paragraphs in the caption below the "Conservation Intersect" map are confusing when read in conjunction with the all-important Figure 1 on page 9, and so should be clarified and expanded.  This becomes evident when putting a plus sign between the "Traditional Land Use" map and the "Critical Wildlife Areas" map, and then an equal sign between that map and the "Conservation Intersect" map as one is tempted to do.	Accepted: The paragraphs have been edited for clarity.  However, it is important to distinguish between two methods of combining maps.  The Conservation Intersect occurs only where both TLUO and Wildlife data exists together (both must be present).  If only one layer exists, (i.e. TLUO or wildlife) this is not included in the intersect.  The second method would have resulted in a much higher level of conservation.
WS-1	DIAND	Pages 30 & 31: Land Use Summaries and Map 4 - The use of the word "constraint" could have negative connotations.  The layers on Map 4 represent opportunities in terms of conservation and protection of the highest priority values in the Dehcho, and are considered constraints only when assessed in terms of development.  Maybe Map 4 should be entitled "Opportunity and Constraint Layers".	Accepted:  The maps have been renamed.
WS-1	DIAND	Page 32: Map 5: Oil and Gas - centre map - how will proponents' development proposals be handled in areas where communities have differing views on this type of development?	Proposals will be subject to the final zoning.  Maps 52-56 (previously maps 5-9 in the Working Draft) are for information purposes only to show the information used in making decisions.
WS-1	DIAND	Page 32: Map 5: Oil and Gas - "Potential as per Research" map represents gas potential, rather than oil and gas potential. The oil potential was presented in a separate map in the Drummond report.  This should be explained in the caption or presented on an additional map.  The highest potential for oil is actually in the south to south-east corner of the Dehcho, i.e. it doesn’t coincide with the gas potential distribution.	Accepted: The Oil Potential is also shown on the map.  The rankings of low, mod, high and very high have been replaced by numeric values from Ken Drummond's Report.  The resource potential ranking is clarified under each sector in Chapter 2.
WS-1	DIAND	On the "Results of Community Mapping" map, the area around Fort Liard is not given one of the 3 colours, nor is the area north of Hay River.  These gaps should be filled in or explained.	Accepted:  After community re-zoning, there are no data gaps/white areas.
WS-1	DIAND	Page 35: Map 8 - In the "Potential as per Research" map, the low values for 'Non-Consumptive Tourism' in the Blackwater Lake area around Wrigley is surprising given the exceptional scenic and dramatic landscape features of the area. (Appropriate value judgment?)	Not Accepted:  This came from the tourism report which rated sites on the basis of access, marketability, current placement in the market and local benefits.  While there is exceptional potential, the lack of infrastructure, current operations and poor access combine to give it a low value.
WS-1	DIAND	Page 36:  Map 9: Agriculture, centre caption - not sure that potato farming is a environmentally friendly alternative. COMMENT: Potato farming is a bona fide Amerindian subsistence activity: last time there was global warming in the Dehcho I'm expect they lived off french fries.	Not Accepted: As a renewable resource, agriculture will be given due consideration along side other resource uses in the Dehcho.
WS-1	DIAND	Page 37 & 38: Economic Development Assessment Model.  In the Oil & Gas Revisions sub-section on page 37, the second paragraph is unclear in the reference to "better" - better than what, an earlier version of the EDA model?	Accepted: Clarified in the Draft Plan.  Paragraph 3 refers to the revisions being "better" than the summer 2004 version of the model.
WS-1	DIAND	In the third paragraph of the same sub-section, is the assumption of 16 wells the level of development that was plugged into the economic model?  It appears the figure of 4.5% of ultimate recoverable gas is a rather low target, it's not clear what the production period is, and is this low level of activity because the community of Trout Lake wants to limit and manage development?  It should therefore be clearer how the figure of 16 wells was derived, presumably through some combination of the Drummond report and the EDA model.  It is not clear whether this is the prediction for oil and gas drilling activity and production generated by the model or the level of protection proposed in the Plan.  Either way, how does this fit with the concluding sentence about the majority of wells being in the Trout Lake region, given the coverage of CZ5 and the SMZs in this area?   Also, the use of the word "majority" is confusing - is this of new wells?	Not Accepted: The scenario from the Regional Forum Information Package was updated in the report "The Economic Development Assessment Model 1.5" presented at the Regional Forum. The Full Development scenario assumes 62 new production wells and 371 exploration wells.  This reflects realistic development projections based on feedback from industry and planning partners.  Results are not expected to reflect the total potential falling within permitted zones. The Draft Plan presents results (Chapter 6) from the revised zoning, using the same assumptions (Chapter4).
WS-2	DIAND	DIAND is fully committed to meeting its obligations under the Interim Measures Agreement, including those related to land use planning.  Pursuant to the IMA, DIAND views the completed plan as a document that would guide its activities in the Dehcho. While our submission may have appeared to take a narrow interpretation of the IMA and options for implementation of the plan, this was not the intent.  I want to be very clear that in order to meet the obligations set out in the IMA on land use planning, the Department will consider other implementation mechanisms in addition to its ability to provide policy direction to the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board to ensure its obligations in  the IMA are met.	The Committee has laid out its vision for implementation in Chapter 6 including the Parties responsibilities to fully implement the Plan.  Any barriers to plan implementation should be brought forward immediately for resolution during subsequent Plan revisions.
WS-1	Ducks Unlimited	CZ 16: We found that Prairie Lake had high waterfowl presence during breeding and staging surveys and Sulphur Bay had high numbers of waterfowl during staging (Figure 1). We recommend that CZ 16 remain for its waterfowl conservation values and is possibly expanded to connect with conservation zones 17 and 11 to include Prairie Lake and Sulphur Bay area.	Not Accepted: This area was zoned to exclude an area of very high mining potential as per the Committee's methodology.  Special terms should be adequate to protect waterfowl during sensitive periods.
WS-1	Ducks Unlimited	CZ 21: There is no mention of conservation of wetland or waterfowl values in the zone objectives and we would recommend that this be included.	Accepted: as proposed.
WS-1	Ducks Unlimited	The CWS has identified Area 43 as a key migratory bird terrestrial habitat site for the Northwest Territories (Alexander et al. 1991) (Figure 3) for having important Trumpeter Swan nesting areas. Some of this area is protected within Nahanni National Park and CZ 6, although this is not stated in the zone objectives. A portion falls within Special Management Zone (SMZ) 27 where these values are identified in the zone objectives, but a large portion of the area appears to fall within SMZ 20 and 26 where there is no mention of these values in the zone descriptions. We recommend these values be identified in all relevant zone descriptions.	Accepted as proposed.
WS-1	Ducks Unlimited	Table 9 in the working draft information package does not include seasonal restrictions for migratory birds and waterfowl other than for migration. For waterfowl, we would recommend that Table 9 include May and June for breeding season, June and July for birthing season, and March to May and August to September for migration.	Accepted: as proposed.
WS-1	Ducks Unlimited	For the term Seasonal Restriction in Table 7, we would like the term description to convey that we realize there are specific times when helicopters may be needed around wetlands such as research and monitoring of wildlife. Otherwise low level helicopter activity and disturbance of wetland habitat should be avoided.	Accepted: as proposed.
