‘This is a shift in thinking’: senior planner

The Yukon government’s new approach to land use planning in the Peel River Watershed will provide balance, says Premier Darrell Pasloski.

The Yukon government’s new approach to land use planning in the Peel River Watershed will provide balance, says Premier Darrell Pasloski.

Pasloski unveiled the government’s long-awaited vision Tuesday afternoon.

He appeared at a news conference alongside Energy, Mines and Resources Minister Brad Cathers, Environment Minister Currie Dixon and Tourism and Culture Minister Mike Nixon.

“We have repeatedly made it clear that we think that the plan proposed by the former Peel planning commission should be modified, and that the final plan can be more fair and balanced,” Pasloski told reporters.

“Since last fall, staff of several departments have put a tremendous amount of time into developing a range of potential modifications.

“The result is an innovative approach that we believe would be a more effective way of protecting existing users and values, including the environment and wilderness beauty, while allowing for potential new activity in this vast area.”

The premier and the ministers took turns assuring the public they and their staff have come up with the tools to ensure the highest level of environmental protection while allowing for development opportunities in the region.

They took turns inviting Yukoners to give thoughtful consideration of their four planning concepts and provide their feedback on the new planning proposal over the next four months of public consultation.

Karen Baltgailis of the Yukon Conservation Society is calling the new planning initiative a whitewash, or “greenwash,” which runs completely opposite to the direction in the final land use plan recommended by the Peel River Planning Commission.

Where the planning commission recommended no road access nor surface access to 80 per cent of the area, the government’s proposal allows for full access while promising to manage access and development with the utmost of care, she pointed out this morning.

Baltgailis said while the government uses language like protected areas and restricted use wilderness area, ultimately, it goes nowhere in meeting the goals of true wilderness protection as envisioned in the commission’s land use plan.

Under the Protected Area designation, she points out, there would be no new mineral claims allowed.

Road access, however, and other surface access to existing claims would be permitted in protected areas and throughout the entire planning region, she said.

Baltgailis said the government’s Restricted Use Wilderness River Corridor designation promises to protect the wilderness character of river corridors and viewscapes, but does not restrict roads nor bridges.

To hear the premier say the government’s proposal provides for wilderness protection over 74 per cent of the planning area is “disturbing,” she said.

“It was incredibly misleading,” Baltgailis said.

“And the fact they paint so much of those concepts as green is such a clear attempt to pretend this is something that it is not.

“They are not taking the final plan and tweaking it or modifying it; they are proposing something completely new and it appears that amounts to rejection of the final plan.”

Under the final plan presented in July 2011, the planning commission recommended roads and surface access be prohibited in 80 per cent of the area.

Mike Kokiw of the Yukon Chamber of Mines said this morning since most of the chamber’s membership is still in the field, the chamber hasn’t had time to assess and develop a position on the new planning proposal.

The chamber continues to support a fair and balanced approach to the management of the Peel that considers all values, including wilderness protection, cultural values and economic development opportunities, he said.

Kokiw said the chamber hopes to formulate a position prior to the annual Yukon Geoscience Forum held in late November.

Senior land use planner Jim Bell of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources provided a briefing of the government’s proposal following the official announcement by Pasloski and his ministers.

Yukoners, Bell explained, will have four months to digest and comment on the proposal as outlined in the four planning concepts available online or through contacting government offices.

Cathers indicated the final land use plan recommended by the planning commission in July 2011 will also be available as part of the package being sent out for consultation, as the government is legally bound to include it.

The government, however, has been clear that modifications to the final recommended plan are needed, the minister pointed out, while noting 97 per cent of the Peel watershed is Yukon government Crown land.

Asked whether he is afraid the government’s proposal would prompt legal action from the First Nations wanting 100 per cent protection of the Peel, Cathers said his government is doing everything by the book.

“The Yukon government is confident we have followed all our legal obligations under the Umbrella Final Agreement (the blueprint for aboriginal land claim settlement in the Yukon),” the minister said.

Bell explained that following the public consultation period, which includes consultation with the First Nations, there will be an additional month of consultation with the First Nations specifically before a final land use plan is developed.

There are four different planning options included in the government’s proposal. None, however, are set in stone, and it may be that the final land use plan will include components from one or more of the four options, he said.

For instance, Bell pointed out, the amount of land designated as protected area varies from 14 to 36 per cent in the four options, while the restricted use wilderness area designation varies from 32 per cent to 51 per cent.

The area designated as integrated management allowing for a greater flexibility in development opportunities remains a constant 26 per cent through the four options, Bell pointed out.

He said management initiatives to increase sensitivity to environmental concerns may include requiring a permit for basic exploration work, or a reclamation security deposit for work not normally subject to a security deposit.

There may be umbrella restrictions on the amount of development activity that can occur at the same time in a single land use planning unit, Bell said.

Emphasis, he added, will be placed on protecting river corridors, corridors which will potentially measure three to 10 kilometres in width, with an aim to restricting visual obstructions and noise levels, he said.

Roads, he said, would be private and gated, and would have to be reclaimed at the end of a project.

Bell said the management tools envisioned would help address conflicts and provide a better balance for the region.

“This is a shift in thinking,” Bell said. “And the government believes the shift in planning better reflects a balanced plan that recognized the diverse interests in the Peel watershed.”

• Protected Area – Under the protected area designation, existing rights would be upheld, including the right to work mineral claims along with access to those claims by air or road, according to the government’s proposal.

The area would be withdrawn from new land uses. A protected area could also be elevated to a special management area, which prohibits surface access as outlined in the commission’s final recommended plan.

• Restricted Use Wilderness Area – Under the designation, existing rights would be recognized, surface access would be permitted, as would new land uses, with a varying degree of management conditions depending on the sensitivity of the area.

• Wilderness River Corridor – New land uses would be prohibited, and existing rights and access would be permitted under specific conditions aimed at maintaining the integrity of the corridor.

• Integrated Management Area – Allows for existing and new land uses.

The four options included in the government’s proposals break down as such:

• Option A – Protected area 14 per cent; Restricted use wilderness area, 51 per cent; Wilderness river corridor, nine per cent; Integrated management area, 26 per cent.

• Option B – Protected area 21 per cent; Restricted use wilderness area, 44 per cent; Wilderness river corridor, nine per cent; Integrated management area, 26 per cent.

• Option C – Protected area 33 per cent; Restricted use wilderness area, 34 per cent; Wilderness river corridor, seven per cent; Integrated management area, 26 per cent.

• Option D – Protected area 36 per cent; Restricted use wilderness area, 32 per cent; Wilderness river corridor, six per cent; Integrated management area, 26 per cent.

See related coverage