Who are we? Highlights of the Recommended Peel The Peel Watershed Planning Commission (PWPC) is an independent public commission Watershed Regional Land Use Plan created by Chapter 11 of the UFA with members that are jointly nominated by the Parties for a period of five years. The PWPC was formed in This document provides highlights of the Recom- Chapter 11 in the Umbrella Final Agreement on fall of 2004. mended Peel Watershed Regional Land Use Plan Land Use Planning, the Plan considers the inter- (PWRLUP). Effort effort has been to develop relationships of other key Chapters affecting the a Plan with clear recommendations for the Plan lands, water, heritage, fish and wildlife contained Parties to consider according to the Peel Water- within this unique region of the ., interjuris- shed Planning Commission’s Terms of Reference dictional responsibilities under the Gwichin Com- Peel Watershed Planning Commission and its foundation documents. While guided by prehensive Land Claim and other agreements. (L-R) Marvin Frost, Steve Taylor, Dave Loeks, Peter Kaye, Albert Genier (Chair) and Ray Hayes

Who are the Plan Parties?

• Yukon Government Planning Team: (L-R) Nadele Flynn (Land Use Planner), Reg C. Whiten, MCIP (Senior Planner), Sam Skinner (Land • Nacho Nyak Dun (Mayo) Use Planner) and Heidi Faulds (Administrator) • Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in () What’s next? • Vuntut Gwitchin (Old Crow) • Gwich’in Tribal Council (Inuvik) The Recommended Regional Land Use Plan will Energy and Mineral Resources (Corporate Planning be reviewed by the Parties starting in December, Branch). When complete, this review will result in 2009. Discussions between the Parties, and addi- a decision to accept, reject or modify with a con- tional public consultations will be undertaken under solidated written response for the Commission to the coordination by planning section of the Yukon consider in drafting a Final Recommended Plan. Want to learn more?

Learn more about other Commission outputs released during the past year, including the Conservation Priorities Assessment Report (CPAR), Resource Assessment Report (RAR), Scenario Methodology Report (SMR), Scenario Options Report (SOR), and the Draft Regional Land Use Plan (DRLUP) • Keep updated on the Peel Watershed Planning Commission’s website • Provide comments directed to attention of the PWPC via email: [email protected] Goz Lake (Photo: Jimmy Johnny) or mail us a letter to the address below During the period of Recommended Plan Review, the PWPC will not be maintaining an office, About the Peel Watershed however enquiries will be handled by the Yukon Land Use Planning Council. Download the full Plan at: www.peel.planyukon.ca/downloads/RLUP.html The Peel watershed is a vast unpopulated area in tut Gwitchin. Also overlapping the PWPR are the http://www.peel.planyukon.ca/downloads/downpldo.html northeastern Yukon highly valued for wilderness primary and secondary use areas of the Teetł’it recreation, big game outfitting, mineral and oil Gwich’in. The social, economic and environ- Peel Watershed Planning Commission and gas potential, tourism, and ecological integ- mental values - together with very few roads and 307 Jarvis Street, Suite 201 rity. It also has significant cultural, heritage, and little industrial development in the region - make PEEL WATERSHED Whitehorse, Yukon Y1A 2H3 economic value for the three Yukon this area unique at territorial, national, and even PLANNING COMMISSION TOGETHER FOR THE PEEL  CHUU TL’TI GEENJIT KHETOK Tel: (867) 667-2374 Fax: (867) 667-4624 with over lapping traditional territories including: global level. Toll free: 1-866-353-2374 the Na-cho Nyak Dun, Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in, Vun- www.peel.planyukon.ca Findings of the Plan