WS-1	Canadian Zinc	From both an industry and community needs standpoint we strongly recommend consideration be given to enlarging the areas open to mineral exploration and potential mining. This would provide a far greater chance of success from an mineral exploration standpoint (given how little is known of where economic mineral deposits will be found in the Dehcho region) and hence a far greater chance of success for the communities in terms of securing badly needed jobs and business opportunities.	Partially Accepted: Reviewed zones to determine if mining could reasonably be permitted in additional areas.  The Kotaneelee area was re-zoned by the community of Fort Liard to permit mining activity.
WS-1	Canadian Zinc	Consultation – we support with modification: Appendix 2 is not entirely clear in terms of when consultation is occurring or what the responsibilities are of the parties involved in consultation. We recommend that a Community, Government and Industry team be established to develop a consensus based definition of consultation.	Partially Accepted: Revised Consultation Term to provide clarity.
WS-1	Canadian Zinc	Traditional Knowledge – we support with modification: we presume the objective is to document, where applicable, the use of traditional knowledge and scientific information.	Not Accepted: Traditional Knowledge is applicable everywhere.
WS-1	Canadian Zinc	Protect Plant Gathering Areas – we support with modification: where it is applicable	Not Accepted:  This term is applicable everywhere.  The Term indicates that the Developer must work with communities to identify where plants need to be protected.  If communities have no plants of concern then no action will be required of Developers.
WS-1	Canadian Zinc	Visual Quality – in principle we support, need for further explanation and discussion.	See Chapter 5 and Definitions for a better explanation of this Term.
WS-1	Canadian Zinc	Water Monitoring/Management, Air Monitoring/Management, Mining Reclamation and Cumulative Impacts Management These terms are specifically provided for under existing government regulation, which as a company we must adhere to and as such we recommend these matters, to the extent there are differences with the existing regulations that warrant an assessment for change, should be addressed in a more appropriate and technically based forum. As with the Term: Consultation above, perhaps these matters could best be addressed via the creation of a consensus based, Community, Government and Industry working group or team.	Not Accepted: The Plan is expected to add value to the way resources are currently managed.  This will only occur if there is a requirement to adhere to agreed upon standards.  We invite comment on the specific standards chosen.
WS-1	Canadian Zinc	Seasonal Restrictions – we accept with modification: as you know our minesite road access when converted to an all season road will cross the Liard River via an ice bridge in winter and a ferry in summer, resulting in an automatic shut down during freeze up and break up. In addition we are committed to working with the surrounding communities to work out a mutually acceptable road management plan which, amongst other matters, would include the development of preventative measures to avoid any adverse affects upon wildlife.  Recommend that industry, the communities and government consider the creation of a consensus based working group to address this matter.  It would be our advice...that the Planning Committee consider a more flexible approach, designed to meet the special circumstances of each proposed development.	Partially Accepted:  The Term as currently worded provides flexibility on a case by case basis by allowing development to proceed providing developers can demonstrate they will not have a significant impact on wildlife.  This provides a minimum requirement only.  Should Developers wish to undertake further mitigation measures and establish discussion groups, the Plan allows for that.
WS-1	Parks Canada	GNE: Purple area shifts?  See no relation to mineral claims.  No relationship with watersheds.	Accepted: The entire Greater Nahanni Ecosystem has been revised to be a conservation zone.
WS-1	Parks Canada	On the list of Acronyms (page i) The listing 'NGE'  'Nahanni Greater Ecosystem' should be corrected to 'GNE' 'Greater Nahanni Ecosystem', and then corrected throughout the remainder of the document by way of text search/replace.	Accepted: This has been corrected.
WS-1	Parks Canada	On all maps, there should be an extension (by way of a dotted line) to show the upper portion of the Greater Nahanni Ecosystem, as was done with the Pehdzeh Ki Deh Candidate Protected Area.	Accepted:  The Outline of Greater Nahanni Ecosystem will be included in future Maps.
WS-1	Parks Canada	Table 5, Zone 6 - there should be a checkmark in the tourism column.	No Action: Already completed and noted on errata page.
WS-1	Parks Canada	Table 6, on page 15.  For Zone #6 We believe the "Tourism" checkmark should be highlighted.	Accepted: Already completed and noted on errata page.
WS-1	Parks Canada	Non-consumptive tourism is allowed; in fact it is encouraged in national parks.	Accepted:  Already completed and noted on errata page.
WS-1	Parks Canada	Also on Table 6, for Zone#18, moose are certainly present (at lease moose are an attractive species for resident hunters in the zone 18 block near Tungsten), and while not frequent, there is likely occasional traditional use within the zone 18 blocks. Should these sections be checked? As a species of special concern, Wolverine could also be checked as they occur in zone 18, although their density is uncertain.	Accepted: Chapter 5 now includes a fuller explanation of this table.  These species are now captured within the newly expanded Zone 6.
WS-1	Parks Canada	Non-Consumptive Tourism (page 18) - There seems to be a misunderstanding in this section since it refers only to big game outfitting - perhaps the header should be "consumptive tourism".	Partially Accepted:  The term has been renamed to Big Game Hunting.
WS-1	Parks Canada	In Table 7, on page 18, under the term "Access Planning" it is explained that "the construction of new all-weather roads is prohibited in all conservation areas except zones 18 and 12." - But 18 is a Special Management Zone and not a Conservation zone.  Is the intent to allow for an all-weather road in Nahanni Greater Ecosystem Conservation Zone 6? If so, should the intent be restricted/limited to the existing potential for a road to Prairie Creek only?	The Access Planning term has been revised to remove all mention of zone specific or project specific exemptions.  It is not the Committee's intention or mandate to set project specific requirements.  This will be handled under the EA process.
WS-1 & WS-2	Parks Canada	for Table 7, we would recommend a definition for Nahanni National Park Expansion Process. Previously, on Table 5, there is a check mark underneath the Application of Specific Terms to Zones 'Nahanni Park Expansion' opposite Zone 18 SMZ, and this should be defined in Table 7 Description of Terms.  Suggested Wording "Through a memorandum of understanding, Dehcho First Nations and Parks Canada have agreed to work together to expand Nahanni National Park Reserve within the Greater Nahanni Ecosystem.  They are currently undertaking numerous feasibility studies, including a mineral and energy resource assessment.  Consultation with the public is part of the process.  When these studies conclude, an agreement to expand the boundaries for the national park reserve will be negotiated. The area of interest for park expansion is the Greater Nahanni Ecosystem, which includes the entire South Nahanni River watershed and the North Karst.  The Dehcho Land Use Plan will allow for that process to determine the expanded boundaries for the national park reserve within the GNE."	Accepted:  The wording has been added to Chapter 3 where integration with other land use initiatives is discussed.  The Park Expansion Process is discussed in Chapter 5 in the zone descriptions.
WS-1	Parks Canada	On Map 4 (page 31) under Critical Wildlife Areas a qualifying statement such as "the current feasibility studies associated with the expansion of Nahanni National Park Reserve may add important new information with regards to additional critical wildlife habitat" could be considered.	Accepted:  Expanded sentence to include data collected through the PAS sites as well.
WS-1	Parks Canada	On Map 6 (page 33) - The results of community mapping do not indicate support for mining in the Greater Nahanni Ecosystem. In addition, a resolution from the most recent DFN leadership meeting called for the entire GNE to be withdrawn for national park expansion purposes. Would these points lend weight to reducing the number/extent of zone 18 purple zones within the GNE?	Accepted: The entire Greater Nahanni Ecosystem has been revised to be a conservation zone.
