UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Northern land use planning : a context for wildlife habitat management and conservation in the Beaufort… Rueggeberg, Harriet 1983

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1983_A6_7 R83.pdf [ 7.58MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0095771.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0095771-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0095771-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0095771-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0095771-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0095771-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0095771-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0095771-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0095771.ris

Full Text

NORTHERN LAND USE PLANNING: A CONTEXT FOR WILDLIFE HABITAT MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION IN THE BEAUFORT SEA-MACKENZIE DELTA REGION by HARRIET IRMA RUEGGEBERG B.Sc, Dalhousie University, 1977 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES School Of Community And Regional Planning IA We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA October 1983 © Harriet Irma Rueggeberg, 1983 In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements fo r an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s thesis f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by h i s or her representatives. I t i s understood that copying or publication of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Community and Regional Planning The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date DE-6 (3/81) i i Abstract This thesis focusses on the c o n f l i c t between the land use requirements of o i l and gas development and w i l d l i f e habitat in the Beaufort Sea-Mackenzie Delta region, and how i t i s being resolved by the federal government. It is argued that even i f values associated with w i l d l i f e and w i l d l i f e habitat were adequately recognized at the operational l e v e l , the government's mechanisms for land use planning and management are inadequate to ensure the long-term conservation of important w i l d l i f e resources. S p e c i f i c a l l y , the objectives of the thesis are: • to determine c r i t e r i a for a northern land use planning and management regime that would ensure that i t i s capable of recognizing w i l d l i f e habitat as an important land use; • to analyze ex i s t i n g i n s t i t u t i o n a l mechanisms and government a c t i v i t i e s in l i g h t of these c r i t e r i a ; • to determine where changes in the planning/management regime are necessary. The relevant features of the current land administration regime and land use interests north of 60° are described. As well, an on-going land use c o n f l i c t in the Beaufort Sea region is documented to i l l u s t r a t e how government deals with such issues; that i s , the 'real' policy regarding w i l d l i f e habitat and i n d u s t r i a l development in northern land use decisions. Gulf-Canada Resources Incorporated's proposal and application to construct a deep water harbour f a c i l i t y at Stokes Point on the north Yukon coast serves as the case example. In comparing the current land administration regime and government actions regarding Gulf's proposal to the c r i t e r i a that are suggested for an idealized land use planning and management system, i t is concluded that: • the federal government lacks a c l e a r l y a r t i c u l a t e d policy which indicates land and resource use p r i o r i t i e s in the North. • although i t has stated that the establishment of a northern land use planning process is a high p r i o r i t y , DIAND's e f f o r t s to date have not been successful in this regard. There i s as yet no well-defined approach to northern land use planning through which major land use decisions can be dealt with in a systematic and comprehensive manner. • although i t is charged with administering land and resources north of 60°, the commitment of the Department of Indian A f f a i r s and Northern Development (DIAND) to protecting the natural environment and maintaining the i n t e g r i t y of w i l d l i f e habitat in the Beaufort Sea-Mackenzie Delta region i s in doubt. • DIAND has also f a i l e d to adhere to p r i n c i p l e s of cooperation and 'due process' that are valued in an open and comprehensive land use planning process. Therefore, the following measures are recommended to improve northern land use planning and management in the interests of e f f e c t i v e w i l d l i f e habitat management and conservat ion. Land use planning: • DIAND should continue i t s e f f o r t s , in cooperation with t e r r i t o r i a l governments and native organizations, to establish an accepted land use planning process. This process should be in place before further major development proposals are considered. DIAND should then review, and amend where appropriate, the elements of the current land administration in l i g h t of goals and pr i n c i p l e s established under this comprehensive planning process. W i l d l i f e habitat conservation: • A land use planning process for the North should be able to recognize w i l d l i f e habitat as an important, and where necessary, highest p r i o r i t y land use. Incorporating a regional habitat i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and zoning strategy into a land use planning process i s one method of achieving this recognition. Policy development: • Simultaneous to developing a northern land use planning process, DIAND is also formulating a northern conservation strategy. Clearly these two p o l i c i e s are conceptually and functionally related, and their development should be clos e l y integrated. Northern Yukon: • Values and p r i o r i t i e s regarding land use in northern Yukon should be openly reviewed and assessed. If i t is resolved that w i l d l i f e habitat should remain as a primary land use, i t is suggested that a park, national w i l d l i f e area or combination thereof be established in conjunction with native land claim agreements in the region. Table of Contents Abstract i i L i s t of Tables v i i L i s t of Figures v i i i Acknowledgements x I. INTRODUCTION 1 1 . 1 The Problem 1 1.2 Thesis Context And Rationale 3 1 .3 Methods 8 II. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 10 2.1 W i l d l i f e Habitat Management And Conservation 10 2.1.1 Protecting W i l d l i f e Habitat: Why Bother? 13 2.2 Land Use Planning 16 2.3 W i l d l i f e Habitat Conservation And Land Use Planning 21 I I I . EVALUATIVE FRAMEWORK 2 3 3 . 1 Rationale 23 3.2 C r i t e r i a For An Administrative System For W i l d l i f e Habitat Management Within Northern Land Use Planning 25 IV. THE ADMINISTRATION OF NORTHERN LANDS AND WILDLIFE ..31 4.1 Northern Land Use Planning I n i t i a t i v e s 33 4.1.1 DIAND - The NLUPP 33 4.1.2 Yukon - A Land Use Planning Policy 36 4.1.3 E f f o r t s In The NWT ...38 4.1.4 Response From Native Groups 39 4.1.5 NLUPP - Summary 41 4.2 Northern W i l d l i f e Habitat Management 42 4.2.1 Policy In DIAND 42 4.2.2 DOE And The Canadian W i l d l i f e Service 45 4.2.3 T e r r i t o r i a l W i l d l i f e Agencies 48 4.2.4 Conservation Policy E f f o r t s In The North 50 4.3 Native Land Claims 52 v i 4.4 The NEP And COGLA 55 4.4.1 The National Energy Program 55 4.4.2 Mandate And Attitudes In COGLA 56 4.5 The Beaufort Sea Environmental Assessment And Review Process 59 4.6 Northern National Parks 62 4.7 Summary 65 V. STOKES POINT: A CASE EXAMPLE 68 5.1 Introduction 68 5.2 Northern Yukon - Ecological And W i l d l i f e C haracteristics 69 5.3 Conservation Interests In Northern Yukon, 76 5.4 Industrial Interests In Northern Yukon 85 5.4.1 The Beaufort Sea EIS 86 5.4.2 Gulf's Proposal For Stokes Point 89 5.4.3 Gulf's Application For A Land Use Permit 92 5.5 Response To Gulf's Proposal 95 5.5.1 DIAND 95 5.5.2 DOE 98 5.5.3 YTG 1 0 1 5.5.4 Native Groups 102 5.5.5 Nongovernmental Organizations 103 5.6 The Implications For W i l d l i f e 105 5.7 Summary i..112 VI. EVALUATION 115 VII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 121 7 . 1 Summary 129 7.2 F i n a l Comments 131 VI11 . ADDENDUM 133 BIBLIOGRAPHY 135 v i i APPENDIX A - LEGISLATION FOR NORTHERN LANDS AND WILDLIFE 148 APPENDIX B - COMPONENTS OF THE INUVIALUIT AGREEMENT-IN-PRINCIPLE . . ." 155 0. v i i i L i s t of Tables 1. Major events and proposals for northern Yukon 75 i x L i s t o f F i g u r e s 1. L o c a t i o n o f B e a u f o r t Sea-Mackenzie D e l t a r e g i o n .2 2. A s i m p l i f i e d .planning p r o c e s s 17 3. N o r t h e r n Yukon - w i l d l i f e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 70 4. P r o p o s a l s f o r n o r t h e r n Yukon 80 5. Major o i l and gas d i s c o v e r i e s and l e a s e h o l d s i n the B e a u f o r t Sea-Mackenzie D e l t a r e g i o n 87 X Acknowledgement I am indebted to B i l l Rees for his encouragement, perseverence and counsel during my two years at the Planning School. His knowledge and enthusiasm served as a source of i n s p i r a t i o n during the many f r u s t r a t i n g points of thesis writing. Special thanks also go to Andy Thompson, whose advice provided the much needed 'other' point of view. As well, long talks with Irving Fox provided many good ideas and wise counsel. Knowing B i l l , Andy and Irving has contributed immeasureably to my professional as well as my personal development. I very much appreciated the comments and insights that Gordon Hartman provided as external examiner of my thes i s . I also wish to acknowledge and thank the many people i n the Department of Environment and Department of Indian A f f a i r s and Northern Development of the federal government, and the respective Departments of Renewable Resources of the governments of Yukon and of the Northwest T e r r i t o r i e s , who offered valuable comments and provided the information and documentation necessary to carry out my analysis. I am grateful to the Donner Canadian Foundation for f i n a n c i a l support through a grant to Dr. Rees, as well as to the Canadian A r c t i c Resources Committee for providing the funds and f a c i l i t i e s which enabled me to carry out much of my research i n Ottawa. Heartfelt thanks go also to my 'cohorts i n crime 1 at the Planning School - to Brenda, Kathy, Robin, John, Jim and Bob - for t h e i r encouragement, and many useful hours spent c o l l e c t i v e l y pondering planning, p o l i c i e s , government and the world i n general. F i n a l l y , words are inadequate to express my gratitude to my husband, Brent, whose support, patience and love made my e f f o r t s possible. x i LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AIWR(C) Ar c t i c International W i l d l i f e Range (Conference) ANWR Arc t i c National W i l d l i f e Range AWAC Arc t i c Waters Advisory Committee BSEAP Beaufort Sea Environmental Assessment Panel CARC Canadian Arctic Resources Committee CBC Canadian Broadcasting Corporation CEAC Canadian Environmental Advisory Council COGLA Canada O i l and Gas Lands Administration COGA Canada O i l and Gas Act COPE Committee for Or i g i n a l Peoples' Entitlement CWA Canada W i l d l i f e Act CWS Canadian W i l d l i f e Service CYI Council for Yukon Indians DFO Department of Fishe r i e s and Oceans DIAND Department of Indian A f f a i r s and Northern Development DOE Department of the Environment (or Environment Canada) EARP Environmental Assessment.and Review Process EIS environmental impact statement EMR (Department of) Energy, Mines and Resources FEARO Federal Environmental Assessment and Review Office GNWT Government of the Northwest T e r r i t o r i e s IBP International B i o l o g i c a l Programme IERC Interdepartmental Environmental Review Committee IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources NEP National Energy Program NGO non-governmental organization NIWA Northern Inland Waters Act NLUPP Northern Land Use Planning Policy NPA National Parks Act NWA National W i l d l i f e Area NWT Northwest T e r r i t o r i e s TLA T e r r i t o r i a l Lands Act TLUR 's T e r r i t o r i a l Land Use Regulations YTG Yukon T e r r i t o r i a l Government 1 I. INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Problem Large-scale hydrocarbon development is imminent in the Beaufort Sea-Mackenzie Delta region in northern Canada (Figure 1 ) . Although much of the exploration and production w i l l occur offshore, extensive land based f a c i l i t i e s w i l l be required to support this development. However, there are many other resources and values associated with the land in i t s natural state which can c o n f l i c t with development interests. This thesis focusses on one such source of c o n f l i c t ; that of maintaining land for w i l d l i f e habitat in the Beaufort Sea-Mackenzie Delta region. It i s the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the federal government to resolve land use c o n f l i c t s , since i t 'owns' and manages some 99% of the lands north of the 60th p a r a l l e l . Given that conserving w i l d l i f e habitat i s a stated goal of government, the purpose of t h i s thesis i s to address the questions: do government decisions and planning for land use in t h i s region in fact r e f l e c t a commitment to e f f e c t i v e management and conservation of w i l d l i f e habitat? If not, what are the impediments; and how could the situation be remedied? S p e c i f i c a l l y , the following objectives are addressed: ® To i d e n t i f y stated government goals pertaining to land use planning and w i l d l i f e conservation in the North, and then to suggest c r i t e r i a for a northern land use planning and management system that would ensure that i t is capable of recognizing w i l d l i f e habitat as an important land use; • To analyze existing i n s t i t u t i o n a l mechanisms and government a c t i v i t i e s in l i g h t of these c r i t e r i a , for 2 Figure 1 - Location of Beaufort Sea-Mackenzie Delta region (adapted from Dome et a l . , ]982a,b) 3 their effectiveness in meeting land use planning and w i l d l i f e habitat conservation goals in the Beaufort Sea-Mackenzie Delta region; • To determine changes in the planning/management system that are necessary to meet these goals and to recommend ways of achieving these changes, where feasib l e . 1.2 Thesis Context And Rationale Since 1968, the o i l industry has spent over one b i l l i o n d o l l a r s on o i l and gas exploration a c t i v i t i e s in the Beaufort Sea-Mackenzie Delta region. Assuming commercial' reserves are confirmed, developers estimate that production could begin as soon as 1987, at 38,000 barrels of o i l per day. By the year 2000, o i l production could climb to 700,000 barrels/day and gas production to 60 m i l l i o n cubic meters per day. By that time, t o t a l investment would reach 65 to 100 b i l l i o n (1981) dol l a r s (Dome Petroleum Limited et a_l. , 1982a). Much of the land which proponents of Beaufort Sea hydrocarbon development propose to use for storage, production, housing and transportation f a c i l i t i e s supports a wealth of w i l d l i f e populations on a permanent or seasonal basis. However, the government's a b i l i t y to come to terms with the c o n f l i c t of w i l d l i f e habitat needs versus development requirements is being questioned, for two reasons. F i r s t , the federal government has not implemented any sort of systematic planning process for northern development that would ensure adequate consideration of a l l land use values. Second, Ottawa has an enormous stake in 4 non-renewable resource development in the North, both p o l i t i c a l l y and f i n a n c i a l l y , as a result of years of tax incentives and subsidies to o i l and gas developers. Examining the f i r s t reason more closely, any rational approach to land management looks at a range of alternative land uses in order to decide what are the 'best uses' of the land'in terms of i t s inherent c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , present needs and values of society, and desired future options. However, as ultimate con t r o l l e r of northern land use, the federal government has been often c r i t i c i z e d for i t s lack in t h i s respect: "No regional development framework exists at present; thus, i n d u s t r i a l projects cannot be viewed in a long-term, cumulative and comprehensive context so as to maximize regional and lo c a l socio-economic benefits and minimize environmental impacts; the lack of such a planning framework could preclude future resource use options. Coupled with this i s the lack of a focused forum within which c o n f l i c t i n g interests may be openly debated and balanced; the interests of a l l those affected must be considered in the decision-making process." (Task Force on Beaufort Sea Developments, 1981: 17. See also: Naysmith, 1976; Rees, 1978; Richardson, 1982a.) In essence, while there are administrative processes dealing with land a l l o c a t i o n and environmental regulation for i n d u s t r i a l development, there has been no o v e r a l l land use planning framework; no established set of p r i n c i p l e s guiding the consideration of land uses other than those proposed by industry; "Industry's short-term t a c t i c a l plans are examined c a r e f u l l y as part of the approval process, but their application usually has been seen in i s o l a t i o n , and not in the comprehensive context on the long-term.... the plans have had a tendency to become 5 generally accepted, and thi s i s happening without any clear i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the assumptions on which these plans are based." (Task Force on Beaufort Sea Development, 1981: 18) Only since 1981 has the government attempted to resolve t h i s problem, with the introduction of a Northern Land Use Planning Program. However, to date, the program has not met with success or even acceptance in the North (see chapter IV). Regarding the second reason, hydrocarbon megaprojects in the north are at t r a c t i v e to Ottawa for several reasons. Such projects have the potential to stimulate economic growth, thereby ameliorating national unemployment problems; the increased economic a c t i v i t y a t t r a c t s foreign and domestic investment c a p i t a l ; greater substitution of foreign o i l , and hence a lower national o i l import d e f i c i t , can be anticipated; in the north, the federal government alone has legal right to roy a l t i e s and enjoys sole regulatory control; and such a c t i v i t y enhances Canada's sovereignty claim in the North (Dacks, 1981). However, at the same time, the federal government is supposed to act as environmental protector in the North. The Department of Indian A f f a i r s and Northern Development (DIAND), as chief administrator and coordinator of federal a c t i v i t i e s north of 60°, c a r r i e s the bulk of the dual i n d u s t r i a l