#*S-30A C

r e Husky R

• Affected First Nations have stated clearly that their resource-use i v R Lake R E e l l LMU 2B Ma B son Hill e V E Jo VG u t interests and rights depend upon intact regional ecosystems and land- h #* I n S-16A I Landscape Management Units Index Ch o VG R Z s h d n S-16A f i Lor C VG #* St on ey r e N u e VG La e scapes that a conservative and precautionary approach is necessary to l S-41A/D k E IntegratedS-17 AManagement Areas VG B #* #* K F S-39A C 1 - Lower Ogilvie River #* Nerejo A sustain current uses while maintaining future resource-use options for Ck L 0M 20 40 60 km 2 - Sharp Mtn R VG Nu #*S-40A/D their citizens; 3 - Blackstone River ko 4 - Dalglish Creek n LMU 12A Ck 5 - Peel Plateau VG #* S-48A R o c LMU 5 LMU 6 r Fishing VG LMU 4B #* k • Year round monitoring of water quality and flows is a dominant LMU R-02A LMUE ve Special Management Areas VG VG a Ri #* Pi ne S-14A/D 8A S-20A/D 8B Lakes #* g N O VG l R T H W E S T Fish and Wildlife Emphasis Protection Emphasis e T S-19A LMU 7 E R R I T O management consideration and winter flows are a major limiting #* VG R I E S A - Ogilvie River Headwaters S-13A/D S B - Blackstone River Uplands a LMU Y a t a Rock River U K O N h Co R TG 8C kw R-01FS Mt C - Hart River Edy - Snake River vi factor likely to affect certain forms of industrial development in the re R VG over re R-12A !9 tt G - Richardson Mountains - South P H - Richardson Mountains - North Vi ! S J VG R c ! TG h I planning region; R-07A S-E2FS P - Mid- and Big Eddy I - Vittrekwa River a #* e e r TG f Ri v E f S-3FS e TG #* J - Tabor Lakes r VG LTG Heritage Emphasis S-12A/D R-03FS S-4FS Cr #* ! #*#* VG #* R H TG Keek - Jackfish Creek Lakes VG F - Hungry Lakes S-6A v i S-4FS #* S-11A/D LMU R R A • Large segments of the Yukon public have identified values and #* r e !K

L - Chappie Lake CoVG mplex N -Tshuu tr'adaojìich'uu / C 10A !O S-59A/D TG wn Be

r I R-14FS R r o a r

e LMU 10B TG B e TG Aberdeen and Peel Canyons VG M - Turner Lake Wetlands C TG

k S-6FS#*#*S-7FS I interests that are congruent with those of the affected First Nations, S-3A #* #*S-13FS Ck Mo TG #* B unt TG V T C Be #* H S-8FS O - Teetl'it njik / Lower Peel Rivear r r Joyal S-9FS #* Cav Watershed Management Emphasis a d e r e a Ro v TG E Mountai ce S-10FS n n VGVG n VG K A Ri O c LMU 9 #* i t ! n namely that ecosystem integrity and intact landscapes are the priority h a VG 5 Dh - WiVGnd/BS-S-4A58A//DonnD et PlumC e River S-10A ek R t a R-05A r S-2A/D#*#* C r e Ithoth C I a r C R R Arctic Circle t u #* ee e VG Hill #* k TG land-use management consideration in the planning region; VG R-04A a h D g l R-04FS S-37A #* Vy a i #* VG Tr TG Peel Watershed planning region S S-9A/D R-05FS R s h i n !5 i v e r Landscape manaF i gement unit VG Eagle Plains O VG R-06A VG Lusk Lake S-57A/D S-8A/D N (Caribou lake) #* #* eek • While aerial access to mineral claims may have generally been a #*

Dempster Hwy Development Area Cr VG Ed le igii Hill Ri ve r l S-1A i Y M v

n manageable land-use activity, predominant Yukon public opinion in- i First Nation Settlement and Tetlit Gwich'in Yukon Lands WA a O S ! ! ! ! ! ! GH u ri b o N O R T H W E S T T E R R I T O R I E S ! ! ! ! ! ! Ai HI Ca ! ! ! ! ! ! M tch ount VG U dicates that surface access is likely to undermine the region’s wilder- ! ! ! ! ! ! TG R-blocks eek Bur Hill S-45A gess #* !M R-08FS

Cr # VG VG N LMU R-09A #* Site selection S-7A D R ness character outside of the immediate Dempster Highway Corridor; er 11 Turner o T M Sa v r lter Lake l

n ! o E Ri e G Hi l ll #* v u g e VG i A n y o D S-32A t or

R n

TH a this wilderness character is considered to most renewable resource- a TH i Ge

R-28A I R-29A C n

Mount N E e Hule n D C ton y t a s e l k use sectors in the planning region; te r g TG TG i p li h sh R-07FS S !R-12FS W r P i C TG TG s k ! N S-11FS TH e S-11FS C k NND #* R-49A C #* TG r R S-139B k L TG e ! R-13FS 4 R-11FS PEE E Dog VG in V R-08A I Lake TH Abe NND R-31A M rdeen r Canyon R S-138B N • Current practices of consultation and site-level management for oil #* TG e N A #* o i s TH H O R-10FS I R TH R-32A y N I e r NND i v R-33A R i v TG S-134B R #* S-12F#* S Ch!aLppie and gas development are considered adequate. However the cumula- #* Lake T