WS-1	Parks Canada	on Map 8 (page 35) under the Draft Land Use Zoning map, it indicates that non-consumptive tourism would not be permitted in the zone. In fact, non-consumptive tourism would be permitted within the zone.	Accepted:  The error has been corrected.
WS-1	WWF	Falaise Lake site. WWF supports the original land withdrawal boundary that extends beyond the north end of Falaise Lake. This area supports significant wetland species and large mammals, including woodland caribou and bison. Community consultation indicates little or no support for mining activities (Map 6), yet an area of high mineral potential appears to have resulted in a decision to remove the north end of Falaise Lake from a Conservation Zone and into a Special Management Zone.	As explained in the planning process section (Chapter 4), areas where high resource potential overlaps with high conservation values are moved into Special Management Zones for more specific management measures.
WS-1	WWF	Executive Summary: Recommendation: Provide a brief description of the legal and policy framework for land use planning in the Dehcho. If this is primarily the Interim Measures Agreement, as stated in the Introduction (Page 1), then we suggest repeating this in the Executive Summary. The responsibilities for enforcing the plan and checking conformity can be described elsewhere in the document, as well as the relation of other relevant legislation such as the Species at Risk Act and the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.	Accepted:  A brief description has been added to the Executive Summary.  See Chapter 3 for an overview of the regulatory and policy framework and Chapter 6 for a discussion of implementation.
WS-1	WWF	There are also national and international treaties and agreements that can be implemented through the land use plan, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Kyoto Protocol. It may be useful to include a list of international, national and territorial legislation and/or policy agreements that pertain to the Dehcho territory and are interpreted in the land use plan. WWF-Canada’s Nature Audit can be used as a source for these global and national policies.	Accepted:  These are reviewed in Chapter 3.
WS-1	WWF	Areas of high development potential or where communities expressed support for development appear to be excluded from Conservation Zones. Instead, areas where development and conservation interest overlap are identified as Special Management Zones. In such instances, we suggest that the ecological and cultural consequences of the decision should be documented. Cases in which conservation values may be adversely affected should be as transparent as possible to allow the public and stakeholders to better assess the land use decision.	Accepted: Chapter 6 provides an overview of conservation areas gained and lost in comparison to the conservation intersect.
WS-1	WWF	Have ecosystem services been considered in the compilation of conservation values? See comments below regarding Map 4.	NO. If WWF can provide concrete criteria to assess, DLUPC may consider this in future revisions.
WS-1	WWF	Terms (page 8). Are these actually requirements to conform to the Plan? “Terms” appears to be too broad a description for these requirements and/or management considerations. It is also not defined on pages ii) and iii) in the manner in which they are expressed in the Working Draft document.  Perhaps the title for Table 7 can better reflect the description of requirements listed in the table. See our comment above.	Accepted: Terms have been split into "Conformity Requirements, Actions and Recommendations. Each is defined in definitions.
WS-1	WWF	Does the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act support the definition of zones recommended in the Working Draft? If so, then there should be a proper reference to the Act in the Land Use Plan.	The MVRMA does not identify how land use planning should zone land.  This is left to the Committee's discretion.  The proposed designations are similar to those used in the Sahtu and Gwichin Plans.
WS-1	WWF	Zone Objectives: The Conservation Zones can have specific ecological and cultural targets.  Providing temporary protection, the purpose stated on Page 10, is valid in connection with the PAS, but is likely not sufficient on its own as a component of the overall goal to “promote the social, cultural and economic well-being of residents and communities” in the Dehcho territory.	Accepted:  The purpose of conservation zones is included in the Methodology (Chapter 4) and Zone Descriptions (Chapter 5).
WS-1	WWF	Table 6. We have concerns about Zones 25 (Peel River Plateau) and 27 (Southeastern Mackenzie Mountains) listed as Special Management Zones when there appears to be a diversity of large mammal species and other significant ecological values. More information concerning habitat requirements of key focal species (e.g. grizzly bear and woodland caribou) may result in identifying part of these SMZs as Conservation Zones.	Partially Accepted: The river corridors have been rezoned to Conservation Zones by communities so some of these conservation values are captured within these changes.
WS-1	WWF	Table 7. Traditional Knowledge. Is there a framework to ensure that new information is integrated into an information base? For example, the Edehzhie PAS working group is currently documenting community knowledge and traditional place names and will submit this information to the Prince of Wales Heritage Centre. A similar protocol can be added to this “Term” in Table 7.	This is a DFN responsibility as they maintain the data to protect confidentiality.
WS-1	WWF	Table 7. It is not clear how the “Terms” will be enforced or monitored once Regulatory Authorities have provided approval for a specific activity. In addition, some of the “Terms” seem to require a schedule for delivery. For example, forest management guidelines (Page 20) are noted, but there is no deadline for development and implementation of these guidelines.	By approving the Plan, governments agree to implement those terms for which they have jurisdiction.  Some timelines have been provided.  Planning partners may recommend timelines for consideration in future revisions.  See Chapter 6 for an overview of implementation.
WS-1	WWF	Table 8. Minimum Core Area. The application of the Minimum Core Area thresholds is not clear.  An example in column two may be required to properly understand the intent of this cumulative impact threshold. For example, is the target to ensure that > 75% of the available habitat for a particular species in located in landscape blocks greater than 1,000 ha and at least 500 m wide? Is it recommended to meet the requirement for large and medium cores areas?	Yes.  See the description of terms in Chapter 4 and detailed conformity requirements and determination methods in Chapter 5.
WS-1	WWF	Table 8. Minimum Patch Size. Similar to the above concern, we are not sure how the Minimum Patch Size thresholds will be applied.	Yes.  See the description of terms in Chapter 4 and detailed conformity requirements and determination methods in Chapter 5.
WS-1	WWF	Map 3. Is there information about the history and intensity of resource extraction activities, such as the date of seismic lines and oil/gas wells, so that present ecological condition can be interpreted from the data? Older seismic lines (>40 years) may have regenerated indicating possibly slightly better current habitat condition than more recent seismic. Conversely, newer seismic exploration may be less invasive and this information can be useful in extrapolating current ecological condition.	The Plan uses visibility from satellite imagery as a surrogate for regrowth of seismic lines since age data is not available.  If they have regrown enough that they are not visible in the satellite imagery then they are not included as a disturbance.
WS-1	WWF	Map 4. Is there an opportunity to include additional conservation values for the conservation intersect? Critical wildlife areas are one set of attributes to understand areas of higher ecological value. Other significant values include ecosystem services (e.g. water quality for drinking water, flood and erosion protection), ecological representation of vegetation community types, vulnerable and irreplaceable elements (e.g. known and predicted distributions of rare species, unique geologic or vegetation types). Components of vulnerable and irreplaceable elements appear to be included in the analysis, but ecosystem services and ecological representation are not.	Ecosystem services cannot be readily mapped or translated into conservation criteria.  If there are specific areas of concern, then they should be brought forward.  DLUPC considers the ecological representation analysis completed by WWF in its decisions.