development/environmental protection mandate. Many concerned with maintaining the natural environment believe that this part of i t s role suffers in the interests of development: "While the government of Canada i s o f f i c i a l l y committed to the.. ..protect ion of the northern 6 environment, and some federal o f f i c i a l s sincerely seek these ends, the balance of power and opinion in Ottawa favours nonrenewable resource development over providing for native people and the environment" (Dacks, 1981:26). "...performance to date does not give (the A r c t i c Waters Advisory Committee) confidence that Canada i s committed to or capable of maintaining renewable resources in the face of any long term or incremental a c t i v i t y such as ( o i l and gas) exploration and production on the land and offshore.." (AWAC, 1980). In short, the absence of any systematic land use planning framework, and an apparent government bias favouring i n d u s t r i a l development, leaves the prospects for maintaining land for w i l d l i f e habitat in the Beaufort Sea-Mackenzie Delta region in doubt. Society i s becoming increasingly aware that natural l i v i n g resources are dwindling as a result of economic and i n d u s t r i a l expansion. "Economic proprietorship" (Theberge, 1981) t y p i c a l l y p r e v a i l s ; ecological considerations are usually made subservient to economic goals. Hence, they are rarely given s u f f i c i e n t importance to impede i n d u s t r i a l development. Obviously, the values associated with the importance of maintaining natural ecosystems and habitats must be strongly voiced i f goals other than economic growth are to be attained. This i s p a r t i c u l a r l y true in Canada, where large areas of r e l a t i v e l y p r i s t i n e wilderness s t i l l e x i s t . In the North, such large areas are of c r i t i c a l importance where, due to the lower temperatures and shorter growing seasons, natural levels of 7 productivity are much lower than in southern climates. As a res u l t , northern animal species depend on larger areas to meet their n u t r i t i o n a l needs than do their southern counterparts. Therefore, habitat protection and management must be considered on a much larger scale in order to be e f f e c t i v e in maintaining w i l d l i f e . However, the same vast areas contain many of the mineral and hydrocarbon reserves considered to be of great economic value. The North i s commonly viewed as a mineral treasurehouse awaiting the economic and technological f e a s i b i l i t y to be exploited; " . . i n major terms that can af f e c t the o v e r a l l wealth of Canada, the economic future of the North l i e s in the ground" (DIAND, 1972: 3:32). This thesis does not advocate a 'no development' philosophy when considering resource use in the North. However, i t does emphasize that a l l s i g n i f i c a n t values associated with the land should be considered in decisions a f f e c t i n g the a l l o c a t i o n of land resources. At the very least, the use of nonrenewable resources should be planned and implemented with a s e n s i t i v i t y to the needs of l i v i n g resources and their uses. W i l d l i f e habitat and i t s conservation i s a major land use in the North, and therefore should be incorporated in any land a l l o c a t i o n , administration or planning exercise. As i s discussed in chapter III, government policy statements appear to place a high p r i o r i t y on the protection of w i l d l i f e and the natural environment. However, government action, or rather reaction, suggests that i n d u s t r i a l interests take precedence 8 over w i l d l i f e conservation; that i s , what government says d i f f e r s from what government does. This leaves one to ask: are the present administrative system and i n s t i t u t i o n a l mechanisms in the North capable of protecting w i l d l i f e values? Moreover, does the government responsible for land administration want to? 1 . 3 Methods The f i r s t objective of this thesis i s addressed by looking at relevant l e g i s l a t i o n and stated government p o l i c i e s which indicate government goals for land planning and habitat conservation in northern Canada. Guiding p r i n c i p l e s that are necessary to f u l f i l l these goals are derived from the l i t e r a t u r e on land use planning, environmental management, and w i l d l i f e management and conservation. These are developed in the next chapter, and 'performance c r i t e r i a ' based on these p r i n c i p l e s are subsequently derived in chapter I I I . The second objective i s c a r r i e d out by describing the present land and w i l d l i f e habitat management regime in the North (chapter I V ) , and then by documenting a current land use issue which i l l u s t r a t e s the federal approach to land use planning and management, and r e f l e c t s the l e v e l of government interest in habitat conservation (chapter V ) . The findings of t h i s case example ( i . e . , government action 'on the ground') are compared to the c r i t e r i a or guiding p r i n c i p l e s established through the f i r s t objective. 9 For the t h i r d objective, recommendations are made for improving the land administration system to r e f l e c t habitat management goals. Methods used in researching this thesis consisted of: a review of the l i t e r a t u r e dealing with land use planning and w i l d l i f e habitat management, to derive general p r i n c i p l e s for their e f f e c t i v e implementation; a review of the l i t e r a t u r e dealing with proposed Beaufort Sea development, to gain an understanding of the nature and magnitude of development a c t i v i t i e s ; a study of the l e g i s l a t i o n and i n s t i t u t i o n a l structures associated with land and w i l d l i f e administration in the North, as well as the l i t e r a t u r e c r i t i q u i n g their performance, to gain some feeling for their effectiveness; a review of the current and proposed policy and position statements regarding land and/or w i l d l i f e management made by federal and t e r r i t o r i a l government agencies, native associations, and nongovernmental organizations; personal and telephone interviews and correspondence with representatives of the above parties . Relevant information was also gathered and analyzed from background documents such as reports, memoranda, b r i e f s and l e t t e r s . 10 I I . CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Before examining government policy and the i n s t i t u t i o n a l framework related to northern land use planning and w i l d l i f e habitat management and conservation, i t is necessary to define these terms as they are used in thi s thesis. 2.1 W i l d l i f e Habitat Management And Conservation This thesis uses the term w i l d l i fe to denote a l l undomesticated plants and animals. Habitat is defined as "that place where the needs of a species for food, water, cover and reproduction s i t e s are met" (Lang and Armour, 1980: 100). When applied to w i l d l i f e , management is defined as "the science and art of changing the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and interactions of habitats, wild animal populations and man in order to achieve s p e c i f i c human goals by means of w i l d l i f e resources" (Giles, 1969:21). Management ranges along a spectrum from s t r i c t non-intervention to active manipulation of natural and socioeconomic systems; part of the "science" and "art" in w i l d l i f e management is knowing what is the appropriate mix of intervention/non-intervention, and which elements of the interacting systems to treat, in a given s i t u a t i o n . W i l d l i f e management may appear to be a contradiction in terms; how indeed can anything be tr u l y 'wild' i f man manages it ? Nevertheless, i t is becoming increasingly apparent that man must interfere with his own a c t i v i t i e s , and in some cases with natural processes, in order to protect existing w i l d l i f e . As 11 such, w i l d l i f e management is based on two cornerstones: regulating the use of w i l d l i f e populations, and protecting and enhancing habitat. "The idea is not to mould nature but to manage direct and indi r e c t human influences so as to minimize their impact on natural processes" (Schoenfeld and Hendee, 1978:96). Definitions of conservation range from the s t r i c t l y preservationist orientation, to the perspective of "wise use" of resources so as to ensure sustained benefits (A W i l d l i f e Strategy for Canada, 1982). The l a t t e r perspective i s adopted in this thesis, and encompasses "deliberate, planned or thoughtful preserving, guarding or protecting.... planned management of a natural resource to prevent (over)exploitation, destruction or neglect...(Goodman, 1982:177). "Conservation can refer to the application of measures that in some way restrain the otherwise free use of a resource in order to ensure that i t retains certain desireable natural properties" (Holt and Talbot, 1978:21 ) . Conservation can refer to s p e c i f i c measures in themselves, or i t can refer to an ethic which pervades a l l planning, management, or development a c t i v i t i e s . It seems that so far, emphasis has been on the former perspective, perhaps because i t is easier to conceptualize, implement and administer. However, i f a s o c i e t a l goal is to maintain w i l d l i f e populations, then i t i s the l a t t e r concept that land use management must eventually emphasize. That i s , management and conservation are not separate a c t i v i t i e s ; management of a l l resources, not just 1 2 w i l d l i f e , should be conceived and implemented according to p r i n c i p l e s based on conservation of the resource. Holt and Talbot . (1978:14-15,26) suggest such p r i n c i p l e s for conservation-oriented management: a. "(A primary goal should be) to maintain resource systems in a desireable state, defined as one that f u l f i l l s the following three conditions: i . consumptive and nonconsumptive values could be maximized on a continuing basis; i i . d i v e r s i t y of present and future options in using (a resource system) are ensured; i i i . risk of i r r e v e r s i b l e change or of long term adverse effects resulting from (resource) use is minimized. b. Management decisions should include a safety factor to allow for the facts that knowledge is limited and i n s t i t u t i o n s are imperfect. c. Measures to conserve a wild l i v i n g resource should be formulated and applied so as to avoid wasteful use of other resources. d. Survey or monitoring, analysis, and assessment should precede planned use and accompany actual use of ... resources." Similar p r i n c i p l e s of conservation, adapted from the World Conservation Strategy (IUCN, 1980), are advocated in the draft document, "A W i l d l i f e Strategy for Canada" (1982): a. maintain ecosystems (essential ecological processes) upon which w i l d l i f e and man depend; b. preserve genetic d i v e r s i t y ; c. ensure that enjoyment and use are sustainable. 13 2.1.1 Protecting W i l d l i f e Habitat: Why Bother? Those who believe that resource use should be measured by i t s a b i l i t y to augment economic growth may dismiss the protection of the natural environment and w i l d l i f e habitat as a wasteful land use. However, there are many important values, tangible and intangible, associated with t h i s use that should be recognized in land use decisions. Protection and management of habitat is recognized as a key factor in the maintenance and enhancement of w i l d l i f e populations. Therefore, to appreciate the value of habitat maintenance, one must consider the values associated with w i l d l i f e i t s e l f . Much has been written on the subject of w i l d l i f e values. Ehrenfeld (1978) deals eloquently with the general concept of nature conservation, and man's dilemma in coming to terms with economic versus non-economic values of the natural environment. Variations on these values are applicable to w i l d l i f e in northern Canada. From a market-oriented perspective, there are two schools of thought regarding the contribution w i l d l i f e makes, or can make, to the northern economy (Dacks, 1981). There are those who view hunting, trapping and fi s h i n g as p o t e n t i a l l y sustainable sources of income (through the sale of fur, skins and meat) and sustenance to northerners (Berger, 1977b, chapter 2; Friesen and Nelson, 1978); who claim that "country food" is superior in n u t r i t i o n a l content and cheaper, based on replacement value, than store-bought equivalents (Schaefer and Steckle, 1980); and who argue that wilderness-dependent tourism, 1 4 outdoor recreation and sport hunting can be lucrative and sustainable economic a c t i v i t i e s i f c a r e f u l l y regulated (Friesen and Nelson, 1978Theberge, 1981). On the other hand, emphasizing the low natural productivity of the land and the po t e n t i a l l y increasing demand from a growing northern population, there are those who view economic reliance and subsistence on w i l d l i f e as highly limited, and ambitions to expand i t as foolhardy (Stabler, 1978; F u l l e r and Hubert, 1981; McTaggart-Cowan, 1981). However, in considering the uses made of w i l d l i f e by northerners, p a r t i c u l a r l y native peoples, one must also consider the non-market benefits derived by these people from a way of l i f e that includes hunting, trapping, and f i s h i n g . Native peoples have i d e n t i f i e d l i v i n g from the land and i t s resources as an essential part of their heritage and culture (Berger, 1977a, chapter 8; Mercredi, 1978; COPE et a l . , 1978; CYI, 1982). There is a psychological s a t i s f a c t i o n and s e l f - d i g n i t y derived from being able to control and organize one's own means of l i v e l i h o o d , at least on a part-time basis. These are benefits that cannot be derived from a wage economy (Dacks, 1981). "Very simply, native people desire jobs and hunting, and not jobs rather than hunting" (Russell, 1979:60). There are a number of other important values Canadians associate with w i l d l i f e and the i r natural habitats: • aesthetic values - a general concern for "the beauty and inte g r i t y of the natural environment" (Fenge, 1982: 17) • s c i e n t i f i c values - w i l d l i f e as an environmental 15 indicator of the healthiness of man's world, as well as a baseline against which to compare modified environments • future option values - protecting habitat maintains species d i v e r s i t y , thereby ensuring that genetic reserves are maintained for future potential uses • ecological values - maintaining natural ecosystems "as an insurance to keep the earth suitable for man" (Park, 1980:233) • e t h i c a l values - recognition of a 'right to existence'; f u l f i l l i n g man's r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to allow other organisms to survive in a natural state at viable population l e v e l s , as well as to future human generations for their benefit and enjoyment. • s p i r i t u a l values - Schoenfeld and Hendee (1978:39) believe that the preservation of w i l d l i f e and habitat i s "essential to the human s p i r i t " . The natural environment provides man with a source of philosophical and s p i r i t u a l s t a b i l i t y ; in a sense, w i l d l i f e protection is a measure of humanity. "If we botch up ( w i l d l i f e ) management, we reinforce, a subtle pattern that can progressively degrade our very nature" ( i b i d . : 41). F i n a l l y , the fact that these complex natural l i v i n g systems exist holds an inherent value, irrespective of any contribution to man's well-being. This inherent value questions man's right to destroy in a few hundred years what has taken many millions to evolve (see Livingstone, 1981). 1 6 2.2 Land Use Planning To plan i s to devise strategies aimed at achieving desired goals in the future; " . . i n simplest terms, (planning) involves l i t t l e more than ide n t i f y i n g alternate courses of action and making a r a t i o n a l (derives most sa t i s f a c t i o n ) choice among them" (Rees, 1978:42). Extensive l i t e r a t u r e exists describing the process to be followed p a r t i c u l a r l y in public planning. One such process, adapted from Naysmith (1976), Rees (1978) and Lang and Armour (1980), is shown diagramatically in Figure 2. As noted in the figure, an essential c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of e f f e c t i v e planning i s that there should be extensive feedback, leading to r e i t e r a t i o n of the process, such that outcomes at any one stage can cause re-assessment of any other stage. This emphasizes the dynamic nature of planning, a process rather than product orientation; " ( i t is) a continuing process subject to s e l f -monitoring and responsive to changing conditions - i t is never complete" (Rees, 1978:43). Richardson (1982b: 6) defines land use planning as "an orderly process for making decisions about the location of undertakings and a c t i v i t i e s on the land and for resolving competing demands for the use of land and resources, based on predetermined p o l i c i e s and objectives". The p o l i c i e s and objectives should r e f l e c t the demands and desires for land use of the society being served. Naysmith (1973) maintains that a land use planning process should take into account: land c a p a b i l i t y and s u i t a b i l i t y ( those c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s that determine how conducive and/or adaptable the land-base i s to 1 7 ACTIVITY COMPONENTS FEEDBACK GOAL SETTING FORMULATION IMPLEMENTATION describe problem formulate goals and objectives inventory background information recognize lim i t a t i o n s / c o n s t r a i n t s i d e n t i f y priorities/needs formulate a l t e r n a t i v e modes of action choose an al t e r n a t i v e operationalize the alternative monitor, evaluate, modify Figure 2 - A s i m p l i f i e d planning process 18 various uses), t e r r a i n s e n s i t i v i t y , existing land use and occupancies, i n s t i t u t i o n a l and j u r i s d i c t i o n a l arrangements, and the needs and aspirations of the l o c a l population. Obviously, then, a comprehensive approach to land use planning i s desirable; comprehensive not in the sense that a l l aspects of land use are incorporated in a once-and-for-all 'master plan', as this refutes the process-oriented and dynamic nature of planning. Rather, comprehensiveness implies that in the planning process, decision-makers are made aware of alternative land uses and of the potential e f f e c t s of their decisions on these alternative uses. From an ecological standpoint, a comprehensive approach incorporates the understanding that in natural systems, perturbations of one element in the system may cause profound changes in other elements that were not linked in an obvious way. F i n a l l y , comprehensiveness implies a r e a l