World community weighs in on Peel plan

The Government of Yukon received comments from around the globe during recent public consultation in the prolonged land-use debate over the Peel Watershed, a 77,000 square kilometer mountainous and wild expanse in the northern part of the territory that also extends across the border into central Northwest Territories.

The Yukon portion of the watershed, 68,000 square kilometers (26,255 square miles), an area roughly the size of West Virginia and Delaware combined, is undergoing land-use planning in a process laid out in Chapter 11 of the Yukon Land Claims Agreement and is called the Peel Watershed Planning Region. The Peel area is one of eight regions for which mineral-rich Yukon Territory is developing land-use plans. It is located north of Mayo in northeast Yukon Territory.

No communities are located within the Peel region; however, it is situated within the traditional territories of, and is extensively utilized by, four First Nations - The Na-cho Nyak Dun, the Tetlit Gwich'in, the Vuntut Gwitchin and the Tr'ondëk Hwëch'in.

The Porcupine Caribou Herd travels from the Peel into Alaska, from the Beaufort Sea to the Yukon River. The Yukon part of the watershed contains six major tributaries to the Peel; from west to east: the Ogilvie, Blackstone, Hart, Wind, Bonnet Plume and Snake Rivers. The Bonnet Plume is a Canadian Heritage River.

In 2009, the Peel Watershed Planning Commission, a citizen advisory panel, recommended banning all mining activity in 80 percent of Peel watershed region.

Mining groups oppose the proposed ban, noting that the area has seen a lot of mining exploration in the past 50 years and several deposits have been identified in the region, including the world-class Crest iron formation.

According to Yukon government records, there are 245 Minfile occurrences in the Peel watershed, 12 of which are deposits - seven coal deposits, three iron deposits (including Crest iron), one zinc deposit (Goz Creek), and one copper-zinc deposit (Hart River). Mineral explorers also have conducted diamond drilling programs on 45 occurrences within the watershed.

All of the deposits identified in Minfile are historical deposits, and none have current NI 43-101-compliant resources.

Public consultation process

The Yukon government conducted a four-month public consultation on the Peel Watershed Regional Land Use Plan between Oct. 23 and Feb. 25. The plan, which has been subject to public debate for nearly a decade,

In the "Peel Watershed Regional Land Use Plan Public Consultation 2012‐2013

What We Heard Report," a 27-page document compiled to reflect the gist of the comments, the government reported input from 2,127 submissions, of which 82 percent came from within the Yukon. In addition, 11 petition drives and postcard campaigns generated 8,048 signatures of which 86.5 percent came from outside of the Yukon.

The feedback was collected through a variety of methods including website, notes posted at public meetings, emails, telephone, fax and VIA a form provided to households throughout the territory.

The public also was invited to provide comments at open houses held in four Yukon and four NWT communities in December, January and February.

The feedback ranged from the thoughts of Yukoners to those of other Canadians and the perspectives of members of the international community.

The government identified 16 significant themes in the submissions, four of which it characterized as "major," as well as other perspectives that focused on water quality, importance of tourism, the lack of a need to extract resources immediately and active management requiring enforcement capacity.

The government said the themes had to either represent the views of a significant number of respondents or had to be critical to the reader gaining a good understanding of the nature and scope of the input provided during the consultation period.

The four major themes are:

•The Peel Watershed is an irreplaceable global asset and the views of all must be considered, not just Yukoners;

•The Peel Final Recommended Plan is fair and balanced because it calls for 55 percent permanent protection, 25 percent interim protection, and 20 percent open to development;

•The Government of Yukon is not following the rules as laid out in Chapter 11 of the Umbrella Final Agreement; and

•The Government of Yukon must balance development and environmental protection in the Peel region.

'An irreplaceable global asset'

Some respondents offered the perspective that the Peel Watershed is more than an amalgam of various lands and rivers; it is a complete boreal ecosystem that, to this day, is still virtually intact.

Any significant fragmentation of that ecosystem by virtue of the development of roads irrevocably degrades the ecosystem and no amount of reclamation or post development remediation can bring it back to its original wilderness status.

Effectively, once the damage is done, it is too late; the asset is lost forever.

Also, from this perspective, the Yukon government has a moral obligation to consider not only the desires of Yukoners but those of all people regardless of their place of residence, i.e.

there are places in the world that are just too precious and unique to destroy and the Peel Watershed is such a place.

A Whitehorse, Yukon resident, for example, said "I can only hope that the Yukon government will eventually accept the Final Report Recommendations, which took almost seven years of hard work, consultations, and public funds to develop. I do not support any of the other options that YG has proposed."

A British Columbia resident, meanwhile, offered: "I am disappointed that we are still having this 'consultation'. The Peel Watershed has been consulted to death and a reasonable compromise plan was approved by the Peel Watershed Planning Commission. This plan has also been approved in the court of public opinion and should be adopted immediately."