WS-1	WWF	Map 4. Can the cultural and ecological values be considered additive rather than intersected? In this way, areas of overlap of community values and ecological values can be depicted differently from areas only with recorded or known ecological or cultural values.	Areas having both ecological and cultural values have a stronger basis for protection.  Additional lands have been conserved to support community priorities, especially for PAS sites and the Nahanni Park Expansion process.  Maps currently exist in the Plan showing areas of high wildlife value and areas of high ecological value.
WS-1	WWF	Maps 5-9. The maps generally show no support for extractive activities in the northwest portion of the Dehcho territory – an area that includes the North Nahanni R., Root R., and Johnson R. There also appears to be little potential for industrial extraction, yet the area is designated as either having permitted uses or permitted with special terms. It is not clear how the assessment arrived at this outcome given the input information. In addition, have nearby Sahtu communities had an opportunity to indicate current or traditional use in this area?	In the First Draft the area was zoned as SMZ or GUS because it fell outside of areas covered by the conservation intercept - ie. it did not have coverage of both ecological and cultural values.  Also, there is limited data availability on the resource potential of this area so our current maps may not be indicative of the full potential of the region for resource development. During revisions communities re-zoned the Northwest Rivers including the North Nahanni R., Root R., and Johnson R. as conservation zone in the Draft Plan.
WS-1	Joachim Bonnetrouge	A critical issue to the residents of Dehcho would be access. An initial discussion on access needs to happen. To date, access to the Dehcho Dene lands is highly regulated and complex by the Government of Canada. A simpler outline of a preferable process with clear consent by the Dehcho Dene would be appropriate.	Accepted:  The Access Planning Term has been revised to ensure access is permitted across conservation zones in keeping with current legislation and regulations, while providing more guidance to protect ecological and cultural values. More stringent requirements for First Nation consent for access may be addressed by DFN through Dehcho Process negotiations.
WS-1	Joachim Bonnetrouge	It will help the Dehcho governments to depict as accurately as possible the 'impacts' on Dehcho lands to date i.e. Patterson Sawmills & area of operations, the 1940 US Army staging area near the mouth of Redknife River.	This is already shown on Existing Activities and Disturbance maps.
WS-1	Joachim Bonnetrouge	A map of Dene Traditional names need to be put on the map, along with short summary of historical/story of the specific area.	Accepted:  The DLUPC is working with communities to collect Dene Place Names for consideration at the Summer 2005 consultations.   DFN passed a Resolution to include Dene Place Names in the Land Use Plan.
WS-1	Joachim Bonnetrouge	Will there eventually be 'no hunting zones' in the Dehcho. In the event of community concerns and/or endangered species issues, we will require a process to address these issues.	Restricting aboriginal hunting through the Plan may impinge on aboriginal rights.  Communities can implement their own restrictions with ENR as needed.  The Plan does not need to address this.
WS-1	Joachim Bonnetrouge	Traditional Knowledge/Scientific Knowledge. Outline and clarify further the role of traditional knowledge and scientific knowledge in putting of the Dehcho Land Use Plan together. List positive points of both in contributing to the Plan. At what point do both engage? What is the methodology of their engagement? Specifically, traditional knowledge of land and culture has always passed through experiential teaching/learning.  I recommend that DLUPC initiate 1 or 2 on the land experience for DLUPC Board/Staff & Other interested invited resource people. The first trip/experience needs to be only 3 days initially.  The second trip may take up to 5-7 days. These need to be documented.	Accepted:  A section has been added in Chapter 4 describing how Traditional Knowledge and Scientific knowledge were integrated in plan development.  The DLUPC has recently approved a cultural leave policy to allow staff the opportunity to experience on the land activities.
WS-1	Joachim Bonnetrouge	I am aware that the DLUPC staff have done 'best efforts' in engaging the Dehcho communities' local public in the consultation process. The DLUPC needs to review its 'Communications Plan'. Local and regional resource people may need to be engaged for this exercise.	Partially Accepted:  Communication is a joint responsibility of DLUPC and Local Leadership, who also have a responsibility to ensure their people are informed and part of the consultation process.  Some communities have designated Community Liaisons to facilitate information sharing.
WS-1	Sambaa K'e Dene Band	The DCLUP provides an excellent regional framework for more detailed community-based land planning, which should occur ahead of proposed resource development activities.	Accepted: Chapter 3 provides a description of how the Plan links with community-based planning initiatives.
WS-1	Sambaa K'e Dene Band	A Regional Resource Management Board would ensure that the TK information gathered is properly archived, protected, utilized, and shared.	DLUPC has no mandate to store TK data.  This action was referred to DFN at the Forum.
WS-1	Sambaa K'e Dene Band	TK and resource information can also provide a foundation for Dene-centred educational programs in the schools, cultural-tourism initiatives, language development, and a wide range of other positive social purposes.	DLUPC has no mandate to store TK data, nor to organize educational programs
WS-1	MACA	The "introduction" refers to the land use plan applying outside of municipal boundaries. Several communities in the Dehcho do not have formal municipal boundaries but rather administrative delineations for the purpose of defining jurisdiction (Development Control Zones).  Therefore, by strict interpretation, the provisions of the draft land use plan would apply in those communities that do not have formal municipal boundaries. For a community such as Trout Lake, for example, the Conservation Zone designation would technically apply within the community, including housing, community infrastructure etc. At a minimum the definition of community boundaries needs to be expanded to include development Control Zones.	Accepted: “Municipal boundaries” has been revised to “community boundaries’ which also include Development Control Zones and Block Land Transfers.
WS-1	MACA	Related to the subject of community boundaries is the issue of remote community infrastructure (i.e. community infrastructure located outside of community boundaries). Comments were previously submitted from MACA by email on September 20, 2004 regarding this matter. The DLUPC response appears to be that these types of issues can be addressed when the land use plan is reviewed every five years. the five-year amendment review does not satisfactorily address this issue. While the Department and communities strive to project capital planning requirements as far into the future as possible, there are instances when it is not possible to provide this level of foresight. When there are cases where critical community infrastructure is required on a short turnaround basis, there needs to be sufficient flexibility in the land use plan to permit this type of development. This could be facilitated by adding a clause to the land use plan that either exempts this type of development or permits remote community infrastructure under certain types of circumstances.	Accepted.  This term has been revised to provide more flexibility and guidance.
WS-1	MACA	The definition for "land" captures features that are far beyond the scope of any existing legal definition for this term. From a legal standpoint, it is questionable whether a community accepted term can be expanded and modified to such a degree that it bears no relationship to its legally accepted definition.	Accepted:  A Regulatory definition for land is provided in the Draft Plan. The Cultural Section (Chapter 2.) outlines the Dene view of the land.
WS-1	MACA	The definition for "mining", "oil and gas operations" and "pipeline" seems to capture components that are outside of the generally accepted definitions for these terms.	Accepted:  The Draft Plan includes revised definitions and sources are referenced.
WS-1	MACA	In the strict sense of the term, the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board is not considered a regulatory authority.	Accepted:  MVEIRB has been removed from the definition of Regulatory Authorities.
WS-1	MACA	The "definition" section in general is phrased in a somewhat confused manner. For example, the definition for "Mining" reads "Mine means any work…" Is the definition meant to apply to the term Mining or Mine? This type of ambiguity is repeated for several other items in the "definitions" section	Accepted:  The Draft Plan includes revised definitions and sources are referenced.