i z a t i o n that any one a c t i v i t y may not cause major alterations in and of i t s e l f , but by producing secondary or spin-off e f f e c t s , or in association with other independently planned a c t i v i t i e s , i t can create severe impacts on other resources. It is also desirable, as Richardson's (1982b) d e f i n i t i o n indicates, that a planning process be systematic; that the process follows known pr i n c i p l e s and a rational sequence of procedures in carrying out i t s planning function. This does not imply that these p r i n c i p l e s and procedures are inalterable; simply that they are clear and l o g i c a l to those implementing and those affected by the planning process. As such, a systematic 19 approach enhances the c l a r i t y and p r e d i c t a b i l i t y of the planning process and decisions that result from i t . Why i s land use planning necessary? Land and i t s resources are f i n i t e , but t y p i c a l l y , man's demands exceed known supplies of these resources. Competition for land and/or resources, for the same or c o n f l i c t i n g uses, is inevitable. Through planning, one endeavors to find the 'best use' of land by recognizing and weighing alternative uses in the context of what i s desired and what the land and i t s resources can sustain. "The object of land use planning is to i d e n t i f y the patterns of resource use that best accommodate the demands on land without diminishing or destroying the land's c a p a b i l i t y to meet those demands over the long term" (Environment Canada, 1982b:14). Also, i t is generally agreed that ad hoc decision-making in land a l l o c a t i o n i s not the best way to achieve optimal use of the land. In essence, i t is hoped that land use planning "reduces the number of decisions made on an ad hoc basis or as p o l i t i c a l compromises among c o n f l i c t i n g users" (Naysmith, 1976:119), thereby minimizing adverse effects of one land use on others and aiding the process of reconciling land use c o n f l i c t s (Richardson, 1982b). Furthermore, an open planning process, in which a l l parties affected are involved at c r i t i c a l stages, w i l l help decision-making by a i r i n g relevant values, goals, and aspirations, many of which may be overlooked without such involvement. "Well-informed and e f f e c t i v e p a r t i c i p a t i o n by interested groups and individuals, e s p e c i a l l y those most l i k e l y to be affected by the project(s) under 20 consideration, is important because i t w i l l reveal values, interests and preferences that should have influence, make such influence possible, and provide for needed scutiny of alleged 'facts' and value-positions from a variety of perspectives." (Gibson, 1982:49). Though universal s a t i s f a c t i o n never occurs, plans and decisions made through an open process should gain greater c r e d i b i l i t y and acceptance i f those affected by the decisions p a r t i c i p a t e in their formulation. Otherwise: "Decisions taken without an agreed upon approach may well intensify both issues and sources of c o n f l i c t to the point that they are impossible to resolve... land and related resources may not be put to their best use and possibly parts of our northern heritage may be l o s t " (DIAND, I982a:5). It i s important to note that production of 'a plan' i s not the ultimate goal in a planning exercise: "What i s sought is a consistent, rational and open  process of a r r i v i n g at decisions on land use, based on  c l e a r l y defined p o l i c i e s and purposes. In general, th i s w i l l require 'a plan', but the plan is only a means to an end" (Richardson, 1982a:8; emphasis added). As w i l l be discussed in chapter IV, land use planning has become a popular theme for northern Canada as being the means for ensuring r a t i o n a l resolution of land use c o n f l i c t s . However, Dacks (1981:190) warns that land use planning i s not the ultimate panacea; "planning is a to o l ; i t has l i t t l e power in and of i t s e l f ; rather i t r e l i e s on the power and authority of those who implement i t and sanction i t s implementation". 21 Boulding (1974:8) expresses a similar opinion: "The world moves into the future as a result of decisions, not as a result of plans...Planning may be defined in such a way that i t i s part of the t o t a l decision-making process, but i f i t is n o t . . . i t i s a bag of wind, a piece of paper and worthless diagrams". F i n a l l y , i t must be recognized that land use planning is a component of a more comprehensive planning process. "Land use planning provides the spatial and temporal framework for the implementation of o v e r a l l development policy; i t becomes the geographic expression of regional s o c i a l and economic objectives" (Rees, 1983b: 8 ) . Ideally, then, land use planning should be c a r r i e d out cognizant of and integrated with o v e r a l l regional planning. 2.3 W i l d l i f e Habitat Conservation And Land Use Planning "The extent to which w i l d l i f e and f i s h continue to survive depends largely on the control of environmental contamination and on wise land planning" (Lang and Armour, 1980:100). In the North, w i l d l i f e remains as an important renewable resource for the economic, c u l t u r a l , s p i r i t u a l and aesthetic values already described. Nelson (1976:113) stated t h i s importance simply: "..for land to be a meaningful and useful concept in the Ar c t i c i t must include w i l d l i f e " . Therefore, habitat and i t s management should be a major component in any northern land use planning and management strategy. To be able to deal with habitat e f f e c t i v e l y , land use 22 planning must have a basis in conservation and ecological p r i n c i p l e s ; a s e n s i t i v i t y and understanding of the relationships between man, other l i v i n g organisms and the environment - "a reverence for land, l i f e , and d i v e r s i t y " (Dorney, 1978:145). Also, not only planners should recognize the importance of habitat as a land use issue: "a major objective of w i l d l i f e managers should be to parti c i p a t e in the land use planning process to ensure that w i l d l i f e resource/land use c o n f l i c t s are minimized or eliminated..." (Donihee and Gray, 1982). Ultimately, w i l d l i f e habitat management and land use planning are both components of land management. Habitat acts as one of the land uses to be considered in any land management a c t i v i t i e s . Obviously, i t comes into c o n f l i c t with other land uses. Most conservation e f f o r t s to date have focussed on establishing protected areas in which other land uses are r e s t r i c t e d or prohibited. As such, these e f f o r t s are viewed by other land use interests as competitors in a 'land grab' race. To resolve these c o n f l i c t s f a i r l y , a planning and management regime must be able to be influenced by a l l values placed on the land and i t s resources. This chapter has discussed the reasons why land use planning and w i l d l i f e habitat management and conservation are necessary, as well as indicated some of the desirable elements of these a c t i v i t i e s . These elements are expanded upon in the next chapter by establishing the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a land use planning and management system that is capable of recognizing w i l d l i f e habitat as a p r i o r i t y land use. 23 III. EVALUATIVE FRAMEWORK Before examining and evaluating any management regime for i t s a b i l i t y to f u l f i l l certain goals, i t is important to f i r s t c l a r i f y the basis for judgement in the evaluation; that i s , what are the c r i t e r i a or guiding p r i n c i p l e s being used. The f i r s t section of t h i s chapter indicates what are the stated government goals regarding the natural environment and w i l d l i f e conservation in the North. The following section suggests what are desirable c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of an idealized land planning and management regime that would successfully achieve these goals. These c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s w i l l then act as the 'performance c r i t e r i a ' used in the subsequent chapters to evaluate the current system of northern land planning and management. 3.1 Rat ionale Federal government goals for north of 60° are given in "Canada's North: 1970-1980" (DIAND, 1972). Of the seven stated goals, the second i s : "To maintain and enhance the northern environment, with due consideration to economic and s o c i a l development... through such means as i n t e n s i f y i n g ecological research, establishing national parks, -ensuring w i l d l i f e conservation " (emphasis added). Although the "with due consideration" clause creates some uncertainty, other statements made in the policy emphasize environmental concerns: "...the needs of the people in the North are more important than resource development and...the 24 maintenance of ecological balance i s e s s e n t i a l . Perceptive or psychological needs are f u l f i l l e d by conserving the quality of the natural environment (which gives the native peoples in p a r t i c u l a r s a t i s f a c t i o n and s e c u r i t y ) . . . ...the d e l i c a t e l y balanced ecological system must be maintained and timely data provided to the Government, by a l l departments and agencies concerned, for making ef f e c t i v e policy decisions on protecting the environment. " A number of other policy and position statements made by DIAND, DOE, and t e r r i t o r i a l governments echo these p r i o r i t i e s on environmental quality, maintenance of ecosystems, and w i l d l i f e conservation in the north (see: DIAND, 1966, 1982b, 1982c; Environment Canada, 1981, 1982a, 1982b; NWT Government, 1977, 1982a; Yukon Government, 1976, 1980, 1982a). From these statements, the following points can be made regarding w i l d l i f e habitat in the context of land use planning and management: • that the federal and t e r r i t o r i a l governments have stated a commitment to maintain the northern natural envi ronment; • that these governments recognize that w i l d l i f e populations are v i t a l to the maintenance of natural ecosystems; • that many important values and .benefits are associated with natural ecosystems. Of p a r t i c u l a r importance in the north are the economic, s o c i a l and c u l t u r a l links of native peoples to the land and i t s l i v i n g resources. ® that such conservation considerations should pervade a l l land use plans, designs and management a c t i v i t i e s ; that "planning and management of i n d u s t r i a l development must be integrated with, and in harmony with conservation planning" (Russell, 1979: 85). 25 3.2 C r i t e r i a For An Administrative System For W i l d l i f e Habitat  Management Within Northern Land Use Planning Stated government goals are not s p e c i f i c in terms of providing guiding p r i n c i p l e s for the administration of lands for w i l d l i f e habitat. Instead, these have been derived from the discussion in chapter II and the l i t e r a t u r e dealing with land or w i l d l i f e planning and management. From these, the following c r i t e r i a are suggested for a system of land planning and administration which would ensure adequate management and conservation of lands for w i l d l i f e habitat in the Beaufort Sea-Mackenzie Delta region. 1. There should be a systematic and comprehensive approach to  land use planning and management. The importance of these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s to a land use planning process are discussed in chapter I I . To be systematic, a planning and management process would at a minimum have the following c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : o c l e a r l y defined and pub l i c l y accepted p o l i c i e s and purposes to guide the process of planning, reviewing and a l l o c a t i n g the use land and i t s resources; » well-defined procedures whereby land users are given f a i r opportunity to make their interests and values known and argued to decision-makers, before land use decisions are made; « well-defined mandates and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of a l l agencies involved; « accountability of decision-makers, such that the reasons for decisions, or changes thereto, are made public and r e f l e c t the values presented; e open and consistent application of the planning p r i n c i p l e s 26 and procedures, such that uncertainty over how any land use request w i l l be treated is diminished; • procedures for regular monitoring, review and evaluation of the planning process and related decisions, to determine i f p r i o r i t i e s should be changed, and whether the i n s t i t u t i o n s and methods used to implement plans are f u l f i l l i n g t heir requi rements. To be comprehensive in both a s p a t i a l and temporal sense, land use planning should not be on a piecemeal, proposal-by-proposal basis, but should consider the effects of any one development in company with present and future developments on other land uses. For example, development of a single storage f a c i l i t y may, in i t s e l f , appear r e l a t i v e l y innocuous. However, the potential for associated development of transportation f a c i l i t i e s to and from the storage s i t e , and the subsequent increase in human population and t r a f f i c into o r i g i n a l l y remote areas may have undesirable effects on natural ecosystems. A ' h o l i s t i c ' view i s necessary to achieve the wider economic and s o c i a l goals of regional planning, to decide what types and rates of development are or are not desirable in the interest of using the same or surrounding lands for w i l d l i f e habitat or any other land use, and to plan for mitigative procedures accordingly. 2. As part of a comprehensive approach to land use planning,  w i l d l i f e habitat i s recognized as an important land use. As discussed previously, a comprehensive approach to land use planning means that before any decisions or commitments are made regarding hydrocarbon development proposals, alternative land 27 uses and t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e v a l u e s a r e openly c o n s i d e r e d and a s s e s s e d . S i n c e the importance and v a l u e s of w i l d l i f e h a b i t a t are p u b l i c l y acknowledged, the p l a n n i n g system s h o u l d be a b l e t o r e c o g n i z e m a i n t a i n i n g h a b i t a t as a p r i o r i t y over o t h e r l a n d uses where a p p r o p r i a t e ; t h a t i s , where w i l d l i f e ' s use of the l a n d i s ' s i g n i f i c a n t ' . To determine what i s ' s i g n i f i c a n t ' , a p r o c e s s of e v a l u a t i n g and e s t a b l i s h i n g the r e l a t i v e importance of l a n d a r e a s t o w i l d l i f e s h o u l d be e s t a b l i s h e d . Then, i n r e s p o n d i n g t o the needs of w i l d l i f e , a l a n d p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s might, f o r example, c a t e g o r i z e such a r e a s w i t h r e s p e c t t o the importance they p l a y i n the l i f e c y c l e of l o c a l p o p u l a t i o n s , and p l a n the a l l o c a t i o n of l a n d f o r oth e r uses i n accordance w i t h the degree of p r o t e c t i o n r e q u i r e d f o r h i g h p r i o r i t y a r e a s . 3. In a p l a n n i n g and management p r o c e s s d e s i g n e d t o r e c o g n i z e  and i n c o r p o r a t e w i l d l i f e v a l u e s , a c a u t i o u s a t t i t u d e t o a l t e r i n g  the n a t u r a l environment i s t a k e n . Our knowledge of n a t u r a l systems, t h e i r importance i n m a i n t a i n i n g a h e a l t h y and f u n c t i o n a l environment, and the e f f e c t s of t h e i r d i s t u r b a n c e i s v a s t l y i n c o m p l e t e . T h e r e f o r e , h i g h r i s k s of permanent damage t o n a t u r a l ecosystems s h o u l d be a v o i d e d whenever p o s s i b l e . A l t e r a t i o n s t o the environment s h o u l d be approached c a r e f u l l y , w i t h a s i n c e r e e f f o r t t o i n t e g r a t e c o n s e r v a t i o n p r i n c i p l e s w i t h i n d u s t r i a l development. Fur t h e r m o r e , where p o s s i b l e , development p r o j e c t s and t e c h n o l o g y s h o u l d be d e s i g n e d t o adapt t o the n a t u r a l e n v i r o n m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s , and not f o r c e the environment t o change or be 28 changed to suit the design. To implement a cautious approach to environmental a l t e r a t i o n , planning for development should include the following measures: ® environmental research, analysis and monitoring, designed to  improve planning and decision-making powers. Emphasis should be l a i d not only on integrated research planning, but on an experimental approach in the design of management and development a c t i v i t i e s themselves, to improve technological, managerial and research design and implementation s k i l l s . • impact assessment and e f f e c t i v e means to implement mitigative  procedures. The assessment of p o t e n t i a l l y deleterious ef f e c t s on w i l d l i f e habitat should be conceived and incorporated at the design phase of any development proposal. It should not be simply added after design approval or, worse s t i l l , project implementation. The design of mitigative procedures should include a system which monitors these procedures for their mitigative effectiveness. These a c t i v i t i e s should be encouraged i f not enforced by the appropriate l e v e l of government. They are necessary in order to improve our knowledge of the effects of man's a c t i v i t i e s , allowing us to es t a b l i s h and refine c r i t e r i a regarding what are allowable versus unallowable changes to the natural environment, and are p a r t i c u l a r l y c r u c i a l in the north, where the a b i l i t y of ecosystems to 'bounce back' from disturbance is impeded by low rates of productivity. A careful approach to a l t e r i n g the natural environment is 29 often in opposition to expedient i n d u s t r i a l development, in that i t may compromise c r i t e r i a of technical and economic e f f i c i e n c y . However, i t must be applied i f maintaining natural l i v i n g resources in the face of uncertainty is of concern. What p r i o r i t y is placed on treating a l t e r a t i o n of the environment cautiously versus expedient development should be determined only after open review of what is at stake by a l l affected pa r t i e s. 4. A basis in l e g i s l a t i o n for the management and protection of  lands for w i l d l i f e habitat should be in place. The protection of lands i d e n t i f i e d as s i g n i f i c a n t or c r i t i c a l to w i l d l i f e should be based in l e g i s l a t i o n that ensures e f f e c t i v e implementation and enforcement of t h i s protection. Protection need not be absolute or equal for a l l land areas, but should be appropriate to the requirements of the w i l d l i f e populations involved. To be e f f e c t i v e , such l e g i s l a t i o n should incorporate the following c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : » designates and describes the nature of the management areas, e.g., wilderness reserve, w i l d l i f e conservancy, etc.; • establishes the terms and conditions of land use for the various types of management/conservation areas (e.g., what a c t i v i t i e s are to be allowed), and allows these conditions to be changed only in an open review by the public, or by those d i r e c t l y accountable to the affected public; ® designates a management agency or agencies, their mandate and powers; ® ensures that there i s periodic review of the c r i t e r i a used to establish these areas, as well as the nature and implementation of terms and conditions, to determine i f they are e f f e c t i v e in f u l f i l l i n g a mandate of environmentally sensitive management. 