VG TG #* NND R S-56A/D S-12FS S-187B E V

R A r Deception Bald E N G E e r Lake

v e TH Hill v tive effects and their implications of this sector is not yet understood i V

i R HungryS-128B

#* O R L

R

R C r by affected First Nations in the Tetlit Gwich’in Primary Use area; e C ! k n S F R

i W B k r y k A Gill L o c ng i

k a Hu n N w s ! d n n G 1 Mount r t n

e McCullum t e E a • The Plan cannot be viewed as a template for other future Yukon H a K r v i e C i l Sapper N ! Mount Popcornfish O g E Schellinger VG #* Hill O Lake TH S-44A ! regional land-use planning processes. Its provisions result from the R-40B Engineer Creek 3 Mo R r !9 unt k Tu R rner I l NND K C NND n M S-105B S-137B tl o r A ! #* Ma#*rgaret NND r R C region’s unique biophysical and socio-economic features and values. TH C y d Mount K r R-35B S-122B A e Lake #* N E ! e n e Baird A #* G N n E i t o NND Z g S_115B I n P C R r E E k s ul e e k !2 a c m e M B l #* NND O • The mechanisms provided in the UFA for evaluating conformity with d C k S-101B ! i n #* U 1 Mount W NND le Ra p i N Dempster t t S-102B ta n R i Li T NND v e the Plan (under Chapters 11 and 12) require that a Peel Regional NND Quartet#* A TH S-143B NND #* S-104B ER R i Lakes Ck r I S-180B TH #* S-133B N T#*

he S #*S-181B S c C Ck v e r Planning Commission is consulted to consider any Plan amendments a k P#* eek Mount C TH e r v TH #*#* Cr Phelps h S-124B NND t S-33B R i r EM TH ! S-188B o D #* D S-202B and variances as part of YESAB’s project review process; N NND ! g h B S-127B k B u l #*Fairchild TH a a O Ch W La apmanR-19B y #* ke N La o NND ke R Be N O #* a r S-140B E TH Lomo R G S-145B #* nd L. R i T I TH TH r t Mt L TH R-34B S-30B W E R N v P • Cumulative environmental and socio-economic effects are neither #* E C re H V ss S-29B H a K E arper Pa L TH I ela TH TH R U Se #* H NND i v TH S-136B E S-28B #*S-31B a r t S-150B e r M S-134B #* #* #* l r Tombstone #* E well understood nor evaluated in the current practice of project as- #* ve #* TH TH a i R S-137B n #* TH S-138B Territorial Park o S-135B R g s t Gillespie L. ! Mount A B #* o sessment in the Yukon; NND NND MacDonald N h M W e S-125B r S-124B G t e O v e #*Pinguicula L. R i r l U E i N R m O r T a e k n A M O Co ee e No U N e rth I T A Cr Ck N I N e v Tombstone Fork S S rn

t Hart i L.

f Pass NND i R #* NND NND S F S-135B S-152B !9TH R-11A #* E • Existing surface access routes, including off-trail ATV use are im- IT TH Castle McClusky L. L S-88B NND TH S-26B/D Mountain W #*r S-151B NND S-123B e TH NND Y S-148B Y TH v #* Goz Lake r #* #* i S-208B/D Elliot L.#*S-149B N #* NND U S-27B TH RTH pacting caribou populations. Existing voluntary conservation mea- TN TH ke S-130B S-25B #* S-143B La Duo Lakes#* K TH R-03A u Mo TH k R-70B d unt R-41B C Rackla M C n #*#* Br r e O C h a n d i Jeckel TH e k Pass TH l TH #* O R-23A N S-144B ew TH S-206B U sures are not sufficient to sustain these herds. R-83A NI TH

r e N S R TH S-e 24B TH NND z w S-176B k Bonnet Go

e #* y T #* d R-25A i R-17A Plume e #* I TH d A H TH eek n Pass V S-142B 90B TH S-168B A o B I #* l ea S-66B Cr v e N #* TH TH K R E TH r R-01A R-64B TH H Rusty S S-47B r Bonnet Plume L. TH c k #*#*S-203B a v e Mountain #* m NND i • Some resource conflicts are intractable and cannot be solved by on- R-66A E R T Steamboat R Nadaleen Ro TH TH i R-10B NND R-63A lt Yukon River #* S-80B Cr Mountain NND Mtn S-106 TH TH h on NND E