WS-1	MACA	The definition for "Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Components" is not actually a definition but rather a provision of the land use plan and would be more appropriate located in the main body of the document.	Accepted:  The term and definition have been redefined with assistance from DIAND to address the full scope of the project.
WS-1	MACA	Table 8 (page 24) should clarify that Corridor/Road Density" is intended to apply to roads outside of community boundaries.	Accepted:  The term has been clarified.
WS-1	CPAWS-NWT	The entire South Nahanni Watershed should be included in a Conservation Zone.  There is strong support and justification for this: DFN Resolutions, Parks & DFN Memorandum of Understanding, letters  to Paul Martin, Senator Consiglio Di Nino, Park Management Plan developed by Nah?a Dehe Consensus team, Nahanni is a World Heritage Site based on United Nations International Convention on World Heritage.  The Tulita Dene Band are also seeking to protect Nahanni Headwaters through PAS.  The mining map (Page 33) indicates communities do not support mining in the watershed.  The Ecological Integrity Statement for Nahanni National Park Reserve states "Mining activity is considered the single greatest threat to the ecological integrity of the watershed (page 10).	Accepted: The entire Greater Nahanni Ecosystem has been revised to be a conservation zone.
WS-1	CPAWS-NWT	Conservation Zone 6 should not be exempted from the Access Planning Term.  CPAWS-NWT strongly recommends that the Committee require the proponents of any proposed access to Prairie Creek or other areas within the South Nahanni Watershed to complete access planning and routing studies at a very minimum.	Accepted:  The Access Planning Term has been revised to ensure access is permitted across conservation zones in keeping with current legislation and regulations, while providing more guidance to protect ecological and cultural values.  All mention of zone specific exemptions have been removed.
WS-1	CPAWS-NWT	The Special Management Zones encompassing Clearwater Creek and Wrigley Creek within the GNE should be designated as Conservation Zones to recognize the important caribou habitat areas.	Accepted: The entire Greater Nahanni Ecosystem has been revised to be a conservation zone.
WS-1	CPAWS-NWT	CPAWS-NWT recommends that the Committee consider adding a portion of the Peel River Plateau ecoregion as a Conservation Zone or better defining the zone description, objective, permitted uses and applicable terms of the Special Management Zones in the Peel River Plateau ecoregion.	Partially Accepted: Followed up with communities at re-zoning sessions in Fort Simpson 12th May and Fort Liard Leadership Meeting 25th May.  Protected Rivers in Northwest Dehcho including Wrigley and Johnson.
WS-1	CPAWS-NWT	Under the ‘description of terms’ section in Table 7, a description of the ‘Greater Nahanni Ecosystem’ should be included along with referencing all of the DFN resolutions in the need/issue column.	Accepted: While this table no longer exists, reference to Nahanni Park Expansion and the DFN resolutions has been added to Chapter 3 and the Zone 6 description in Chapter 5.
WS-1	CPAWS-NWT	Under the "Traditional Knowledge" section in Table 7, land use permits and water licenses should be referenced explicitly to be consistent with existing legislation and the MVRMA.	Accepted: The term was revised to include all permits, licenses and authorizations from any regulatory authority.
WS-1	CPAWS-NWT	Under the ‘revegetation’ section in Table 7, it is recommended that the Committee identify specific appropriate native seed mixes to the Canadian boreal forest region in the future. Currently there are no standards for native seed mix use in the NWT.	Partially Accepted: The Term has been revised to require northern Canadian Boreal Forest Seed mixes as they become available and to ensure current seed mixes do not contain invasive species as defined by ENR.
WS-1	CPAWS-NWT	Under the ‘digital post-operation mapping’ section in Table 7, it is recommended that the Committee consider this requirement as a security deposit fee when the development is in the license or permit application process. The Committee should also consider developing a template for developers so the information can be standardized.	Incomplete:  Data standards are appropriate, so long as they are not overly onerous on small operators (e.g. community-based).  The Committee may address data standards during future revisions.
WS-1	CPAWS-NWT	Under the ‘use of guides’ section in Table 7, it is recommended that the Committee consider amending the term to include ‘use of guides/community monitors’.  In addition to guides, Community Monitors should be encouraged to be hired with development activities.	Accepted:  Terms amended as proposed.
WS-1	CPAWS-NWT	Under the ‘leave no trace’ section in Table 7, it is recommended that the Committee consider encouraging the use of this principle in Special Management Zones, in addition to Conservation Zones.	Incomplete: Discussed in re-zoning sessions, to be reviewed again in summer consultations.
WS-1	CPAWS-NWT	Under the ‘Significant Environmental Features’ section of Table 8, it is recommended that the Committee include mineral licks and early open water areas.	Accepted: These were added to Significant Habitat Features
WS	MVLWB	Overall the plan is highly conservative with 73% of the land tied up in Special Management or Conservation areas.  As the intent of a land use plan under section 41 (2) of the MVRMA is to “provide for the conservation, development and use of land, water and other resources in a settlement area”, this plan may limit development within the Dehcho	The plan reflects the interests of the people of the region, which are the first priority. A significant proportion of the conservation area has been identified through other processes (PAS, Nahanni).  The purpose of Special Management is to provide opportunity for development while safeguarding critical wildlife, cultural and environmental features. A large proportion of potential i.e. 65% of Natural Gas Potential (> 50 million m3) has been zoned to permit development.
WS	MVLWB	The plan predicts only 16 wells (> 10 mmcf/day) will be developed over the next twenty years south of 61º 30' within the Dehcho.  Paramount, once the EA goes through, will have 49 wells that can be applied for in Cameron Hills.  Not all of these will producer oil or gas; however, if only ¼ are successful, this will exceed the predications within the Land Use Plan.	Not Accepted: The scenario from the Regional Forum Information Package was updated in the report "The Economic Development Assessment Model 1.5" presented at the Regional Forum. The Full Development scenario assumes 62 new production wells and 371 new exploration wells.  This reflects realistic development projections based on feedback from industry and planning partners.  Results are not expected to reflect the total potential falling within permitted zones. The Draft Plan presents results (Chapter 6) from the revised zoning, using the same assumptions (Chapter4).
WS	MVLWB	Table 8. Cumulative Impacts Indicators and Thresholds	The Corridor Width was defined as 1.5m to correspond with the MVRMA trigger for a Type B land use permit.  Corridors as defined in the Plan list only human disturbance types (roads, trails, utility and transmission corridors, transportation corridors, seismic lines).
		Corridor:  In the cumulative effects report a corridor was 3.0m but in the draft, it was defined as 1.5m.  Why was this done?
		The definition includes natural and anthropogenic features that are “some what uniform in linearity and are greater than 1.5 m.  It is a very limiting definition as a stream with banks great than 1.5 m is considered in the Total Corridor Density measurement.
WS	MVLWB	Lowest Observed Effect Level (LOEL): definition taken from Ecotoxicology field.  How does the committee recommend that this be measured and quantified within the Land Use Plan?	Incomplete: More follow-up will be required with the MVLWB to determine how this can be done.
WS	MVLWB	Where transboundary land use issues exist or may exist, how does the  land use plan intend to incorporate these?  If the transboundary land use  is a non-conforming use, how will this be dealt with?	DLUPC can only influence activities within the Plan area.  However, we will consult with other jurisdictions to assist in a coordinated response.  See new section on Transboundary issues in Chapter 3.