30 5. Cooperation occurs among a l l affected part i e s . As w i l l be discussed in the next chapter, land use and habitat management i s shared, and fought over, by several agencies at both levels of government. As well, native associations advocate their involvement through the land claims process. F i n a l l y , there are the northern residents who have the most at stake in any land use decisions. A s p i r i t of cooperation, in ft sharing information, ideas, and skills', among governing agencies and concerned private groups should p r e v a i l in research, planning, and decision-making processes. Again, planning and management processes which are open, which allow and encourage the opportunity for input from affected parties from conceptual stages through to f i n a l decision-making, w i l l be most l i k e l y to acquire their support and cooperation. Agreement w i l l not always occur, but a sense of fairness w i l l be more l i k e l y to prevai1. These, then, are elements of an idealized, w i l d l i f e -sensitive land planning and management regime. The next chapter describes the regime as i t currently e x i s t s . 31 IV. THE ADMINISTRATION OF NORTHERN LANDS AND WILDLIFE The present administrative and j u r i s d i c t i o n a l system for lands north of 60° is covered extensively in the l i t e r a t u r e (e.g., Beauchamp, 1976; Fenge et a l . , 1979; Redpath, 1979; Dacks, 1981), and therefore w i l l not be covered in d e t a i l here. B r i e f l y , over 99% of northern lands (482,000 sq. km. in Yukon; 3,376,568 sq. km. in the Northwest T e r r i t o r i e s ) are under federal j u r i s d i c t i o n . The 0.1% in the Northwest T e r r i t o r i e s (NWT) and 0.2% in Yukon that the respective t e r r i t o r i a l governments control, c a l l e d Commissioner's lands, are located primarily in and around communities. They are acquired mainly through transfers by the federal government via Orders-in-Council pursuant to the Yukon Act or Northwest T e r r i t o r i e s Act. However, ownership of surface rights only i s passed to the t e r r i t o r i a l governments; control over subsurface rights for a l l northern lands i s retained by the federal government (Summers, 1982). The l i o n ' s share of federal- lands f a l l s under the j u r i s d i c t i o n of DIAND. DIAND administers the T e r r i t o r i a l Lands  Act (TLA) and T e r r i t o r i a l Land Use Regulations (TLUR's), the major federal l e g i s l a t i o n pertaining to land and resource use and land-oriented environmental protection in the North. These pieces of l e g i s l a t i o n and their implementation have been c r i t i c i z e d as to their effectiveness in maintaining the natural environment (e.g., Usher and Beakhust, 1973; Usher, 1973; Beauchamp, 1976; Podlog, 1977); some of the d e f i c i e n c i e s are indicated in Appendix A. DIAND also administers the Northern 32 Inland Waters Act (NIWA), components of which a f f e c t use of land around water bodies. The federal Department of the Environment (DOE; also c a l l e d Environment Canada) is involved in w i l d l i f e management through the Canada W i l d l i f e Act and Migratory Birds Convention Act, and in land use through the National Parks Act. Areas established as national parks and migratory b i r d sanctuaries are administered by agencies of DOE, but these cover less than 3% of the t o t a l land area in the north. T e r r i t o r i a l governments are involved through t e r r i t o r i a l l e g i s l a t i o n pertaining to w i l d l i f e , use of Commissioner's land, development zoning in s p e c i f i c areas and t e r r i t o r i a l parks. Appendix A summarizes and b r i e f l y comments on the main l e g i s l a t i v e devices and i n s t i t u t i o n a l arrangements in place for land use administration and w i l d l i f e habitat management north of 60°. However, a summary of l e g i s l a t i o n and administrative structures does not indicate the present s i t u a t i o n ; the underlying s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l 'atmosphere' regarding land use and w i l d l i f e issues in the north. To understand t h i s , there are a number of c r i t i c a l elements in the present land use/environmental management situation that-merit some elaboration. This chapter also points out how the nature and use of l e g i s l a t i v e and i n s t i t u t i o n a l instruments r e f l e c t the premise introduced in chapters I and II; that, r e l a t i v e to i n d u s t r i a l interests, w i l d l i f e values are not well represented in land use administration north of 60°. 33 4.1 Northern Land Use Planning I n i t i a t i v e s 4.1.1 DIAND - The NLUPP As described in chapter I, c r i t i c i s m has been widespread regarding Ottawa's i n a b i l i t y to deal with burgeoning mineral development in the North in a systematic and comprehensive manner. In 1980, the federal government f i n a l l y responded by i n i t i a t i n g the formulation of a land use planning policy. Since Cabinet approval of thi s "Northern Land Use Planning Policy" (NLUPP) in 1981, DIAND's Northern Environment Directorate has been developing an implementation strategy for the policy. In i t s recent draft proposal, "Land Use Planning in Northern Canada" (October, 1982), DIAND proposed to divide Yukon and the NWT into six major northern land use planning regions, composed of 50 northern land use planning units, which would be combined to delimit northern land use planning areas. The boundaries of these areas would be defined according to i d e n t i f i e d land use issues, and would then be the objects of actual planning e f f o r t s . The proposed i n s t i t u t i o n a l structure included, for each area: 1) a Northern Land Use Policy Committee composed of representatives of federal and t e r r i t o r i a l governments and native organizations, which would develop and recommend broad planning p o l i c i e s , objectives and p r i o r i t i e s ; 2) a Northern Land use Planning Commission, with the above representation plus members from communities, industry, and other interested groups appointed by the Minister of DIAND, to prepare terms of 34 reference and direct planning e f f o r t s ; 3) an Area Planning Team, composed of "experts" and planning professionals, to undertake relevant studies and draw up plans. Each Commission, with i t s Planning Team, would prepare a set of alternative draft plans for the area, and, along with their recommendations, submit these to the Minister. The Minister would choose from among the alternatives and approve the plan. The Commission would then disband, leaving r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for implementing, monitoring and reviewing the plan "with the various groups involved with the Land Use Planning Area, especially those having managment and regulatory r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s " (DIAND, 1982a: 21). As for implementing the plans: "government agencies at a l l lev e l s w i l l be expected to adjust plans, programs, l e g i s l a t i o n and regulations as required to implement an approved Northern Land Use Plan" ( ibid.:21). After receiving public commentary, DIAND apparently hoped to have a f i n a l planning process, based on t h i s proposal, in place by February 1983. However, th i s draft document has been anything but favourably received. S u p e r f i c i a l l y , the document recognizes the importance of l o c a l involvement: "To achieve sound land use planning, a l l parties affected must p a r t i c i p a t e " ( i b i d . : 11). However, several parties, p a r t i c u l a r l y the t e r r i t o r i a l governments, while endorsing the concept of land use planning, have become increasingly i r r i t a t e d with DIAND's lack of consultation and coordination with northerners in general, and t e r r i t o r i a l o f f i c i a l s in p a r t i c u l a r , throughout the formulation of the p o l i c y . Furthermore, the proposed 35 administrative structure leaves most c r i t i c a l decision-making powers (appointing committee members, approving plans, etc.) in Ottawa. Other commonly-voiced c r i t i c i s m s include: 1) in the proposed format, the necessity of designating regions and units on top of planning areas is dubious; 2) designating these areas via land use issues puts 'planning' once again in a reactive position; 3) the proposed i n s t i t u t i o n a l structure i s overly complicated, and due to the temporary nature of key.committees, w i l l be i n e f f e c t i v e in long-range implementation and monitoring of planning and development a c t i v i t i e s ; 4) the emphasis i s on producing paper plans rather than establishing a responsive and viable planning process; 5) the proposal merely "expects" agency cooperation; there is no means to ensure commitment, designate r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , or to make certain that plans w i l l be adhered to by both public and private sector agencies, in the proposed planning process; 6) there is no indication of how other existing and proposed regulatory and administrative systems w i l l be integrated with-the planning process and res u l t i n g plans. For instance, how w i l l land use a l l o c a t i o n under the TLA and TLUR's, the proposed Northern Conservation Strategy, and water resource management under the NIWA f i t in? F i n a l l y , DIAND apparently wishes not to disturb the status  quo : "Northern Land Use Planning i s not intended to replace any existing planning mechanisms... no freeze w i l l be placed on 36 resource development during implementation of northern land use planning..every attempt w i l l be made to ensure that existing schedules are met.." ( i b i d . : 6-7). If DIAND proposes not to change existing operations - what is the point of the planning exercise? Perhaps, as Bayley (1983:9,12) comments: "DIAND i s less interested in setting up a real planning body and more interested in placating the disputes that have arisen over competition for land by d i f f e r e n t interests in the North... the planning exercise DIAND proposes is not designed to carry out comprehensive land use planning. The (October 1982 draft) i s but one of the tools to f a c i l i t a t e northern hydrocarbon development..." In summary, as Rees (I983b:20) states: "If successful land use planning Requires an authoritative and v i s i b l e i n s t i t u t i o n a l structure, clear l i n e s of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , and f a i r and unambiguous operating procedures, DIAND has a great deal more homework to do." 4.1.2 Yukon - A Land Use Planning Policy Constitutional development leading to greater p o l i t i c a l independence, and control over northern resources are currently the foremost issues in both t e r r i t o r i e s . Developing a process guaranteeing the gradual transfer of land in the t e r r i t o r y to l o c a l ownership i s a platform of the present Yukon t e r r i t o r i a l government (YTG). The YTG put forward i t s own land use planning policy in which i t emphasizes land use planning "designed to 37 f a c i l i t a t e the use and ownership of land by Yukoners" (Yukon Government, 1982a: 5). "The transfer of land from federal to t e r r i t o r i a l j u r i s d i c t i o n as land use plans are adopted" ( i b i d . : 6) i s strongly advocated. Indeed, Ottawa acknowledges a "long-standing commitment to responsible government" in the north (DIAND, 1982f), encouraging the "devolution of program r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to the elected representatives of the t e r r i t o r i a l government(s)" (DIAND, I982g). However, i t is highly unlikely that Ottawa w i l l cede control of what J. Munro, minister of DIAND, c a l l e d "the biggies", land and resources, to the t e r r i t o r i e s (Diebel, 1982). As Munro wrote in late 1982 to C. Pearson, leader of the Yukon government: "..I have no mandate to transfer a l l federal lands to Yukon control, nor have my colleagues indicated that th i s i s the approach the Government of Canada should take." He goes on to say: "I anticipate that a comprehensive approach to land transfers w i l l be developed in conjunction with the establishment of appropriate land use planning mechanisms in the Territory...We must set t l e the Yukon Indian Land Claim and then through a cooperative land use planning process set the stage to make meaningful decisions about lands which should be transferred to the control of your government." (Munro, 1982b) However, impatient with Ottawa's slow pace, the YTG enshrined i t s land use policy in l e g i s l a t i o n by assenting to the Yukon Land Planning Act in the l e g i s l a t i v e assembly in December 1982. The Act's wording implies that i t w i l l apply to a l l lands 38 in the t e r r i t o r y ; hence, i t could be disallowed by Ottawa as being beyond the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the t e r r i t o r i a l government. However, the YTG has not yet proclaimed the Act, and therefore has not yet had to carry i t out. Rather, i t appears that the YTG, by presenting the Act, i s asserting i t s expectation of greater control over land in the future. 4.1.3 E f f o r t s In The NWT The government of the Northwest T e r r i t o r i e s (GNWT) recognizes a federal role for setting policy for land use planning, but holds the position that "the implementation....and administration of the land use planning program w i l l be the re s p o n s i b i l i t y of the GNWT" (NWT Government, 1982b). The GNWT (1983:2) rejected DIAND's 1982 proposal, on grounds that: " i ) The proposal did not r e f l e c t the issues and concerns raised by the GNWT and previously conveyed to DIAND: i i ) The proposal did not recognize positions established by native organizations on land use planning; i i i ) The GNWT was not recognized as a responsible authority in the North, but treated merely as another interest group." Moreover, i t i d e n t i f i e s the central issue regarding land use planning as "not the de t a i l s of the system but the fundamental question of the a l l o c a t i o n of power as between the federal government, the GNWT and the native organizations" ( i b i d . : 3). This emphasizes again the underlying 'battle' over greater northern r e s p o n s i b i l i t y in land and resource use decision-39 making. Since t h i s p u b l icly supported rejection of DIAND's October proposal, attempts have been underway to cooperatively design a planning policy for the NWT. A "Basis for Agreement" between the federal and t e r r i t o r i a l governments was released on March 21, 1983. However, i t was not u n t i l May that policy negotiations were opened up to include four major native organizations. These organizations presented a jo i n t statement of the p r i n c i p l e s that, in their view, should guide land use planning in the NWT. These p r i n c i p l e s , advocating greater l o c a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n and input into land use planning, were largely accepted and incorporated into a discussion draft prepared by the GNWT, and released on June 14. However, i t appears that DIAND representatives in Ottawa have since rejected these p r i n c i p l e s , and, at the time of writing, the negotiations towards a land use planning policy and process are s t a l l e d (Rees, pers. comm.). 4.1.4 Response From Native Groups Native groups have also responded to the NLUPP. For example, the Council of Yukon Indians (CYI) released a discussion paper in August 1982, upholding the concept of land use planning but voicing objections to the present approach of the federal government (Council of Yukon Indians, 1982). In the paper, the Council also advocates the eventual transfer of land to t e r r i t o r i a l ownership, but only once a planning process i s 40 established in Yukon, and only after land transfers to native ownership, once f i n a l agreements have been reached, have been made. The Dene Nation and Metis Association of the NWT put forward a discussion paper on northern land use planning in 1981, during the guidelines hearings of the Beaufort Sea EARP, which indicated their recommended planning structures.and processes (Bayley, 1983). In response to DIAND's October 1982 draft, H. Norwegian (1983), vice president of the Dene Nation, in a l e t t e r to Y. Dube, the director general for DIAND's Northern Environment Branch, wrote: "Although there i s near unanimity among northern interest groups on the desparate need for a workable northern land use policy i t is obvious that there i s also near-unanimity among northerners on the inadequacy of the Federal draft . " As mentioned, native associations in the NWT are presently involved in policy development e f f o r t s there. A similar process has been instigated in Yukon between the YTG and DIAND, but, notably, without separate native representation. This creates considerable tension in Yukon, p a r t i c u l a r l y since one of the agreements-in-principle signed by the GYI and DIAND as part of their comprehensive land claims deals with native involvement in any land planning e f f o r t in Yukon. However, the YTG's position is that i t alone w i l l represent Yukon interests, native and non-native, in these policy development negotiations. 