The fact that several thousand people from across the world took the time to submit comments demonstrates how strongly global citizens feel about their right to have the Peel Watershed preserved for them and their descendants, the government said. From this perspective, governments, including the Yukon government, are stewards of the land not owners who may dispose of the land as they see fit.

A European resident, for example, shared this: "I am aware that not living in your country might also mean that I cannot fully grasp what is going on there. However, I am living on the same planet and that gives me the right to share my own opinion about it. I truly hope that the Yukon government will make up their mind and take the right decision - a decision that will protect the Peel Watershed for the people that live there now and for future generations. It seems to me that those who care to protect the Peel Watershed have a solid plan build up."

Reject the final plan

Some respondents stated their desire for the government to reject the Peel Commission's Final Recommended Plan in unequivocal terms, while others offered a rationale for their position.

A Yukon resident, for example, wrote: "Please be advised that I do NOT support the Final Recommended Plan and do not support 80 percent blanket protection. We need to consider all interests in the Peel Region, protect the key environmental areas and river corridors, but also allowed strictly regulated industrial activities."

A Whitehorse resident stated: "I prefer all four of the Yukon government's sample land use plans to the Final Recommended Plan proposed by the advisory commission, although I still think they are too restrictive to development."

A resident of Dawson offered this: "I urge you to dispose of the failed Peel Watershed Regional Land Use Plan forthwith. This planning exercise has failed the Yukon and has failed Yukon people. […] The land will wait for us. Let's take the time to do the job right. Garbage the current planning exercise - accept that we have failed - return to the process 10 years hence. Hopefully, by then, a spirit of common sense and compromise will finally prevail as we embark on a new process."

And from another Yukoner: "As a First Nations person born in the North I appreciate the beauty of the Peel area. I reject the Peel Planning Commission's plan as it is too restrictive. I want mining to be allowed in this area. This activity provides good paying jobs and contributes greatly to our economy. My children will benefit from this."

'An irreplaceable wilderness ecosystem'

This theme is related to the perspective that it is desirable to keep the Peel Watershed as wild and undeveloped as possible because this makes senses from both an ecological and economic perspective.

In effect this theme is associated with the view that the Peel Watershed in its entirety represents a virtually intact ecosystem that can and must be protected from any development that would irreversibly alter its wilderness character. The building of roads and the infrastructure related to mining and oil and gas development are seen as irreconcilable with wilderness protection.

For example, a Whitehorse resident said, "When it comes to ecology and ecosystems, the Yukon government's new recommended plans are far from their supposed goals of balance.

Although in the lifestyles of humans, we are able to fragment and allocate valued resources such as time, money, and attention, it is not so simple from the position of a complex and intertwined ecosystem - particularly when it comes to an area like the Peel Watershed, one of the last of its kind, quality, and size on the planet.

Development in such a landscape would have very dire consequences for the life that sustains itself there, whether it be wildlife, vegetation, or even people who are dependent on the health of the ecosystem for their livelihoods.

The impact that we have through development of natural resources is not confined - the components of an ecosystem are interdependent on each other in ways that we do not even fully understand."

From a New Zealander: "I think mining can be done in environmental friendly ways or at least have the impact minimized to a sustainable level.

[…] However, I think there is huge importance in leaving areas pristine.

We don't have to mine everywhere, and once you begin development, it will never be untouched again.

Furthermore I think there are great benefits in having large, connected and productive untouched ecosystems.

These are important on many levels; biologically for maintaining healthy viable populations, scientifically for studying the population dynamics such as climate change without a human impact variable and culturally for retaining an example of these systems for the next generation, to name just a few.

I read a case study during my university degree on a team of scientists in New Zealand trying to return a coastal freshwater lake to its natural pre‐human condition.

The scientists were unable to find an example of an undisturbed lake to replicate.

Every single lake within NZ had a human impact variable.

I was shocked that as a conservation leader, New Zealand had reached a point of no return.

We could never go back."

And from an Ontario resident: "The boom‐bust cycle of the development proposed in the Peel will bring some years of development to the Yukon, but not economic prosperity to the Territory in the mid- to long term. History and facts reveal that industry leaves minimal profit, is a burden on the Yukon's energy sources and infrastructure, and leaves a hazardous mess in its wake. Ultimately, the costs of compromising the integrity of one of the last pieces of wilderness left on this planet outweigh the short-term economic gains."

Final plan is 'fair and balanced'

The government said this theme is related to the perspective that despite a majority wanting 100 percent protection from nonrenewable resource extraction in the Peel Watershed the actual Final Recommended Plan compromised by permanently protecting only 55 percent.

This theme is also associated with the view that all members of the public, including representatives of the non‐renewable resource sector had a fair opportunity to have their views considered during the extensive six‐year‐long consultation process.

Finally, from this perspective the plan is seen as balanced, because it is open to cyclical review and because it allows development including mineral and oil and gas extraction.

For example, a Yukon resident stated, "The Peel Planning Commission's Final Recommended Plan is the result of an extensive process, involving hundreds of Yukoners, and years of debate and negotiation, a wise document that balances our desire to have a successful and growing economy, yet affords true protection of an irreplaceable treasure, the Peel Watershed, for future generations."