WS	MVLWB	Development: “means any undertaking requiring a land use permit (LUP) or water license (WL).” Given the concern over river seismic and other developments in the Dehcho, the Committee may want to expand its definition of development to include all authorizations (i.e. Fisheries Authorizations, NEB, & RWED).  The Board did not screen either of the two river seismic surveys in the Dehcho.	Accepted:  The definition has been revised.
WS	MVLWB	No Net Loss: a definition would be useful	A definition has been provided under the conformity determination for Significant Habitat Features in Chapter 5 - no disturbance without mitigation or compensation.
WS	MVLWB	Disturbance: “a natural or human action that affects physical, chemical or biological conditions.”	See Definitions used in the Plan, not the original Consultant Report.  The Plan always refers to human disturbance.
		The definition includes natural and anthropogenic sources.  While both may be a disturbance to the present conditions separate definitions for each should be included in the plan.
WS	MVLWB	Human Activity: the definition should include resource extraction; the current definition does not clearly identify this.	This term is not defined or used in the Plan but rather in the background consultants report.  The Plan only defines terms used in the Plan.
WS	MVLWB	Riparian Clearings: the current definition only includes 15m from a waterbody.  It should be 100m as cited in the MVRMA Regs section 6(b) “excavate land within 100m of a watercourse.”	This term is not defined or used in the Plan but rather in the background consultants report.  The Plan only defines terms used in the Plan.
		If not suitable - alternatives include:
		The transitional zone or area between a body of water and the adjacent upland identified by soil characteristics and distinctive vegetation that requires an excess of water. It includes wetlands and those portions of floodplains that support riparian vegetation.
		(Personal communication with Bruce Hanna, DFO, March 29, 2005) From DFO Working Near Water Handbook.
		Riparian Vegetation: The plant community immediately surrounding the land/water interface of a waterbody.  Fisheries Sensitive Zone (FSZ): An area which comprises the watercourse as well as associated riparian areas. Includes in-stream aquatic habitats, as well as the out-of-stream habitat features such as side channels and wetlands.  Reference:  Cott, P.A. and J.P. Moore. 2003. Working near Water, Considerations for Fish and Fish Habitat. Reference and Workshop Manual. NT DFO - Western Arctic Area. Inuvik, Northwest Territories. 92 pp+Appendices.	These terms are not defined or used in the Plan but rather in the background consultants report.  The Plan only defines terms used in the Plan.
WS	MVLWB	Specialized Habitat Features (SHF): Requires the developer to establish a 250 m setback from SHF’s.  On existing trails, seismic lines, etc. there should be a mechanism for a developer to maintain the existing trail when a SHF has been identified.	Accepted: A provision has been added to the Significant Habitat Features Conformity Determination under Chapter 5 to allow continued use of existing disturbed areas.
		On new cuts the proponent should ensure that no SHF exists as part of the LUP application.  This may be hard for some applications; however, during construction, site monitors from the communities may help in developing the trails, seismic lines, etc to avoid such features.
WS	MVLWB	Table 9. Seasonal Restrictions	This could be demonstrated through documented consultations with regional wildlife biologists and using the best available data to show the location of critical wildlife habitat during the season in question.  Very similar wording was used and approved in the Gwichin Plan.
		Restricts work to January and February.  The rest of the time the proponent must show that their work will have no adverse impacts to wildlife before work may proceed.  This may be very difficult to do.
WS	MVLWB	Digital Post Operation Mapping: Requires developers of larger operations (i.e. wellsite, roads, seismic) to provide shape files, digital air photo’s and/or satellite imagery within 30 days of construction.  It would be more useful for developer to provide shape file during the application process and update the Board and committee post construction to any changes to the approved disturbance.  (I.e. Inspectors order to avoid beaver dam).  For example, it would be more useful the following summer where the vegetation is in bloom and the impacts can be better assessed.	Accepted: The term has been revised to ensure both pre- and post-operation data.
WS	MVLWB	Revegetation: Requires developers to use native species in reclamation and revegetation work.  However, given the lack of commercially available seed this may not be feasible.	Accepted:  This Term has been revised to address this.
WS	MVLWB	Salvage Logging: “Developers will notify and provide opportunities for local forestry operations or communities to salvage wood for local needs.”  This should be on a case-by-case basis.  In operations that utilize avoidance cutting or similar methods that deliberately leave a small corridor the salvaging of wood may require a larger disturbance to access a fallen log and remove it.	Accepted: This term has been revised to provide for salvage logging only where it will not pose additional environmental damage.  The reference to "reasonable efforts" has been deleted.
		This requirement may lead to some frustration between developers / communities and authorities over what is a reasonable attempt to harvest the resource and provide opportunities to the communities.
WS	MVLWB	Table 7. Description of Terms - Water Monitoring / Management: The plan requests that the Board manage all activities upstream or near community intakes to Canadian Drinking Water Standards.  This limits the Board to typically poorer standards.  The CCME Freshwater Aquatic Guidelines are usually more stringent than drinking water standards in the ambient environment.	Accepted: The term has been revised to use the CCME guidelines.
Telephone	John Bartlet	Ensure communities understand implications of closing forestry area along JMR River	Accepted: Followed up with affected communities, re-zoning sessions in Fort Simpson 12th May and Fort Liard Leadership Meeting 25th May. Opened up Jean Marie River with the exception of a 2km buffer on the 5 lakes.
Office	DLUPC	Is there a need for the woodlot to be a separate zone?	Accepted: Addressed at Fort Simpson re-zoning session (May 12th) and communities agreed to new zoning at Fort Liard Leadership Meeting held May 25th, 2005.
WS-1	Tamerlane Ventures	Concerned about overlap of CZ 15 with his mineral claims along Buffalo River.  These need to be permitted to go ahead.  Also concerned that some of his claims lapsed due to funding constraints in this area and he is not able to get them back because of current zoning.	Followed up with Mr. Burns on his concerns.  His current claims are grandfathered under the 3rd Party Dispositions Term.  The lapsed claims are not renewable under current zoning.  The Buffalo River is culturally important to local communities and will be maintained unless directed to change by these communities.  Mr. Burns was encouraged to discuss his plans for the area with the local communities.
WS-2	ENR	How will the "Regional Information Package" be used to form a Draft Plan	Responded in writing on May 13th.  The package contains the draft map, terms and recommendations which are main components of the Draft Plan that will become legal requirements that guide future use and development of the land once the Plan is approved and implemented.  The remaining pieces of the Draft Plan provide background information and context.
WS-2	ENR	Integrate the Plan with the GNWT's Sustainable Development Policy and Drinking Water Strategy	Accepted:  These policies are discussed in Chapter 3.
WS-2	ENR	Information provided in the Terms tables needs to provide a consistent level of direction for land use.  Need to ensure terms are consistent with commonly accepted definitions.	Accepted.  The Terms have been broken into Conformity Requirements, Actions and Recommendations to provide clarity.  Terms and definitions are being revised as appropriate to address feedback.
WS-1	ENR, Forest Mgmt Division	"After reviewing the Preliminary Assessment and Results document we believe it would be beneficial to delay establishing threshold values for the proposed indicators until cumulative effects monitoring in the Territory has occurred."	Responded in writing on May 16th.  The Committee has provided adequate notice of its intention to implement cumulative effects and provided the information for feedback.  Feedback will continue to be sought until the Plan is submitted in March 2006 but the Committee will not delay selection and implementation of thresholds past that point.