41 4.1.5 NLUPP - Summary Obviously, land use planning in the north i s s t i l l in i t s infancy. A l l parties concerned are in agreement as to i t s necessity, but the e f f o r t s by the lead agency, DIAND, have so far f a i l e d to meet what these parties f e e l are the requirements of a f a i r and sound planning process. Perhaps joint e f f o r t s now underway w i l l remove many of the weaknesses i d e n t i f i e d in proposals to date, at least in the NWT. However, because such e f f o r t s have been i n i t i a t e d only after widespread negative response to DIAND's u n i l a t e r a l attempts, policy development i s occurring in an adversarial rather than cooperative atmosphere, in which each party i s attempting to assert i t s p a r t i c i p a t i o n and interests. This leads one to wonder whether the purpose of the exercise - developing sound land-use planning p r i n c i p l e s and structures - are being lost in the struggle for decision-making power. In the meantime, members of the hydrocarbon industry have stated their tentative plans for land based f a c i l i t i e s (see Dome Petroleum Limited et. a_l. , 1982b), and applications requesting land use permits for po t e n t i a l l y extensive development a c t i v i t i e s , such as at Stokes Point on Yukon's north coast axe being considered - plan or no plan. 42 4.2 Northern W i l d l i f e Habitat Management 4.2.1 Policy In DIAND As with land use planning, management of w i l d l i f e habitat suffers from a lack of policy d i r e c t i o n , but for di f f e r e n t reasons. S p l i t j u r i s d i c t i o n i s one cause. Under the Yukon Act and Northwest T e r r i t o r i e s Act, the respective t e r r i t o r i a l governments hold r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for the management of nonmigratory w i l d l i f e . However, DIAND controls use of the land and, hence, w i l d l i f e habitat. Under the TLUR's, land policy is one of "multiple use", acknowledging the need for environmental protection, but largely promoting i n d u s t r i a l development: "It i s clear that the ( TLUR's ) are not set up to preclude resource development... Rather they are based on a managed-use concept, and their primary function i s to control operations which private industry decides to pursue in any given area...the theory is that lands are available for development upon request.." (Beauchamp, 1976:36) Regarding habitat per se : "DIAND presently takes into consideration the values of w i l d l i f e habitat, as well as other existing uses of the lands and waters under i t s control prior to the issuance lof land use permits...In a r r i v i n g at decisions.whether to approve land use a c t i v i t i e s both formal and informal consultations are undertaken with other government agencies such as the T e r r i t o r i a l w i l d l i f e agencies, Canadian W i l d l i f e Service and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to determine whether c o n f l i c t s e x i s t . " (McFarland, 1982) What i s clear from th i s i s that the federal government's consideration of both i n d u s t r i a l development and habitat 43 protection i s reactive, "in which e f f o r t s to protect and conserve environmentally s i g n i f i c a n t areas are triggered by development proposals" (Fenge, 1981: 9). Fenge notes that a common c r i t i c i s m from both industry and environmental protection interests is the lack of a systematic approach to i d e n t i f y i n g and evaluating important w i l d l i f e areas: "To industry, incremental conservation policy promotes economic uncertainty, while to public interest groups, i t means repetition of mistakes made previously in southern Canada" ( i b i d . ) . Secondly, to the federal government, "protection of such areas is deemed to be compatible with multiple land use" ( i b i d . ) . An example l i e s in the treatment of Polar Bear Pass, an e c o l o g i c a l l y important area on Bathurst Island, NWT, which is now facing hydrocarbon and mineral development. Seven year after being recommended as an International B i o l o g i c a l Program (IBP) ecological s i t e , Polar Bear Pass i s the f i r s t and only of 151 such s i t e s to be formally a l l o t t e d a protected status; in July 1982, i t was designated as a National W i l d l i f e Area under the CWA to be managed j o i n t l y by DOE, DIAND, and the GNWT (DIAND, 1982'h). "Protection of the ecological i n t e g r i t y of the s i t e in an undisturbed condition" ( ibid.) is-acknowledged as the primary purpose of the s i t e , which conforms to management goals under the CWA and National W i l d l i f e Area Regulations, as described in Appendix A. However, section 4 of the Regulations states that permits for i n d u s t r i a l a c t i v i t i e s are granted "where, in the opinion of the Minister, the a c t i v i t y w i l l not interfere with the conservation of w i l d l i f e " . While i n d u s t r i a l 44 a c t i v i t y and the maintenance of w i l d l i f e habitat can be compatible, the act provides no sp e c i f i c protection from incompatible uses and leaves such decisions e n t i r e l y to bureaucratic d i s c r e t i o n without any l e g i s l a t e d guidelines (Hunt et a l . , 1979). Moreover, the management guidelines recommended in 1981 for Polar Bear Pass, according to Fenge (1981:8), are again based on a multiple-use philosophy, resulting in a management regime that i s " c l e a r l y very similar to that provided by the ( TLUR's ) - that i s , one which y i e l d s to development pressures". Some would argue that, in the interests of long-term conservation of the natural environment and i t s renewable resources, the conditions ( i . e . , greater scrutiny in allowing i n d u s t r i a l a c t i v i t y ) that w i l l probably govern land use in Polar Bear Pass should be applied to a l l lands in the north. More s i g n i f i c a n t l y , the situation indicates: "If environmental conservation values are to be compromised at Polar Bear Pass - arguably the most ec o l o g i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t IBP s i t e in. the NWT - the outlook for si t e s of lesser but s t i l l s i g n i f i c a n t ecological value is grim" ( ibi d . : 8 ) . In a l l , the fact that DIAND may take w i l d l i f e values "into consideration" (McFarland, 1982) cannot by i t s e l f be considered a commitment to make these values a high p r i o r i t y , even in areas where they are deservedly so. 45 4.2.2 DOE And The Canadian W i l d l i f e Service As an agency of DOE, the a c t i v i t i e s of the Canadian W i l d l i f e Service (CWS) are guided by that department's p o l i c i e s . DOE has recently drafted a departmental policy regarding i t s role in the north. "Environment Canada and the North" (1983: 21) states as the department's northern objectives: "1. to promote the establishment of a comprehensive protected-area network in the North... 2. to promote environmentally sound technology and safe operations in northern resource explorat ion... 3. to encourage sustainable u t i l i z a t i o n of the. North's renewable resources (and) sensible use of i t s nonrenewable resources... 4. to increase the information available ...and to f a c i l i t a t e public consultation on northern environmental management p o l i c i e s and programs" and i t s over-riding guiding p r i n c i p l e as: " a l l dimensions of northern development must incorporate conservation p r i n c i p l e s " ( i b i d . : 19). In terms of land use planning, the department advocates a preventative approach involving "the careful consideration of environmental factors in the planning stages for a l l a c t i v i t i e s " (Environment Canada, 1982b: 27). Nevertheless, DOE acknowledges that DIAND i s the "lead actor" or "landlord, in a l l aspects of northern resource development and environmental management" (Environment Canada, 1981: 7), and, as is evident from the statement of objectives given above, sees i t s own role primarily as an environmental advisor, researcher, auditor, negotiator and advocate (Environment Canada, 1983) to DIAND and other government bodies. 46 However, attempts are being made w i t h i n DOE to apply w i l d l i f e c r i t e r i a to i n d i c a t i n g a p p r o p r i a t e land uses i n the North. DOE has r e c e n t l y completed a Northern Conservation Land Inventory (NCLI) designed to a s s i s t the department " i n s e l e c t i n g those areas of d i r e c t i n t e r e s t to i t s r e s p e c t i v e c o n s e r v a t i o n land programs..(and) c o n t r i b u t e to other f e d e r a l and t e r r i t o r i a l and i n d u s t r i a l land use planning i n i t i a t i v e s " (Environment Canada, 1982C:1). The department s i n g l e s out northern Yukon as a " s p e c i a l case..one of the most s i g n i f i c a n t areas of i n t e r e s t and concern to Environment Canada" ( i b i d . : 9 ) . DOE intends to fo l l o w up the inventory with r e p o r t s from Parks Canada and CWS "which w i l l i d e n t i f y and d e s c r i b e i n some d e t a i l those areas s e l e c t e d from the NCLI which each w i l l be seeking to a c q u i r e du r i n g the 1980's" ( i b i d . : 1 0 ) . However, these r e p o r t s are proceeding c a u t i o u s l y , as both agencies are cognizant of the s e n s i t i v i t y of other p a r t i e s (DIAND, t e r r i t o r i a l governments, n a t i v e groups, i n d u s t r y ) to any p e r c e i v e d attempts at 'land grabs' (T. Lash, Head, Program A n a l y s i s , E v a l u a t i o n and L i a s o n U n i t , CWS; per s . comm.). The mandate of CWS i n c l u d e s the p r o t e c t i o n of migratory b i r d h a b i t a t under the Mig r a t o r y B i r d s Convention A c t . I t a l s o a d m i n i s t e r s the Canada W i l d l i f e Act ( CWA ), under which i t i s a l l o c a t e d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r p r o t e c t i n g w i l d l i f e h a b i t a t w i t h i n n a t i o n a l w i l d l i f e areas (NWA's; see Appendix A). However, there i s some d i s p u t e over the powers a l l o c a t e d under the CWA, as they 47 pertain to NWA's in the north. While CWS interprets section 4(1) and (2) of the Act as a l l o c a t i n g the management of a l l uses of land within designated w i l d l i f e areas to them, DIAND claims that t h i s pertains only to a c t i v i t i e s associated with conservation, interpretation and research purposes; i.e., that the regulation of such things as mineral development in these areas s t i l l rests solely with DIAND (Keith, 1983). A Memorandum of Agreement between DIAND and DOE i s being drafted regarding the management of the newly created Polar Bear Pass National W i l d l i f e Area, in which such matters w i l l have to be resolved. However, the dispute i l l u s t r a t e s the point that l e g i s l a t i o n i s not always a ' f i n a l solution' to ensuring the achievement of planning or conservation goals; l e g i s l a t i o n , too, is subject to interpretation. CWS also plays an important role in the research, management and protection of internationally migratory mammals such as polar bear and caribou, and endangered species. With these and other, resident w i l d l i f e populations, CWS policy i s to encourage cooperative research and management e f f o r t s with p r o v i n c i a l and t e r r i t o r i a l w i l d l i f e agencies. As such, much of the w i l d l i f e research work in the north is done cooperatively between CWS and t e r r i t o r i a l agencies. The agency i s also in favour of establishing joint management regimes for areas under i t s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y with native organizations or t e r r i t o r i a l governments (Keith, 1983). However, the agency's effect on the management of w i l d l i f e habitat in general, outside migratory' bird sanctuaries and NWA's, appears to depend largely on 48 concerns voiced through various advisory committees, such as the Land Use Advisory Committee (see Appendix A), or when c a l l e d upon by other federal agencies. Overall, CWS's habitat management a c t i v i t i e s in the north are largely confined to designated national w i l d l i f e areas and migratory bird sanctuaries. But even in these areas, the agency does not have veto power over land uses that are permitted, since DIAND s t i l l holds j u r i s d i c t i o n over subsurface rights in these areas. In general, "CWS i s not seen as a strong agency within government; i t i s therefore questionable.how e f f e c t i v e an advocate i t would be when points of contention arose" (Hunt et a l . , 1979: 109). 4.2.3 T e r r i t o r i a l W i l d l i f e Agencies Since nonmigratory w i l d l i f e is the one resource over which they have j u r i s d i c t i o n , the t e r r i t o r i a l governments guard their mandate jealously: " . . w i l d l i f e is the one resource under the control and management of the Yukon government. The protection of w i l d l i f e is our r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and we must not be found wanting in that regard." (Yukon Hansard, 1982: .171) However, the t e r r i t o r i a l governments cannot be considered to be the guardian angels of w i l d l i f e . Ambitions for economic s t a b i l i t y and independence often place emphasis on avenues of immediate economic gain, i . e . , nonrenewable resource development, against which w i l d l i f e protection i s again a 49 secondary consideration. T e r r i t o r i a l w i l d l i f e personnel also r e a l i z e the f u t i l i t y of managing w i l d l i f e with l i t t l e e f f e c t i v e authority over i t s habitat (Donihee and Gray, 1982). Management of habitat " f a l l s through the cracks", and the t e r r i t o r i a l agencies, with the help of the Canadian W i l d l i f e Service, are l e f t to "look a f t e r " habitat interests, by default (Donihee, 1982). Recently, t e r r i t o r i a l and CWS personnel in the NWT have been d i r e c t i n g energies at j o i n t l y designing a process for i d e n t i f y i n g important habitat areas for a l l w i l d l i f e species, similar to e f f o r t s within CWS for migratory birds. The agencies hope to have the system operational by 1985, in time to have e f f e c t i v e input into whatever land use planning process that i s established (P. Gray, Habitat Supervisor, W i l d l i f e Service, GNWT; pers.comm.). Lastly, as noted in Appendix A, portions of both the NWT W i l d l i f e Ordinance and Yukon's W i l d l i f e Act appear to allocate some authority in managing lands for habitat to the respective t e r r i t o r i a l agencies. However, since the federal government s t i l l 'owns' the land, l i t t l e can be done without the consent of DIAND. Therefore, the effectiveness of t e r r i t o r i a l w i l d l i f e agencies in managing w i l d l i f e habitat is p o t e n t i a l l y weakened by a t e r r i t o r i a l bias towards i n d u s t r i a l development, as well as a lack of authority in land administration. 50 4.2.4 Conservation Policy E f f o r t s In The North There is an i n i t i a t i v e within DIAND's Northern Environment Directorate to develop a comprehensive conservation policy for the north. A draft discussion paper, "A Comprehensive Conservation Policy and Strategy for the Northwest T e r r i t o r i e s and Yukon" was released in October 1982 (DIAND, I982d). The paper is refreshingly frank in implying that, although i t s mandate as land manager includes environmental protection and resource conservation, DIAND's a c t i v i t i e s in this realm over the l a s t ten years has not been e n t i r e l y s a t i s f a c t o r y . It c i t e s several good reasons why this situation e x i s t s , including: "DIAND lacked both the comprehensive land use planning and the comprehensive conservation p o l i c i e s needed to provide the potential to resolve land use c o n f l i c t s in a systematic fashion and guide the implementation of a northern conservation and recreation program" ( i b i d . : iv) The paper discusses basic p r i n c i p l e s that should be incorporated into a conservation poli c y . Of note is the concept that conservation i s not a s e c t o r - s p e c i f i c a c t i v i t y , but rather that "a d e f i n i t i o n of conservation should incorporate the view that i t i s a process to be applied c r o s s - s e c t o r a l l y . . . d i s p e l l i n g the notion that 'conservation' and 'development' are diametrically opposed and narrowly defined interests" ( i b i d . : v i - v i i ). However, th i s concept gets lost in the paper's preoccupation with the preservation aspect of conservation. It deals almost exclusively with p o l i c i e s for establishing parks, 51 reserves, etc. L i t t l e mention is made regarding the management of a l l lands; i . e . , inside and outside reserved areas. For instance, there i s very l i t t l e discussion regarding analyses of the TLA and TLUR 's, as to how well they f i t and respond to p r i n c i p l e s of a comprehensive conservation strategy. The paper implies that "a strong regulatory regime" (p.8) i s in place, suggesting that implementation of the TLUR 's i s performing s a t i s f a c t o r i l y ; yet there i s strong evidence that they are not (see Beauchamp, 1976; Podlog, 1977). Indeed a workshop held in February 1983 to discuss the draft paper, involving representatives from various federal and t e r r i t o r i a l government agencies, non-governmental organizations, native groups and industry, suffered from the same problem. Developing a process for establishing protected areas, while controversial, i s something that i s concrete, and which a l l parties could 'get their teeth onto'. Developing means of i n s t i l l i n g a conservation ethic into a l l land and resource uses is much less so, and few enlightening suggestions were made on how to proceed in t h i s regard (A. Thompson, workshop chairman; pers. comm.). However, the workshop developed several useful resolutions, including recommendations for establishing a Task Force to, which, by December 31, 1983, would: " a) i d e n t i f y appropriate conservation targets for implementation through 1985, and b) advise on the establishment of an ongoing mechanism for conservation having appropriate links to the northern land use planning process " (Workshop on Northern Conservation Policy, 1983: 6-7). 52 Overall, the development of a northern conservation strategy i s an encouraging sign that a systematic approach to considering, p r i o r i z i n g and designating areas of importance to w i l d l i f e w i l l be eventually established. However, one wonders as to i t s impact on future land use decisions in the north. For instance, i t i s not clear how t h i s strategy w i l l be integrated with a NLUPP. As one government representative noted: " i t would appear that these two (policy) papers have been separately authored within DIAND without a great deal of mutual consultation or collaboration" (Lee, 1982). Nor does the strategy indicate how i t w i l l integrate with the present administration under the TLUR's, with native land claim negotiations, and with the leasing of Canada lands for o i l and gas exploration. Obviously, these aspects must be c l a r i f i e d in order for a conservation strategy to e f f e c t i v e l y carry out i t s mandate. 4 . 