Final plan is neither 'balanced nor fair'

Respondents that share this perspective, said the Commission's final plan is biased against development because it fails to sufficiently take into account the economic value of non‐renewable resources present in the Peel Watershed. Further, this theme is related to the view that too little is known about the mineral and oil and gas potential of the region to make reasonable and informed decisions about which areas should be preserved from development at any cost. Also associated with this theme is the view that the final plan is truly not a land use plan but rather a land preservation plan.

A Yukon resident, for example, said, "First and foremost the mineral resources, oil and gas potential in the Peel Watershed need to be identified and protected (in reserve) for the Crown, Yukon Government and all Canadian citizens future economic development. Once identified, then a process can be negotiated for protection of the remaining watershed system. These resources belong to the future generations for their economical need. It would be economic suicide for Canadian and Yukon citizens to not have these vast resources available for future generations' economic needs."

A Whitehorse resident shared this: "The final recommended plan does not take into consideration our economy, our future or what is fair to the interests of the territory. We should not let foreign environmental groups, who contribute little to the health and wellbeing of the Yukon, determine our future. Outfitting concessions and eco‐tourist groups leave a large footprint on the land, just as much as any exploration program in the area. Maybe wilderness tourism companies and outfitters should be charged public resource as well as reclamation fees, as is standard in the mining industry?"

Another Whitehorse resident offered: "I support a more balanced land use plan, one that shares the values of everyone. The final recommended plan does not take into consideration jobs, employment and the Yukon being able to pay its bills in the long term."

Respect the Umbrella Final Agreement

Under Chapter 11 of the Umbrella Final Agreement, the government must consult with affected First Nations and any affected Yukon community and then approve, reject or modify the plan as it applies to Crown land; about 97 percent of the Peel region is Crown land. Under the UFA, the affected First Nations also must consult with government and then approve, reject or modify the plan as it applies to their respective settlement lands.

Some comment reflected the perspective that the introduction by the Yukon government of new land use designations and concepts, as part of its final consultations on the Final Recommended Plan for the Peel Watershed, is, in effect, a violation of section 11.6.3 of the 1993 Umbrella Final Agreement.

From this perspective, the Yukon government was limited to public consultations on the FRP and that the introduction of its own proposals prepared in‐house and independently from the PWPC are in contradiction with the Yukon government's land use planning obligations.

Finally, this perspective is also related to the view that the Yukon government had ample opportunity to introduce its proposed designations and concepts in support of a more balanced land use planning approach back in 2009, and since it failed to do so at that time, has effectively abrogated any rights to do so at this time.

A Whitehorse resident, for example, said: "The Peel Commission's work and plan are the result of a process laid out under the Final Agreements. These processes were created to ensure that communities make decisions about their resources at a local level. Final approval by the Minister is there to ensure accountability of the process, not as a means to implement a different agenda. If there was a significant problem with the Peel planning process, itself, then that should be examined. But if the process was sound (and I believe that it was) and produced a result not to the taste of the government of the day, then that plan should still be respected."

From a Yukon resident: "After years of discussion and research, within the parameters of a transparent process led by the Peel Watershed Planning Commission, the people of the Yukon finalized a plan to protect the Peel Watershed in 2011.

The details of these deliberations can be found in the Umbrella Final Agreement, a contract between the Yukon government and First Nations.

The plan being presented by (the Yukon government), although elected to represent the people of the Yukon, is not the existing plan outlined in that agreement.

Our current government has developed its own revised plan from behind closed doors.

[…] So in summary, our current government wants to implement a revised plan that requires that

Yukoners put aside all the previous public consultation and study that has gone into an informed land use/protection plan; agree to less protected land and more land designated to mining and gas/oil exploration; ignore the fact that we have a legal contract with First Nations which outlines how we said we would deal with Peel area; and embrace the fantasy that we can develop a wilderness and it will still be wild."

And from a British Columbia resident: "In the final analysis (the Yukon government's) actions in rejecting the plan appear to be a prima facie violation of the Yukon Land Claim Agreement and failure to live up to the spirit of the (Umbrella Final Agreement). In fact, one might argue that if the commission had proposed protecting only 20 percent of the region there would be strong pressure to accept it from some quarters on the grounds that it had been arrived at through due process."

Other themes threaded through the comments include: Process has been undemocratic and disrespectful; exhibit courageous leadership; future land use planning has been undermined; roads and wilderness are incompatible; new designations and concepts are not a land use plan; unhappiness with the open house consultation format; preference for 100 percent protection of the Peel Watershed; opposition to the Restricted Use Wilderness Area designations; support for the RUWA designations; and support for the Yukon government proposals.

Yukon Environment Minister Currie Dixon said, "The government will review the 'What We Heard' document, complete consultations with affected First Nations, and then move to conclude the planning process in a way that achieves balance and respects the environment as well as all sectors of the economy."

The "What We Heard" report and a compilation of all comments received are available at http://www.peelconsultation.ca.