WS-1	ENR, Forest Mgmt Division	More detail is required around how cumulative effects will be monitored and implemented, including the use of ALCES, monitoring frequency, criteria, baseline data, updating data, and integration with other CEAM initiatives	Accepted: These questions are addressed in Chapter 4.
WS-1	ENR, Forest Mgmt Division	The Committee needs to establish the criteria for what constitutes the specified 'habitat' and what information types will be used (vegetation or landcover classification) in calculating habitat availability in the CEAM Terms.	At this time, this is calculated on the basis of overall wildlife habitat - I.e. the entire Dehcho Plan area.  It is meant to provide an overview of the level of disturbance
WS-1	ENR, Forest Mgmt Division	Current linear data does not include necessary width information needed to determine 1.5 m threshold for corridor density.  Regrowth needs to be considered when evaluating linear disturbances.	Currently only Fort Liard has 1.5 m seismic - all other disturbances are in the 6-8 m width and are averaged.  Data for new developments will be included with applications.  The Plan uses visibility from satellite imagery as a surrogate for width and regrowth.  If they are wide enough and still disturbed enough to be visible, it is likely they still pose a disturbance for wildlife
WS-1	ENR, Forest Mgmt Division	Define secure habitat.  Does secure habitat need to be continuous between patches?	No, habitat patches do not need to be continuous to be secure.  Secure habitat is anything greater than 250 m from seismic lines and 500 m from other human disturbance features.  Continuity comes into play when talking about minimum patch size and core areas.  This is explained in Chapter 4.
WS-1	ENR, Forest Mgmt Division	What data will be used to identify Specialized Habitat Features and Significant Environmental Features?  How will traditional and scientific data be integrated, how will it be updated and how often?	Developers will be expected to access the best available public information and work with communities to collect traditional data specific to the project.  In this way, databases will be continually updated.
WS-1	ENR, Forest Mgmt Division	The criterion for stream crossing density need to be clearer (e.g. different effects for permanent vs seasonal crossings).  Will there be critical streams and characteristics identified such as time of year and type of disturbance?  What linear data will be used?	The Committee cannot provide greater detail with respect to stream crossing analysis at this time.  ENR is invited to recommend specific revisions to address these questions.
WS-1	ENR, Forest Mgmt Division	GNWT would like to recommend a joint venture between the GNWT and DIAND to jointly produce a terms of reference within the next 6 months.  In addition, baseline information and monitoring plan will be in place within the next two years with joint updates annually.	The Committee will continue to implement cumulative effects thresholds according to its current schedule.  We will integrate new information as it becomes available through Plan reviews, amendments and exemptions.
WS-1	TFA	The TFA is expanding its definition to include agriculture and agri-foods.  The DLUPC should broaden its definition.	Incomplete:  TFA will provide the new definition to the Committee for future revisions.
WS-1	TFA	Agriculture should not be limited to within 20km of a power grid as shown in the Land Use Options Atlas.	The Committee has reverted to its original mapping which shows all potential regardless of access to a power grid.
WS-1	TFA	TFA has newer soil and topographical maps (1977) which are more appropriate.	Incomplete:  TFA will provide the new maps to the Committee.
WS-1	TFA	Boundaries of Hay River and Enterprise should be joined but Map 1 shows them as separate.	Hay River / Enterprise Block Land Transfer is one entity on the map, sometimes obscured by the road when printing at small scales.
WS-1	TFA	TFA encourages DLUPC to look for ways to protect agricultural land through classification and zoning.	Accepted:  This was considered during re-zoning sessions in Fort Liard 10th May, Fort Simpson 12th May and Fort Liard Leadership Meeting 25th May.  Agricultural zoning will also be discussed during the summer 2005 consultations.
WS-1	Anadarko	The Plan embodies a clear conservation perspective.  Further consideration of the location and amount of land under full protection or special management must be made.  The industry requires large enough areas available for development to justify investment of capital.  Artificially restricting development can result in missed opportunities.  Resource development will be required to cover the costs of self government.  You need to carefully consider the implications of the Plan on investment and development in the region.  As it stands now, it will not only inhibit future investment in the region but also jeopardize our current project economics and viability.	A follow-up meeting is being planned.  The Plan reflects current community interests while respecting high potential areas for development and existing interests.  For example 65% of Natural Gas Potential > 50 million m3 / quarter grid falls within permitted zones.  We invite industry to provide specific details about their requirements so we can try to address them during future revisions.  How big are "large enough areas"?  What will allow them to maintain their investment in the region?
WS-1	Anadarko	Hydrocarbon potential data is general and not reflective of exploration interests of individual companies.	We have asked for assistance from the industry to ensure we have the best data available with which to make decisions.  We have received very limited assistance to date.  We will use information if it is provided.
WS-1	Anadarko	We do not believe adequate community consultation has occurred on cumulative effects management.	Accepted:  Re-zoning sessions were held in Fort Liard 10th May and at the Fort Liard Leadership Meeting 25th May.  Cumulative effects management was part of the community presentation and discussions.  Further explanation is available upon request.  The community requested time to review the terms and will provide feedback at the summer 2005 consultations.
WS-1	Nahanni Butte Dene Band	The Nahanni Butte Dene Band has serious objections to the proposed exemption for an all-weather road through Conservation Zone 6.  We request that the terms for access planning be amended and this exemption be removed.  It is our position that no all-weather roads should be permitted through any Conservation Zones.  We urge the Committee to grant the same term that disallows all weather road access through zones 22 and 29 to zone 6.	Partially Accepted: The Committee has revised the Access Planning Term to provide more specific guidance for overall access planning in the Dehcho to address all concerns raised regarding access.  All references to zone or project specific exemptions have been removed.  The determination of appropriate access through an area will occur during the EA process for individual projects.
WS-3	Parks Canada	Parks Canada would support the expansion of conservation zone #6 to include the entire Greater Nahanni Ecosystem.	Accepted:  In support of 4 resolutions by Dehcho First Nations, and recommendations from both Parks Canada and CPAWS, the Committee has expanded Conservation Zone 6 to the entire Greater Nahanni Ecosystem.
WS-1	DFN	We understand there are some outstanding community concerns with the first draft and the Committee will carefully review First Nations comments from the Regional Forum and endeavour to incorporate these concerns into the second draft.  We also encourage the Committee to undertake further consultation with the communities, as requested, to help ensure that the second draft Land Use Plan is even more consistent with, and reflective of, community goals, values and long-term objectives.	The Committee has carefully reviewed all comments and followed up with communities.  Upon request DLUPC undertook re-zoning sessions with Fort Liard, Fort Simpson and at the Liard Leadership Meeting. The changes were approved by Leadership for inclusion in the June 2005 Draft Land Use Plan.  Further consultations are planned for July 2005.