3 Native Land Claims The claims for land ownership and rights of use by northern native organizations is probably the most important factor influencing land use and resource development in the North. Not only does i t manage almost a l l the land in the north, DIAND, as i t s name suggests, is also responsible for representing native interests and s e t t l i n g native claims throughout Canada. In the north Yukon-Beaufort Sea region, a powerful voice 53 comes from the Committee for Ori g i n a l Peoples' Entitlement (COPE), representing the western I n u v i a l u i t . The Inuvialuit Land Rights Settlement Agreement-in-Principle, signed by representatives from COPE and the federal government in 1978, contains numerous elements that would give the Inuvialuit a powerful position with respect to land use and w i l d l i f e management in the region. The relevant components of this agreement-in-principle are summarized in Appendix B. As discussed in greater d e t a i l in chapter V, the agreement c a l l s for the establishment of a national wilderness park of at least 5000 square miles in northern Yukon. However, the YTG (1980) and industry object to t h i s component of the agreement; they saw i t as removing their land access to o i l and gas development in the Beaufort Sea. In 1980, with heavy lobbying by these two parties (LeBlond, 1982), J. Munro t o l d the federal negotiator for the Inuvialuit f i n a l settlement that "compromises are es s e n t i a l " ; the establishment of a park of some sort must be honoured, but the federal government must also reserve "the right to es t a b l i s h transportation corridors and onshore f a c i l i t i e s . . . w i t h o u t Parliamentary consent" (Munro, 1980). DIAND's actions were interpreted as betraying the Agreement-in-Pri n c i p l e (LeBlond, 1982), and negotiations toward a f i n a l agreement floundered. Recently, with the appointment of a new federal negotiator, talks have resumed. The Council of Yukon Indians (CYI) is also in the process of negotiating a comprehensive land claims package. Their main 54 influence on the North Yukon-Beaufort Sea region i s through the interests of the people l i v i n g in Old Crow, who t r a d i t i o n a l l y hunted in northern Yukon, and depend on the Porcupine caribou herd for subsistence. L i t t l e has been made public about the d e t a i l s of these negotiations, other than they are nearing f i n a l stages, with some 44 agreements-in-principle already signed in preparation for a comprehensive settlement package (Allen, 1982). However, as noted e a r l i e r , tensions over land ownership and j u r i s d i c t i o n run high in Yukon. The YTG oppose having lands turned over formally to native ownership without some guarantee that land transfers from federal to t e r r i t o r i a l j u r i s d i c t i o n w i l l subsequently occur. This position has slowed the negotiating process toward a f i n a l native claims agreement; however, jo i n t f e d e r a l - t e r r i t o r i a l p o l icy development e f f o r t s may lead to some compromise. The Dene Nation and Metis Association have also claimed interest in regions around the Mackenzie Delta, again overlapping to some extent with COPE's claims. Regarding formal negotiations: "The Dene Nation, NWT Metis Association and federal government have come to an agreement on the ground rules of future negotiations, which marks the f i r s t concrete steps to negotiating land claims... after an eight-year stalemate" (Adler, 1982:A14). 55 4.4 The NEP And COGLA 4.4.1 The National Energy Program In any issue regarding northern development, i t is c r u c i a l to acknowledge the pervasive influence and economic momentum of the National Energy Program (NEP). One of the objectives established in the NEP is security of energy supply for Canada and, ultimately, independence from world markets. To thi s end, the federal government has been operating an elaborate system of tax incentives and grants for o i l and gas exploration and development in Canada lands, and Beaufort Sea development has been a major recipient. Therefore, even though commercially productive o i l reserves s t i l l have not been confirmed, and even though i t i s questioned whether Beaufort o i l and gas is required in the near future (see Davis and Hainsworth, 1983), Ottawa i s very unlikely to slow down Beaufort Sea exploration and development; i t s own f i n a n c i a l commitment and p o l i t i c a l c r e d i b i l i t y are at stake. It i s also noteworthy that a stated federal policy on energy development does indeed e x i s t . The NEP gives something on which the industry can 'hang i t s hat' in forging i t s own plans. For instance, o i l and gas companies can benefit from the hefty federal support available for exploration while at the same time appearing to support the federal government's, i.e. Canada's, goal of energy s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y and "need to know" p o l i c y . However, by comparison, other goals associated with renewable resource development, land use, and environmental 56 protection remain largely unsupported by any equally a r t i c u l a t e d and publicized p o l i c y . 4.4.2 Mandate And Attitudes In COGLA To f u l f i l l the goals of the NEP, the Canada O i l and Gas Act (COGA), together with amendments to the O i l and Gas Production  and Conservation Act, were proclaimed in March 1982. At the same time, the Canada O i l and Gas Lands Administration (COGLA) was established by Memorandum of Understanding, and allocated the mandate to manage a l l o i l and gas exploration and development a c t i v i t i e s on Canada lands: "The p r i n c i p a l purpose for the creation of COGLA was to concentrate, within a single body, the o i l and gas management functions exercised by DIAND with respect to Canada lands situated (north of the 60th p a r a l l e l ) and by EMR with respect to Canada lands located south of that l i n e . . . Under the di r e c t i o n of the Ministers of DIAND and EMR, COGLA negotiates exploration agreements, authorizes a l l a c t i v i t i e s respecting the exploration for and production of o i l and gas on Canada lands, inspects exploration and production operations and coordinates the development of related Canada Benefits plans and the resolution of  environmental concerns " (DIAND and EMR, 1982:1; emphasis added). ~ (In the north)... "the Northern A f f a i r s Program of DIAND retains r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for environmental management and protection in the northern Canada lands, socio-economic benefits for northern residents, negotiating strategies and agreements with t e r r i t o r i a l governments and the coordination of policy and planning in re l a t i o n to major resource developments north of 60 exclusive of the s p e c i f i c operational r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of COGLA". ( i b i d . : 2) In the North then, COGLA ultimately decides the pace and 57 extent of hydrocarbon development over an area which, when the offshore is included, is larger than a l l ten provinces. As well, i t is responsible for the d i s t r i b u t i o n of development benefits, and, apparently, for the protection of the environment as i t is affected by development. The agency has i t s own Environmental Protection Branch, whose role is "to control and enforce the conditions upon which s p e c i f i c approvals are granted and to monitor clo s e l y the execution of approved work or a c t i v i t i e s . . " ( ibid.:11). However, what disturbs many observors of northern land issues i s the apparent independent di s c r e t i o n a l l o t t e d to the agency, and the great l e g i s l a t i v e power i t can wield via the COGA. With respect to environmental safeguards, agency discretion is evident: "COGLA may include in an exploration agreement terms and conditions s p e c i f i c a l l y providing for additional environmental work or special protective measures" ( ibid.:11; emphasis added). This d i s c r e t i o n would not be so disturbing i f not for evidence that the p r e v a i l i n g attitude in the agency appears to be environmentally i n s e n s i t i v e : "...on a l l matters north of 60, including environmental and s o c i a l concerns, Tashereau (administrator of COGLA) reports d i r e c t l y to Munro's (minister of IAND) o f f i c e - short c i r c u i t i n g the branches that work most cl o s e l y on the environment and land claims...And Taschereau..has no sympathy ..for what he considers to be the endless costs and delays of environmental advisory panels. In his Yellowknife o f f i c e , (the) assistant director of renewable resources for (DIAND) wonders why environmental conditions (on northern exploration operations)..are removed by o f f i c i a l s at COGLA." (Diebel, 1982:19) 58 Also of concern is the fact that COGLA's a c t i v i t i e s have a direct bearing on present and future land use in the North. The agency's Land Management Branch " i s responsible for the negotiation, issuance and administration of exploration and production rights" (DIAND and EMR, 1982: 3). It negotiates a l l exploration agreements which confer "the right to explore for and the exclusive right to d r i l l for o i l and gas on the spe c i f i e d Canada lands. It also confers the exclusive right to develop those Canada lands in order to produce o i l and gas" ( ibid.:14). It appears that these negotiations and allotments are going on independent of any other land use considerations -and this is where a fundamental discreprency l i e s . How w i l l i t s decision-making process be integrated with a comprehensive land planning strategy? "COGLA w i l l be a very powerful agency with very important, and concentrated, r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . Experience in comparable circumstances has sometimes demonstrated a. propensity, and a b i l i t y , for such an agency to d i s t o r t or evade the land use planning process. Without implying any r e f l e c t i o n at a l l on COGLA's i n t e g r i t y or intentions, i t i s s t i l l prudent to ask whether COGLA w i l l , in practice, be subject to planning p o l i c i e s and constraints in exactly the same way as anyone else in the north" (Richardson, 1982b:10). Moreover, Canada lands are being allocated for o i l and gas exploration and development with no consultation with northerners, p a r t i c u l a r l y native people. "In the long term, rapid o i l and gas development aff e c t s t h e i r l i v e s ; in the shorter term, i t af f e c t s their land claims...While land claim negotiations percolate slowly, there won't be any valuable land 59 l e f t for natives" (Diebel, 1982:20). 4.5 The Beaufort Sea Environmental Assessment And Review Process Implementation of the federal environmental assessment and review process (EARP) i s overseen by the Federal Environmental Assessment and Review Off i c e (FEARO), a quasi-independent agency which reports to the Minister of the Environment. In July 1980, the Minister of IAND referred proposals made by industry to produce and transport Beaufort Sea o i l and gas to FEARO for a formal review by an environmental assessment panel (Munro, 1980 ). A panel was appointed, guidelines for the preparation of an environmental impact by the proponent companies were prepared with public input, and, in November 1982, Dome, Gulf and Esso formally f i l e d t heir seven-volume environmental impact statement (EIS) with the Panel (Beaufort Sea Environmental Assessment and Review Panel(BSEAP), 1983a). In March 1983, the Panel, through DIAND, issued a statement to the companies, in which i t i d e n t i f i e d major d e f i c i e n c i e s in the EIS regarding i t s assessment of socio-economic ef f e c t s , of environmental e f f e c t s , i t s description of how the proponents intend to deal with o i l s p i l l s , and i t s treatment of regional zone summaries (BSEAP, 1983b). Dome, Gulf and Esso must respond to the de f i c i e n c i e s before public review session are held, and the Panel's f i n a l recommendations regarding Beaufort Sea o i l and gas development are made. 60 The role, and inherent weaknesses, of the Canadian EARP have been well documented (CEAC, 1979; Rees, 1980, 1982; Summers, 1982). B r i e f l y : "The purpose of EARP i s to ensure that the environmental consequences of a l l federal projects, programs and a c t i v i t i e s (those undertaken by federal departments or agencies, those for which federal funds are s o l i c i t e d or those involving federal lands) are assessed before f i n a l decisions are made and to incorporate the results of these assessments into planning, decision-making and implementation... Environment i s interpreted to include both biophysical and s o c i a l impacts" (Couch, 1982:9). However, there are a number of problems in the design and execution of EARP that counteract i t s effectiveness in carrying out i t s mandate. Rees (1980:357) i d e n t i f i e s those c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of EARP "which have drawn the most c r i t i c a l f i r e : the absence of any formal (legal) basis for the process, and t o t a l reliance on the concept of self-assessment by proponent/initiating agencies". Rees goes on to summarize several problems that have been i d e n t i f i e d in the process, one being: "EARP reviews often have the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of af t e r -thought, and seem to be rushed to accomodate project deadlines. Environmental matters are simply not routinely integrated with project planning" (p.361). This apparently holds true for the Beaufort Sea EARP. In December 1981, the assistant deputy minister for the Northern A f f a i r s Program of DIAND to l d the Beaufort Sea Panel "the Panel Review must be credible and thus must take whatever time i t needs to do a good job" (BSEAP, 1981). However, in a May 1982 memorandum to the minister of 61 DOE, the chairman of FEARO expressed consternation over the fact that, in order to bolster the precarious f i n a n c i a l position of one of the proponents (Dome), the federal government was seriously considering giving approval-in-principle to current development proposals, well before the Beaufort Sea Panel could submit i t s report. As the chairman stated, such a move "would obviously provoke extensive public c r i t i c i s m (regarding the government's commitment to measured and informed decision-making and to consultation with those affected)...the whole EAR Process would in that situation also suffer a major blow both within and outside the government" (Robinson, 1982). In the case of the Beaufort Sea EARP, the Panel's terms of reference are very broad: "...to i d e n t i f y major developmental e f f e c t s , both positive and negative, upon the physical, b i o l o g i c a l and human environments, and recommend ways and means of dealing with them...The Panel review i s to include a l l related a c t i v i t i e s north of 60 of the proponents' proposal associated with or res u l t i n g from the commercial production and shipment of hydrocarbon resources from the Beaufort Sea" (FEARO, 1981). However, the Panel is required to do this in the absence (or perhaps as a replacement for) a policy or planning context for land use and resource management for the North. On what premises or p r i n c i p l e s are impacts to be judged, costs and benefits weighed, tradeoffs suggested? Without some indication as to what are to be considered as 'best uses' of the land and resources, such decisions are a r b i t r a r y at best. In essence, the Panel has been given "a task appropriate to, i f not the 62 authority of, a regional planning agency" (Rees, 1980:372). EARP, with a l l i t s flaws, has emerged as " v i r t u a l l y the only organized forum for dire c t public input into the many resource-related decisions that w i l l affect the pattern of Canada's growth and development for decades" (Rees, 1982:111). It is to be hoped that eventually, a land use planning process w i l l emerge that would provide EARP with the policy context for land and resource use and conservation so badly needed. 4.6 Northern National Parks Parks Canada, an agency of DOE, administers the Nat ional  Parks Act (NPA) and H i s t o r i c Sites and Monuments Act. Due to the r e l a t i v e l y permanent status of lands designated under the NPA, the agency's impressively well-organized park i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and planning system, and i t s past association with DIAND, Parks Canada holds a strong position r e l a t i v e to other 'conservation-oriented' agencies, in land use issues. As part of i t s policy to represent "natural areas of Canadian sig n i f i c a n c e " (Parks Canada, 1980a) within the national park system, the agency's long-range plans are to establish at least one park in each of the 19 t e r r e s t r i a l and 3 marine regions i d e n t i f i e d north of 60°. To date, one park (Wood Buffalo -1922) and three national park reserves (Auyuittuq - 1972; Nahanni - 1971; Kluane - 1972) have been established (the park reserves are awaiting settlement of native land claims before 63 being designated f u l l park status). Four more park proposals have been made, one of which, as is discussed in greater d e t a i l in chapter V, is located in northern Yukon. As discussed in Appendix A, those concerned with preserving the wilderness quality of northern lands question Parks Canada's dual mandate under the NPA, of enhancing public use" and preserving the natural environment. Due largely to the general nature of the NPA, major management elements, such as zoning for various levels of environmental protection within parks and allowing t r a d i t i o n a l use of resources by native people, are presently l e f t to what some view as "the capricious nature of pol i c y " (Hunt et a l . , 1979:37). In 1978, a proposal to esta b l i s h a special class of "wilderness park", where s t r i c t e r protection measures would be the norm, was discarded, due to "unfavourable public reaction" (Kovacs, 1982). Apparently, some people f e l t that such a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , to be used primarily in the north where more stringent control of use and access may be deemed necessary, would detract from the wilderness image of southern national parks. Instead, "Parks Canada i s (now) proposing amendments to the National Parks Act which would ... allow Parks Canada to l e g i s l a t e class I and II (highest protection) areas in the Zoning Plans for northern parks... their 'wilderness' character would be assured under the Act i t s e l f " ( i b i d . ) . Furthermore, the proposed amendments to the NPA would "exempt (designated wilderness areas) from the application of those paragraphs in the Act and Policy which presently allow for development, such as u t i l i t y services, subdivisions, and 64 roads...