t S-121B eek G TH R-26B S-50BDawson S-41B r #* N R-27A TH NND

Klondike Klo R-38A o A n R site, management techniques. TH #* dTH TH C R-07A NND R TH i TH TH N TH !9 k S-99B R-69B River #*#* k R-21B NND TH S-109B#* #*S-106Be S-72B #* S-205B McQuestenNND R-09B NND TH NO HC N #* TH S-171BS-183B S-103B l a R i v S-107B #* RT KLON #* TH R-80B TH L N e r H !9 D #* R-07A NND #* E #* TH S-2B TH I R-14ATH TH e n #* NND #* NND ck L E e n y R-59B R-58B K TH s t S-184B #* R-04A NND N A D A l e #*#*TH TH TH E S-184B S-71B e S-170B #* Ra a S-159B u NND #* NND S-1B d TH S-64B R-20A S-113B TH #* #* N a S-169B TH #*r Q S-168B S-169B R S-112B Ri ve c NND Mt R i v e #* HW R-22B #* NND Mt i Mount Ferrell M R-08B NND v TH TH TH Came Patterson e NND r R-11A R-05A ron r Y R-79B R-02A S-185 R-15B S t e w a r t Red #*#* NND Mo #*S-198B K untain NND F Summary Statistics About the Plan

Here we provide summary statistics of land own- The Recommended Peel Regional Watershed Land ership and recommended land-use designations. Use Plan was produced by the Peel Watershed Plan- The Land Use Plan Map shows location of these ning Commission (PWPC) as part of the implemen- designations by LMU. Unless stated otherwise all tation of Chapter 11 of the Final Agreements for percentages are the total area of the region. Nacho Nyak Dun, Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in and Vuntut Gwitchin First Nations. The Recommended Plan Land-use designation by key zone (%) will help ensure wilderness characteristics, wildlife and their habitat, cultural resources, and waters are SMA - Heritage (2.1%) maintained over time while managing resource use. A cornerstone of the Plan is the UFA-based defini- SMA - Watershed (27.7%) tion of Sustainable Development which emphasizes that renewable and non-renewable land-uses should Snake River SMA - Gen Protection (31.2%) be accommodated only if consistent with sustaining SMA - Fish & Wildlife (19.6%) ecosystems and social systems.

IMA (19.4%) Management Goals for the Plan Ownership of land by class (%) The General Terms of Reference (GTOR) guided the Commission in developing the Plan for settlement Settlement (0.4%) land, non-settlement Land and Tetlit Gwich’in Yukon land. Fee-simple (2.3%) The PWPC outlined three over-arching management goals for the Peel Watershed Planning Region, Non-settlement (97.3%) based on the GTOR and the Commission’s Statement of Intent:

Road River perched wetlands • Enable stewardship of Peel region ecosystems including aquatic, fish, wildlife, plant and terrain Photo: J. Meikle resources. • Provide for the social well-being of affected First Nations, and other Yukoners through consider- Plan Highlights and Key Recommendations ation of heritage, culture, employment and quality-of-life objectives. • Realize sustainable development opportunities while maintaining traditional First Nation livelihoods • The Plan divides the region into 21 major landscape management sub-units • LMU’s designated as either Special Management Areas with one of four emphases (Heritage, Fish & Wildlife, Watershed Management or General Protection); or as an Integrated Management Area • Primary regulatory tools were selected to achieve Plan goals, objectives and desired future state for each respective SMA • All SMA’s (covering 80.6 % of the region) are proposed to be withdrawn from staking; however existing oil and gas and mineral tenures will be maintained as a conforming use subject to key man- agement conditions • New surface access is a prohibited use in SMA’s but may be permitted in IMA’s subject to manage- ment conditions requiring enhanced consultation with affected First Nations and protection of key Commission’s Statement of Intent wildlife values The goal of the Peel Watershed Regional Land ting, wilderness tourism, subsistence harvesting, • New access will be strictly controlled and restored when no longer used for initial industrial access purpose Use Plan is to ensure wilderness characteristics, and the exploration and development of non-re- • A Sub Regional Plan should be developed for the Dempster Highway Corridor wildlife and their habitats, cultural resources, and newable resources. Achieving this goal requires waters are maintained over time while managing managing development at a pace and scale that • The Wind River Trail should no longer be classified as a designated access corridor resource use. These uses include, but are not lim- maintains ecological integrity. The long-term ob- • A comprehensive Water Management Plan should be developed for the planning region ited to, traditional use, trapping, recreation, outfit- jective is to return all lands to their natural state. The Four Legs of the Recommended Plan Tool 3: Land-use Designation System