WS-1	CAPP	It is our concern that the emphasis placed on conservation in the proposed DCLUP, with 50% of Dehcho territory restricted from any development and a further 23% with significant restrictions placed on development, severely limits the future viability of industry activity in the region. These limits on industry activity seem unnecessarily restrictive and will have a significant impact on the economic and social benefits that can be gained for the Dehcho people from responsible development.  CAPP believes the proposed DCLUP, if approved, will cause substantial impediments to the future of development in the Dehcho region as a whole.	The Plan reflects current community interests while respecting high potential areas for development and existing interests.  Certain parts are currently being rezoned at community request.  We invite industry to provide specific details about their requirements so we can try to address them.  According to our research there is more gas available in areas opened than can be reasonably developed over the next 20 years.  The Plan will be reviewed in 5 years so there should be no shortage of development opportunities.  Development beyond regional capacity does not result in sufficient northern benefits.
WS-1	CAPP	Basing cumulative effects decisions on the preliminary data provided from the initial Salmo study is premature and raises questions about the scientific grounding behind the DCLUP.	Phase 1 was meant to look at indicators and thresholds.  Phase 2 was to focus on modeling future scenarios.  No other work was planned on indicators and thresholds so it is not considered preliminary.  The Plan is based on the best available data.
WS-1	CAPP	How does the current zoning relate to the land use options?	The Land Use Options were a discussion tool showing various development scenarios.  As presented during our consultations, there was no expectation of selecting an option but rather to use them as a tool to clearly define what communities and planning partners wanted.  This was used primarily to assist communities in mapping priorities.  See Chapter 4 for additional detail.
WS-1	CAPP	How is the Plan recognizing existing subsurface rights and right to access and develop leases?	Through the Existing Dispositions Term, and exemption of existing rights in the Order in Council for new Land Withdrawals.  See regulatory and implementation sections (Chapter 3 and 6.).
WS-1	CAPP	The Plan must also recognize and provide for the activities that support the pipeline such as access roads, water withdrawals, barge landing sites, construction camps and borrow sources.	Accepted:  The pipeline definition has been expanded to account for these things.
WS-1	CAPP	CAPP recommends that greater consultation is necessary with the local business communities in order to more fully explain the impact of the proposed DCLUP.	Partially Accepted: The Committee has many individual businesses on its distribution list, plus Chambers of Commerce and industry/business organizations (e.g. Chamber of Mines, CAPP).  They have been invited to all meetings and we hold meetings in every community plus regional centres to provide maximum opportunities to participate.
WS-1	CAPP	CAPP suggests the DCLUP should include mechanisms to expedite the process for addressing exceptions and/or amendments.	Accepted: See Implementation section (Chapter 6.)
WS-1	CWS	How will the Plan terms be implemented and integrated with the evolving process for resource management in the Dehcho?	See new regulatory and implementation sections (Chapters 3 and 6.).
WS-1	CWS	How is critical habitat defined?	Accepted: Explained in greater detail under the Wildlife section in Chapter 2 and with respect to Conservation Zone identification in Chapter 4.
WS-1	CWS	Recommend specific management of mixed forests and old growth forests along the major rivers to protect landbird diversity.  These could include: 1) all land uses that contribute to a loss of forest cover be included in the calculated annual sustainable harvest; 2) future harvesting plans in specific SMZs and GUZs be required to meet a quality standard sufficient to allow long term planning for harvesting and regeneration; 3) Post-fire salvage logging should consider the importance of recently burned forests (within 2 yrs. of fire) for fire dependent landbird species (e.g., woodpeckers).  Is their a GNWT policy on reforestation? Perhaps the Land Use Plan can be a vehicle for exacting a more clearly laid out approach and policy to reforestation.	Partially Accepted:  The Draft Plan includes Conservation Zones and Special Management Zones along the major rivers (Mackenzie and Liard).  The CEAM Terms apply to SMZ and address issues related to forest clearing.  Please contact ENR, Forest Management Division regarding policy on reforestation.
WS-1	CWS	Under Seasonal Restrictions (Table 9), it is not clear to CWS why migratory birds are “NA” for the breeding season. CWS would prefer to see seasonal restrictions over at least key migratory bird habitat such as wetlands (e.g., Mills Lake).	Accepted: Ducks Unlimited suggested appropriate data ranges and these have been used.
WS-1	CWS	Perhaps some other important aspects should be included under Special Terms (e.g., fuel handling and storage, mitigating terrain and aquatic habitat disturbance, monitoring, follow-up, final reporting back to the communities and Dehcho management authority).	Partially Accepted: We are covering some of these (e.g. reporting to communities).  The Plan is not meant to be exhaustive on every topic but provide guidance based on issues raised.  Detailed terms such as some of those proposed are best dealt with during the EA process.
WS-1	CWS	CWS has one question with respect to the boundary of CZ #6. It has come to our attention that the location of the boundary that includes the Fish Trap and Tetcela drainages while essentially capturing the wetland values present there, it only barely does so. CWS would have preferred that this boundary, which is also part of the Nahanni Park expansion consideration, be situated along the height of land along the east side of these valleys (i.e., along the Nahanni Range) in order to provide a wider margin of safety to their protection.	The area east of the park expansion boundary falls within the Nahanni Butte Special Management Area which will be managed for community-based sustainable forestry and tourism.  Rezoning with the communities has placed the Tetcela River within a conservation zone.  CWS should discuss this with Parks Canada.  Should the park expansion boundary change in the future, the Plan will be amended to reflect the boundaries chosen.
WS-1	CWS	The Plan should provide more details on the 5 year review process and how zone designation and boundaries could be changed. Will this be done primarily at the community level for zones within their traditional sphere of activity, or through a Dehcho wide process?	Accepted:  This is included in Chapter 6. Plan Review will include community consultations to determine the need for revisions.  Revisions will have to be accepted at the Regional level (DFN Leadership) and by the GNWT and GOC.
WS-1	CWS	CWS believes there should be a clearer distinction made between lands initially withdrawn through the NWT Protected Areas Strategy and managed essentially ‘in perpetuity’ through protected areas legislation. These lands (e.g., Edehzhie) will be managed through a dedicated Management Committee consisting of all stakeholders, not the least being representatives from the affected community(s).  Possibly, there would be tie-ins with the Land Use Plan, for example the management of lands around a protected area (the buffer approach), but these protected area will not form part of the regular review of the Land Use Plan.	Accepted: This has been integrated into discussion of PAS in Chapter 3 and as it relates to specific zones in Chapter 5.
WS-1	CWS	For the candidate protected areas (Edehzhie, Pehdzeh Ki Deh) there is a “Visitor Quota” identified.  As a close participant in this process I do not recall hearing discussion, recommendations, and decisions on visitor quotas.  My understanding that this would be something considered in the respective Management Plans for these areas, and based on a thorough consideration by the protected area Management Committees.	It is in place to provide the opportunity for those discussions should there be a need.  If communities feel there is no need then there is no action.  We have often heard that there is support for tourism but generally for small groups and eco/cultural tourism type businesses only.  Large scale operations in general are not desired.  PAS Working Groups and Management Committees have been added to the list of Regulatory Authorities to address the fact that they will discuss this term and manage PAS areas in the future.
WS-1	CWS	The minimum patch size analysis for species such as moose and marten was very informative as a way of illustrating where we might already be in a situation of unacceptable impacts due to linear disturbances. However, might is the operative word since without knowing the quality of habitat found in these high impact areas it is difficult to determine the ecological significance. The Plan should identify this factor and perhaps identify that habitat assessment of these areas should be elements in a Land Use Plan that is iterative and based on the best and most current information possible.	Accepted: Habitat assessments and monitoring of cumulative effects has been added to the terms.