(and) prevent the establishment of new u t i l i t y corridors through National Parks." (Parks Canada, 1980b: 2). However, these amendments have been in preparation for some three years, and apparently are not a high p r i o r i t y on the parliamentary agenda. In terms of being a l e g i s l a t i v e tool for w i l d l i f e habitat management and conservation purposes, i t must be noted that management of w i l d l i f e per se i s not a mandate under the Act, and therefore, "...there i s no o v e r a l l commitment to w i l d l i f e within Parks Canada" (Hunt et a_l. , 1979:34). Moreover, methods and c r i t e r i a used in identifying potential park areas are not necessarily consistent with the purposes of habitat protection and management; e.g., in determining park size and features to be included (Theberge et a l . , 1980; Fenge, 1982). As such, while national park status bestows r e l a t i v e l y permanent protection to the land within a park, there are l i m i t a t i o n s to this status, due to the mandate, policy, and past history of park management, with respect to e f f e c t i v e management of land for w i l d l i f e habitat. 65 4.7 Summary While a more thorough evaluation of the present administrative regime follows in chapter VI, i t i s useful to note the following summary points regarding northern land use planning and w i l d l i f e habitat conservation: • DIAND i s indeed 'landlord of the north', but, while i t recently has been struggling to develop and implement a land use planning policy, u n t i l now i t has carried out i t s role in the absence of a systematic, comprehensive approach to land planning and management. E f f o r t s to develop a land use planning policy are being frustrated by poor design and execution of policy i n i t i a t i v e s by DIAND, as well as inter-governmental, inter-agency and public/private-sector power struggles over involvement in land and resource-use decision-making. • DIAND also has the chief role in environmental protection. This i t must carry out along with promoting i n d u s t r i a l development, a dual mandate that has been strongly quest ioned. • W i l d l i f e interests are s p l i t between those who are responsible for w i l d l i f e (the t e r r i t o r i a l governments and CWS) and those responsible for the habitat (primarily DIAND). As a result, common goals, unity of e f f o r t , and coordination of resources in the interests of ef f e c t i v e management of w i l d l i f e and i t s habitat i s , to say the least, d i f f i c u l t to achieve. Applaudably, a northern conservation strategy i s being developed within DIAND, but i t is uncertain i f and how 66 i t w i l l relate to managing a l l lands for e f f e c t i v e environmental and w i l d l i f e habitat protection. Native land claims are of v i t a l importance to future land use and w i l d l i f e decisions. However, while their negotiations are proceeding slowly, i n d u s t r i a l development i s not. Consequently, the values recognized in these negotiations are undermined as valuable land and resources are allocated away to o i l and mineral leases and land use permits. The NEP and COGLA have great influence over land use as related to hydrocarbon development in the north. However, i t is feared that COGLA's discretionary authority can undermine the p r i n c i p l e s of the NLUPP, native land claims, and w i l d l i f e conservation. Regarding the Beaufort Sea region i t s e l f , three overlapping native land claims and several conservation-oriented proposals have been under deliberation for up to ten years. However, 'planning' presently appears to be largely instigated by the hydrocarbon industry, with formal federal input, in a reactionary manner only, through the Beaufort Sea EARP. As such, planning is centered around i n d u s t r i a l concerns, which leaves one to wonder how other values, i f they are always of secondary consideration, can be seriously perceived as important elements in northern land and resource management. The nature and application of l e g a l , i n s t i t u t i o n a l and p o l i c y instruments representing w i l d l i f e habitat values are weak re l a t i v e to their development-oriented counterparts. For 67 example, while the CWA a l l o t s top p r i o r i t y to w i l d l i f e habitat as a land use in NWA's, the fact that only one such area has been only recently established indicates the low p r i o r i t y habitat plays in overall land use decisions. Also, consider the power the CWA has r e l a t i v e to the COGA, or the role that CWS plays r e l a t i v e to COGLA, in land use decisions - and the emphasis on i n d u s t r i a l development over environmental and w i l d l i f e considerations becomes evident. It i s hoped that t h i s chapter has introduced the reader to the nature of land administration in the north, as background to examining a prevailing land use issue involving hydrocarbon development and w i l d l i f e habitat at Stokes Point on the northern Yukon coast. 68 V. STOKES POINT: A CASE EXAMPLE 5. 1 I n t r o d u c t i o n A case example i l l u s t r a t e s how d e c i s i o n s a r e made and c o n f l i c t s r e g a r d i n g a l t e r n a t i v e l a n d uses r e s o l v e d by government. For example, ' p o l i c y ' c o n s i s t s n o t . j u s t of sta t e m e n t s of i n t e n t i o n made by g o v e r n i n g b o d i e s ; i t encompasses the a c t i o n s taken by these b o d i e s , whether they r e i n f o r c e s t a t e d g o a l s and i n t e n t i o n s or n o t . Exa m i n i n g a p a r t i c u l a r l a n d use i s s u e as a case example can t h e r e f o r e i l l u s t r a t e what ' r e a l ' government p o l i c y i s r e g a r d i n g l a n d use and w i l d l i f e h a b i t a t p l a n n i n g and management i n the n o r t h . A f t e r e x a m i n i n g a p r e s e n t l a n d use i s s u e , I w i l l then compare the p r o c e s s f o l l o w e d by government t o the c r i t e r i a f o r an environment and w i l d l i f e -s e n s i t i v e l a n d p l a n n i n g and management regime s u g g e s t e d i n c h a p t e r I I I . The n o r t h e r n Yukon r e g i o n b o r d e r i n g on the B e a u f o r t Sea i s a prime a r e a of i n v e s t i g a t i o n w i t h r e s p e c t t o p o t e n t i a l l y c o n f l i c t i n g l a n d uses. N o r t h e r n Yukon i s w e l l known f o r i t s e c o l o g i c a l l y d i v e r s e and o f t e n unique n a t u r a l environment, and s e r v e s as h a b i t a t f o r a w e a l t h qf w i l d l i f e p o p u l a t i o n s . At the same t i m e , the n o r t h e r n Yukon c o a s t i s i n c l o s e p r o x i m i t y t o major o f f s h o r e o i l and gas l e a s e s and r e l a t e d e x p l o r a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s . I t t h e r e f o r e i s an o b v i o u s c h o i c e f o r l o c a t i n g l a n d - b a s e d s u p p o r t f a c i l i t i e s f o r hydrocarbon e x p l o r a t i o n and development. I t i s e q u a l l y o b v i o u s and i n e v i t a b l e t h a t the o b j e c t i v e s of m a i n t a i n i n g t h i s i m p o r t a n t e n v i r o n m e n t a l r e s o u r c e 69 and encouraging hydrocarbon development w i l l not always be compat i b l e . In t h i s setting of c o n f l i c t i n g interests, Stokes Point has recently arisen as a focal point of concern. Gulf Canada Resources Incorporated has proposed to locate a deep-draft harbour f a c i l i t y at Stokes Point, and has formally applied to DIAND for a land use permit (under the TLA ) to do so. Yet Stokes Point i s located in the e c o l o g i c a l l y r i c h coastal plain (see Figure 3), an area which i s the subject of several conservation-related development proposals. How the federal government handles the issues surrounding the Gulf proposal, how i t responds to the often opposing interests, and how i t treats i t s mandate of rational land planning and a l l o c a t i o n and environmental protection is the subject of t h i s chapter. 5.2 Northern Yukon - Ecological And W i l d l i f e Characteristics "Rarely does an area q u a l i f y for protection on the basis of more than one imposing c r i t e r i o n . the northern Yukon, however, possesses exceptional attributes in several categories; migratory birds in the m i l l i o n s , an international caribou herd, a varied native culture, an archaeological history, and scenery unsurpassed in the Canadian A r c t i c . " (Jakimchuk, 1979:2) "In the warmth of the short-lived summer, the northern Yukon i s perhaps the most productive area for w i l d l i f e in the Canadian A r c t i c . " (Wiken et a l . , 1981:135). There are three features that stand out among the w i l d l i f e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of northern Yukon (Jakimchuk,1979; Flook, 1983): Figure 3 - Northern Yukon: some w i l d l i f e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (adapted from Gulf Canada Resources Inc., 1982; Wiken et a l . , 1981; Dome et a l . , 1982b) 71 © the migration routes and calving grounds of the Porcupine caribou herd. This herd of some 135,000 caribou (Flook, 1983), the fourth largest caribou herd in North America, is "recognized by many as the most important renewable resource of the northern Yukon" (Wiken et a l . , 1981:135). The herd migrates within a vast area of some 250,000 square kilometers in the NWT, Yukon and Alaska. Of primary concern in the coastal regions of Yukon are the calving grounds and their approach routes from the herd's southern winter range (see Figure 3): "The calving grounds, the terminus of the spring migration, are a c r i t i c a l part of the caribou's range due to the s e n s i t i v i t y of the caribou to disturbance during the calving period and the specialized, r e s t r i c t e d area used...The calving grounds are characterized by gently r o l l i n g h i l l s and v a l l e y s . The areas are free of snow, well drained, and sheltered, with good growths of cottongrass, the preferred food at thi s time." (Wiken et a l . , 1981:150) The coastal plains also provide shelter from predators, as these tundra areas are less frequented by wolves and lynx (Calef, 1974). As well, the onslaught of insects occurs l a t e r , allowing time for calves to mature to the point that they are better able to cope with insect harassment and travel with the herd. However, "the calving grounds of the Porcupine herd cannot be precisely delineated..and vary to some degree from year to year" (Wiken et a l . , 1981:150). As is discussed l a t e r , much of the Alaskan portion of the herd's range is protected by the A r c t i c National W i l d l i f e Range. Also of importance is the fact that native people from 72 Aklavik, Fort McPherson, Old Crow, Arct i c V i l l a g e , Fort Yukon, Venetie, and Kaktovik rely on the herd for food (Jakimchuk, 1979). "(Increasing development) pressures may jeopardize (the herd's) present healthy status. Conservation of key habitats and protective management measures are essential i f the herd is to be maintained. ...At stake are national and international r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , and the c u l t u r a l heritage of native people..." (Jakimchuk, 1979:5) the staging, breeding and migration areas for m i l l i o n s of birds along the northern coastal pl a i n and Beaufort Sea shoreline. Jakimchuk (1979:4-5) describes i t thus: "Flat to gently undulating, the plain- i s a l i v e with l i f e during the r i c h but brief A r c t i c summer. Water is everywhere as the active layer of permafrost melts... Shallow lakes pock the landscape; wet meadows turn gree, then white, as the heads of cottongrass ripen. And the short A r c t i c breeding season bustles with the a c t i v i t y of a new nesting and rearing cycle for tens of thousands of migratory birds." "The beaches, sp i t s , islands, and lagoons along the entire northern Yukon coast are v i t a l to large numbers of migratory birds. Shallow lagoons of the river deltas are key habitats..(and) exceptional numbers are involved in the east-west migration corridor along the coast." Some of these migratory bird populations include: whistling swans (one-fifth of the world's population nests on the Yukon coast - Wiken et a l . , 1981), brant, p i n t a i l , green-winged t e a l , American wigeon, red-breasted merganser, Oldsquaw, A r c t i c tern and Ar c t i c loon, and many species of shorebirds and songbirds; a number of birds of r e s t r i c t e d d i s t r i b u t i o n -black guillemot, yellow wagtail, buff-breasted sandpiper; and up to 500,000 lesser snow geese, 100,000 white-fronted and Canada geese, and many thousand scoters, eider, loons, and shorebirds rest and. feed in the region as they migrate from their high Ar c t i c breeding grounds. As Flook notes (1983:4), a l l the birds mentioned migrate to or through the United States, and are the subject of the Migratory Birds Convention; "thus, their conservation i s a national r e s p o n s i b i l i t y " . the Old Crow f l a t s , 5000 square kilometers of lakes, marshes and muskeg in the northwest corner of Yukon. "The interspersion of land and water, and of aquatic vegetation provides a high quality habitat for many aquatic b i r d species, including the largest breeding population of diving ducks and geese in Yukon, a many as 170,000 in some years...The f l a t s not only maintain a reservoir of b i o l o g i c a l d i v e r s i t y , but by the i r vastness and s t a b i l i t y sustain breeding populations displaced from their usual breeding areas on the p r a i r i e s during dry years" (Jakimchuk, 1979:4). The Old Crow f l a t s would not be affected d i r e c t l y by coastal development, but would f e e l the impacts i f , for instance, overland transportation to and from the south is considered necessary. 74 Other w i l d l i f e prominent in northern Yukon include: red and A r c t i c fox and muskrat (important to the fur trapping economy of the north), black, polar, and g r i z z l y bear (one of the largest concentrations remaining in North America - Wiken et a l . , 1981), wolverines, moose, Dall sheep, occasionally muskoxen, golden eagles, gyrfalcons, and peregrine falcons (including endangered and threatened subspecies). Respecting f l o r a : "In most other such areas, disturbance by man has been so great that pioneer or weedy species abound and the uniqueness of the area i s undermined. In (northern Yukon), however, a r c t i c tundra, alpine tundra, and taiga can a l l be observed in t h e i r natural condition. The melding of these three vegetation regions results in a high d i v e r s i t y with over 300 species of native vascular plants and roughly 100 species of bryophytes and lichens. (As well), the area has a f a i r l y high proportion of endemic plant populations." (Wiken et a l . , 1981 : 1 38). Such a b i o l o g i c a l wealth has been the subject of several conservation endeavors. However, the area's proximity to potential o i l and gas reserves in the Beaufort Sea has also sparked interest for locating land-based support f a c i l i t i e s in the region. The major interests and proposals for northern Yukon- are l i s t e d in Table 1, and described in the following sect ions. 75 Table 1 - Major events and proposals for northern Yukon 1960 - Alaska National W i l d l i f e Range established 1965 - f i r s t o i l and gas exploration permits granted by federal government for Beaufort Sea-Mackenzie Delta region 1970 - A r c t i c International W i l d l i f e Range Conference held 1975 - IBP recommends 6 areas in northern Yukon as IBP ecological s i t e s 1977 - Report on the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry recommends that a wilderness park be established in northern Yukon National Energy Board rejects constructing a pipeline across northern Yukon on environmental grounds 1978 - 15000 square miles are withdrawn under the TLA for conservation purposes Inuvialuit Lands Right Settlement: Agreement-in-P r i n c i p l e is signed, designating 5000 square miles to a national wilderness park 1979 - DOE puts forward a National Park/National W i l d l i f e Area proposal for the withdrawn area 1980 - YTG presents i t s "Northern Yukon Resource Management Model" Beaufort Sea development referred to the federal EARP July, - Gulf releases i t s coastal f a c i l i t y s i t i n g study, 1982 i d e n t i f y i n g Stokes Point as i t s preferred s i t e Nov., - Beaufort Sea EIS released; i d e n t i f i e s northern Yukon 1982 as a prime area for coastal support f a c i l i t y Dec., - DIAND instigates " F a c i l i t y S i t i n g ; Beaufort Sea Shore 1982 Zone Study" Mar., - Gulf submits i t s application for a land use permit 1983 for Stokes Point Apr., - DIAND releases the results of the Shore Zone Study 1 983 Minister of DIAND announces that he i s deferring a decision on Stokes Point 76 5.3 Conservation Interests In Northern Yukon Ef f o r t s by U.S. researchers working on the Porcupine caribou herd succeeded in 1960 in having a 36000 square kilometer area in Alaska withdrawn to establish the A r c t i c National W i l d l i f e Range (ANWR), for the protection of the wilderness character and caribou habitat of t h i s area. Pressure was placed on Canada to do the same over the herd's range, but proposals by CWS died for lack of support and no perception of an immediate threat to the area. O i l and gas discoveries off Prudhoe Bay in 1968, and exploration ventures in Canada's Beaufort Sea, revived in t e r e s t . In 1970, an Ar c t i c International W i l d l i f e Range (AIWR) conference recommended the establishment of a reserve covering 15000 square miles (39000 square kilometers) north of the Porcupine and B e l l Rivers, as the eastern counterpart to the ANWR. Indeed, the minister of IAND at that time stated: "I can assure you that I w i l l do everything possible to establish the Range and to ensure i t s protection and e f f e c t i v e management" (Proc. of the AIWRC, 1971). However, by 1977 nothing had been done in support of t h i s recommendation. Justice Berger (1977a:46-47), in his report on the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry, reopened the issue by stating of northern Yukon: "The region should not be open to any future proposal to transport energy across i t , or to o i l and gas exploration and development in general... I therefore urge the Government of Canada to reserve the Northern Yukon as a wilderness park...The park that I propose..should be set up under the National Parks system, but i t would be a new kind of park - a wilderness park. It would af f o r d absolute protection to wilderness and-the environment by excluding a l l i n d u s t r i a l a c t i v i t y within i t . . . . T h i s park would cover the same area as the Canadian part of the proposed International W i l d l i f e Range, and would adjoin the (ANWR) in Alaska...The proposal is e n t i r e l y in keeping with the p r i o r i t i e s for the North set out in the "Statement of the Government of Canada on Northern Development in the 70's"..." This was supported by the National Energy Board (1377:151-152) in i t s rejection of Canadian A r c t i c Gas Pipeline Limited's bid to build a pipeline across northern Yukon: "The main concerns underlying the environmental unacceptability of the northern section of the Prime Route are centered around the Porcupine caribou herd in the Yukon coastal area and the Beluga whales, snow geese and swans of Shallow Bay....The Board is not convinced that mitigative measures could adequately assure protection of this w i l d l i f e . The p o s s i b i l i t y of elimination or s i g n i f i c a n t diminution of the numbers of these mammals and birds is too great a r i s k to accept i f i t can be avoided." Pressure arose again from the U.S. in June 1978, when Congress expanded the ANWR to 76000 square kilometers. The House of Representatives wrote to Prime Minister Trudeau: "From the standpoint of a shared concern of our two nations, we cannot imagine a more f i t t i n g action that might be taken by the Government of Canada at this 78 juncture than the establishment of a northern Yukon wilderness park of the dimensions recommended by Justice Berger. We hope that you and your Cabinet w i l l find i t possible to take prompt and positive steps toward th i s objective." F i n a l l y , in July 1978, the federal government withdrew 15000 square miles (38700 square kilometers) in northern Yukon, pursuant to section 19 of the TLA, from further disposal, "including a l l mines and minerals, whether s o l i d , l i q u i d or gaseous, easements, servitudes and a l l other interests in real property...