One can think about the Peel Land Use Plan like a Kitchen Table - A Land-use Designation System is used to guide Tool 4 Landscape Management Units). The types with key Plan recommendations resting on four legs that serve as the the management of land use activities within of zones, the primary recommended regulatory foundation to achieve desired goals. a certain area. It provides the broadest level of designation, the desired future state, required man- guidance for land and resource decision-making. agement conditions and some required or allow- Land Management Units: the areas of interest defined for land able actions are described in the table below. In management (landscapes to manage land) A land-use designation system consists of differ- addition, different indicators, often with different General Management Directions & Monitoring : the key strategies ent landscape categories or zones that describe the critical levels, are assigned to each designation. for achieved land management goals and objectives (how to manage over-arching management intent for an area (see the land

Land Use Designation System: the various types of zoning for land-use with allowable or prohibited Special Management Areas Integrated Management Areas land uses, and the recommended regulatory designation

LMU Specific Conditions: management conditions that must be followed to achieve land-use objec- Regulatory Designation tives when new uses are proposed

Management Objective Tool 1: Landscape Management Units Management Conditions The Plan divides the region into 13 landscape management units and 21 sub-units. Each sub-unit is assigned to a land use management zone (see Map), and in turn to a set of indicators and allowable or required actions. Some sub-units have additional special management What is Plan Conformity? What is an Allowable vs. Prohibited Use? considerations. Some sub-units allow a certain amount of develop-

ment, while others do not allow any. Once a Plan is formally approved, it becomes a guide to the Yukon Environmental and So- • Allowable: this plan allows this land use, subject to GMDs, LMU-specific conditions cio-Economic Assessment Board (YESAB) in and the laws of general application (i.e. reviewing new projects (UFA 12.17.0), and for existing or new regulations) other regulatory agencies of the Parties consider- Tool 2: General Management Direction & Monitoring ing new land-use proposals. Checking whether a • Prohibited: this plan does not allow this land- land-use activity fits with the Plan (allowable or use. A plan amendment may alter this General Management Directions (GMD) frame the seven over-arching management goals for the prohibited) is another word for Plan Conformity. prohibition. region into objectives, strategies, best management practices and recommendations. GMDs form the foundation for guiding both commercial and non-commercial land-use activities in the region. The figure below shows how Goals, Objectives and Strategies are connected.An example is shown using Tool 4: LMU Specific Conditions Goal 2 - Aquatic Resources. Many more objectives and strategies are detailed in the full draft plan. COMPONENT DEFINITION EXAMPLE Management conditions can be thought of as GOAL Broad statement of desirable land-term condition Provide for the management, protection and use of water and related ecosystems and the species they support for the rules that the Commission considers essential for future. guiding land uses in the planning region. This leg of the land-use planning framework is criti- OBJECTIVE Desired specific condition that contributes to Maintain wetland and riparian integrity and connectivity. achieving the goal cal for maintaining underlying ecosystem values that are consistent with the Commission’s view STRATEGY Specific approaches and actions needed to achieve Reduce surface and vegetation impacts in riparian areas on sustainable development. They cover a range Recommendations Best Management Practices of important topics that strive to address key resource management issues and prevent potential INDICATOR Measurable signal used to assess if GOALS and Linear (access) density (km/km2 landscape unit) problems from occurring OBJECTIVES are being met (L-R): Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation Chief Joe Linklater, Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in Chief Eddie Taylor, Gerald Isaac - YLUPC First Nations Liaison, Reg Whiten - INDICATOR LEVEL Concise statement about desired status of Less than a specified amount of linear (access) density (km/ PWPC Senior Planner, Na-Cho Nyak Dun Vice Chief Sharon Peter, Gwich’in INDICATOR km2 landscape unit) Tribal Council President Richard Nerysoo and Grand Chief Andy Carvill Photo: YLUPC