(because) the lands..are required for a national park and other conservation purposes..."(Canada Government, 1978). H. Faulkner, then the minister of DIAND, stated: "I have concluded that the conservation values of the region exceed the development potential and we must reserve a l l the land north of the Porcupine and B e l l Rivers..." (DIAND, 1978). At the same time, CWS again instigated discussions with U.S., Alaskan, and t e r r i t o r i a l governments, native leaders and special interest groups on an international management agreement, producing a draft "Convention between the United States of America and Canada for the Conservation of Migratory Caribou and their Environment" in May 1977. However, th i s draft has been c r i t i c i z e d as a "serious deviation from the course towards s a t i s f a c t i o n of conservation objectives established a decade ago" (Rees and Russell-LeBlond, 1979: 7), in that "the 79 convention cannot deal d i r e c t l y and e f f e c t i v e l y with land protection and management, nor can i t achieve integration of land and w i l d l i f e management.." (COPE, 1979:12). Subsequently, the U.S. administration changed hands, resulting in a change of emphasis from conservation to development concerns along the Alaskan North Slope. Also, Alaskan representatives were becoming frustrated with Canada's i n a b i l i t y to resolve native land claims in north Yukon. As a re s u l t , negotiations for a f i n a l convention were dropped. However, w i l d l i f e personnel in both countries as well as native associations in Yukon and Alaska are a c t i v e l y pursuing resumption of these negotiations. Since 1978, a number of proposals have arisen regarding the use of a l l or part of the withdrawn area. In October 1978, the Inuvialuit Lands Rights Settlement: Agreement-in-Principle was signed between the Government of Canada and COPE (see Appendix B). Section 12 of t h i s agreement commits both government and the Inuvialuit to the establishment of a "National Wilderness Park for the purpose of w i l d l i f e protection and wilderness conservation.." of not less than 5000 square miles (13000 square kilometers) along the entire Yukon coastline (Figure 4 ( i ) ) . The agreement also recommends consideration of extending the area to include a l l lands north of the Porcupine River for t h i s purpose. DOE presented i t s proposal for northern Yukon in September Figure 4 - Inuvialuit (i) , DOE ( i i ) , and YTG ( i i i ) proposals for northern Yukon (adapted from: COPE et a l . f 1978; Parks Canada, 1978; Jakimchuk, 1979; Yukon Government, 1980) CO o 81 1979 (Wood and Heggie, 1979). It c a l l e d for the establishment of an 8200-square-mile national park in the western portion, and a national w i l d l i f e area (NWA) in the eastern half of the withdrawn area (see Figure 4(i i ) ) . In the proposal, DOE places a p r i o r i t y on the t r a d i t i o n a l hunting, f i s h i n g and trapping a c t i v i t i e s of native people in the area, stating that the park would be managed to continue this use "subject to the protection of the park's resources". It proposes to es t a b l i s h a joint management regime involving l o c a l people according to agreements negotiated with representatives of l o c a l communities. Furthermore, i t states that no intensive use or development zones would be established in the park; that i s , only the "wilderness" zones, described in the previous chapter, would be established. As Figure 4(i i) indicates, the boundaries of the proposed NWA are extended beyond the withdrawn area, to encompass c r i t i c a l migratory corridors for caribou and the range of a population of Dall sheep (Jakimchuk, 1979). The proposal also states that the NWA " w i l l have the complementary objectives of the conservation of w i l d l i f e and i t s habitat, and the opportunity for continuation of t r a d i t i o n a l native l i f e styles which depend upon that w i l d l i f e " (Wood and Heggie, 1979: 6). However, access and "land use" a c t i v i t i e s would be allowed, although " s t r i c t l y controlled through a permit system" ( i b i d . : 7). The YTG opposes the management regime for northern Yukon proposed in the COPE Agreement-in-Principle. It claims that the 82 provisions in the Agreement allowing native hunting and settlement are not in the best interests of long term w i l d l i f e conservation in the region; and that granting up to 1000 square miles of Yukon land to nonresidents is unfair to Yukoners, and could set a precedent that would leave Yukoners with v i r t u a l l y no land base (Yukon Government, 1980). Moreover, i t would cut Yukon off from p o t e n t i a l l y economically important access to the Beaufort Sea. Therefore, in October 1980, the YTG presented i t s own version of a north Yukon management regime in the document "Northern Yukon Resource Management Model" (Figure 4 ( i i i ) ) . This model p a r t i t i o n s the withdrawn lands into four zones: zone A - the northwest corner, to be a national park zone B - Herschel Island, to be a t e r r i t o r i a l h i s t o r i c park zone C - the central and northeast portion, to be a "Special Resource Management Zone" designated under the TLA, where "a variety of resource and land uses w i l l be permitted in a manner which would provide for the conservation of w i l d l i f e and the protection of the environment" ( ibid.:14) zone D - a l l land south of the above zones and north of the Porcupine River, to be possible extensions of zone C. F i n a l l y , as part of the International B i o l o g i c a l Program (IBP), six areas in northern Yukon have been i d e n t i f i e d as worthy of protection on the basis of being representative examples of major natural ecosystems (Revel, 1981): 83 s i t e 4-1: Canoe Lake, Richardson Mountains (225 sq.km.) s i t e 4-7: Herschel Island (17 sq.km.) s i t e 4-10: F i r t h River (4820 sq.km.) s i t e 5: Old Crow Basin (12950 sq.km.) s i t e 6: Firth.River (5957 sq.km.) si t e 7: Rat River, Yukon/NWT border (2007 sq.km.) Even with " a l l these proposals, nothing d e f i n i t i v e has been done with the withdrawn lands since 1978. However, there are disagreements as well as weaknesses associated with establishing a park, wilderness or w i l d l i f e area in the region. For example, as mentioned previously, the YTG and industry oppose COPE's proposal to establish a wilderness park along the entire coastline. However, DOE does not support the YTG's scheme, p a r t i c u l a r l y the Special Resource Management Zone option as opposed to a NWA in the eastern portion of the withdrawn area (Environment Canada, 1982a: appendix G): "While some limited development that c l e a r l y does not compromise w i l d l i f e values might be acceptable... the department cannot support the multiple use concept that t h i s proposal advocates." At the same time, the Inuvialuit are wary of Parks Canada's plan; they feel that due to the agency's public-benefit mandate and because there are no means as yet to l e g i s l a t e a wilderness status for the area, management by Parks Canada would not serve the interests of maintaining the remote, wilderness character that COPE feels i s necessary to protect the renewable resources and t r a d i t i o n a l use in the region. Furthermore, the status of native rights of t r a d i t i o n a l use and occupancy in national parks 84 is ambiguous in the present l e g i s l a t i o n (Hunt et a l . , 1979; Gardner and Nelson, 1981). The amendments to the NPA which would ameliorate some of these perceived problems are, as mentioned previously, s t i l l in the o f f i n g . F i n a l l y , i t appears that the NPA requires that the Crown own a l l land within a national park (Hunt et a l . , 1979), which lessens the li k e l i h o o d that Parks Canada would agree to enter into special landholding arrangements with the Inuvialuit on lands that they may be al l o t t e d through a f i n a l land claim agreement. However, in the case of a national w i l d l i f e area (NWA), fee simple ownership by the Crown i s not required under the Canada W i l d l i f e Act ( CWA ; NWA's can be established on a leasehold or special interest basis. However, as was discussed b r i e f l y in chapter IV and appendix A, NWA's are perceived to have defi c i e n c i e s in terms of wilderness protection; notably, boundaries are not set l e g i s l a t i v e l y and are therefore changed with r e l a t i v e ease by Cabinet. Nor does the CWA preclude environmentally damaging a c t i v i t i e s to the extent that the NPA does. CWS appears to be more w i l l i n g than does Parks Canada to enter into joint management agreements with l o c a l and/or native people that would allow e f f e c t i v e l o c a l control (Keith, 1983). However, l i k e Parks Canada, CWS's policy in respect to native rights i s "not well a r t i c u l a t e d " (Hunt et a l . , 1979:109). However, the legal ( i . e . , legislated) status of f i n a l land claims agreements could strengthen those elements of a park and/or w i l d l i f e area that are established as part of an agreement, that may be considered to be inadequately covered in 85 other forms of l e g i s l a t i o n . As Hunt et a l . (1979:113) note: "Agreements could deal with such matters as hunting rights, landholding arrangements, c u l t u r a l emphasis in interpretive programs, and the nature and extent of permitted uses and a c t i v i t i e s . . . a n analogy can be found in the fede r a l - p r o v i n c i a l agreements to which the development of many southern parks is subject." Furthermore, such factors could be f i n a l i z e d without awaiting proposed amendments to the NPA to be passed. How amenable Parks Canada may be to terms of native-government agreements that native people may demand (such as less than fee simple ownership of park lands) i s questionable. However, a NWA may be somewhat easier ( ibid.:113): "Making the establishment and administration of national w i l d l i f e areas in the north subject to native-government agreements could permit special arrangements without impinging upon the i n t e g r i t y of the existing system in the south. The CWA already authorizes the development of such agreements..." Therefore, each proposal i n d i v i d u a l l y is probably inadequate to f u l l y protect w i l d l i f e habitat in northern Yukon. However, in combination, a s a t i s f a c t o r y arrangement could possibly be established. 5.4 Industrial Interests In Northern Yukon The f i r s t exploration permits were issued by the federal government in 1965, to encourage industry to explore for o i l and gas in the Beaufort Sea-Mackenzie Delta region. O i l discoveries at three s i t e s , Tarsuit, Kopanoar, and Issungnak created 86 interest in designing systems for extraction and delivery of o i l and gas (see Figure 5). As discussed in chapter IV, proposals evolving from t h i s interest in the industry and pressure from environmental groups led the minister of IAND in July 1980 to refer development and production of Beaufort Sea hydrocarbons to a formal public review under the federal EARP, stating "It is our conclusion that a project of t h i s nature would have po t e n t i a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t environmental impacts..." (Munro, 1980). 5.4.1 The Beaufort Sea EIS As i s evident in Figure 5, i f based solely on proximity, the northern Yukon coastline is obviously conducive to locating support f a c i l i t i e s for offshore d r i l l s i t e s and leaseholds. In the seven-volume Environmental Impact Statement for Hydrocarbon  Development in the Beaufort Sea-Mackenzie Delta released in November 1982, the proponent companies id e n t i f y the Yukon coast as a preferred area for s i t i n g future "primary support f a c i l i t i e s " , described as: "..centres to which a l l cargo is transported from the south, reorganized then d i s t r i b u t e d to work s i t e s and project locations. They w i l l also function as personnel terminals, having major airport f a c i l i t i e s , where workers a r r i v i n g from the south may transfer to smaller l o c a l a i r c r a f t in order to reach work s i t e s . Some w i l l also be major marine bases with docking, mooring and repair f a c i l i t i e s for the d r i l l s h i p s , dredges, icebreakers, supply ships and other vessels." (Dome et a l . , 1982b:5.24) The proponents predict that by 1986, assuming an "intermediate" rate of production development, they w i l l require 200 hectares 87 F i g u r e 5 - Some major o i l and gas d i s c o v e r i e s and l e a s e h o l d s i n the B e a u f o r t Sea-Mackenzie D e l t a r e g i o n (adapted from Dome P e t r o l e u m L t d . , 1982; Dome e t a l . , 1982a; DIAND, 1983a,c,d) 88 of land for such support bases. Since existing major bases at Tuktoyaktuk and McKinley Bay are using 40 hectares, they foresee an expansion of a further 160 hectares, and go on to say: "If f u l l y developed, a Yukon coast base may function as the major deep sea port for the Region, providing year-round r e f u e l l i n g and servicing f a c i l i t i e s for a l l types of vessels." ( ibid.:5.28) The EIS i d e n t i f i e s s p e c i f i c locations of interest along the Yukon coast ( ibid.:5.28): "If further support base f a c i l i t i e s are required, King Point or Stokes Point would appear to be very l i k e l y candidates...This area has potential for development of a deep water, year-round port, with a i r s t r i p c a p a b i l i t y and excellent c i v i l engineering s i t e conditions...The area i s accessible by r i v e r barges and could also be reached by winter road and perhaps eventually (Dome proposal) an all-weather road to reach Fort McPherson and the Dempster Highway, which could be advantageous at some future date... By 1986, thi s support base could encompass 75 hectares including road and access allowance and an airport f a c i l i t y capable of receiving Boeing 767 a i r c r a f t . . . " Regarding Stokes Point s p e c i f i c a l l y ( ibid.:5.29): "If approval is given, development of a base at Stokes Point would take place in stages, starting with a small base in 1983 to support exploration d r i l l i n g . " Obviously then, the proponent companies consider Stokes Point as a l i k e l y f a c i l i t y s i t e for both exploration and production purposes. 89 5.4.2 Gulf's Proposal For Stokes Point Federal government policy u n t i l recently has been to concentrate i n d u s t r i a l development in as few areas as possible, in an e f f o r t to minimize extensive impacts on the Ar c t i c environment. It therefore had indicated to Gulf, Dome and Esso that they would have to share existing port f a c i l i t i e s at McKinley Bay in the Northwest T e r r i t o r i e s (Burnet, 1983). However, due to active coastal sediment flow, the approach route to McKinley Bay i s prone to i n f i l l i n g , and hence the Bay i s naturally quite shallow. Gulf's l a t e s t additions to i t s d r i l l i n g operations system, a conical d r i l l i n g unit and mobile Ar c t i c caisson as well as additional icebreakers and supply vessels, require harbour f a c i l i t i e s at least 12 meters deep and access channels at least 150 meters wide (Mclnnes, 1982). Gulf claims that to dredge and widen the approaches to McKinley would cost $100 m i l l i o n , whereas a deepwater harbour could be developed at Stokes Point for only $60 m i l l i o n . Gulf also argues that using deep draft supply ships would save the company $10 m i l l i o n annually in operating costs (Gulf Canada Resources :Inc., 1982). When Gulf made i t s needs for a deep draft harbour known, i t seems that DIAND and COGLA gave the company their blessing to go pick a s i t e : " . . i t was agreed that we (Gulf) would examine a l l the l i k e l y s i t e s on the Beaufort rim and report back as to which of them we believed would be safest and most suitable using the c r i t e r i a indicated" (Loh, 1982). Of note here i s t"he fact that from the outset, DIAND did not deflect Gulf's examination away 90 from the area that was withdrawn "for conservation purposes" in northern Yukon. In July 1982, Gulf presented the results of a coastal f a c i l i t y s i t i n g study that i t had conducted to Ottawa, and requested permission to establish a marine support base at i t s choice of s i t e s , Stokes Point. According to Gulf (1982:11), the function of the base would be: "..to support our offshore d r i l l i n g operations. It w i l l be our major f a c i l i t y for storing and transferring fuel and d r i l l i n g consumables..to the d r i l l i n g units. Accomodation w i l l be provided for an estimated 100 personnel. The base w i l l also contain some repair and maintenance f a c i l i t i e s for the marine f l e e t and d r i l l i n g units. An airport capable of handling medium to large a i r c r a f t w i l l eventually be required as well as deep water harbouring." On the surface, Gulf's request i s for a base to support i t s exploration a c t i v i t i e s only: "In applying for approval to establish a marine base, our intention i s that i t be used to support our exploratory and possibly development d r i l l i n g programs. It may-or may not be a suitable candidate for a terminal when o i l production eventually commences as t h i s w i l l depend upon where o i l i s found and the production method selected." ( ibid.:13) However, neither does the company wish to foreclose i t s options to use i t s chosen s i t e for further development and possibly production a c t i v i t i e s . In the study, c r i t e r i a used in comparing eight potential s i t e s indicate that Gulf has i t s eye on something more than a temporary, exploration f a c i l i t y s i t e : "Ten (10) ha. i s considered to be the absolute minimum i n i t i a l land requirement pl.us provision for an 91 a i r s t r i p . A permanent f a c i l i t y would need the a b i l i t y to grow to at least 60 ha." ( i b i d . : 3 2 , emphasis added) "The f a c i l i t y location should have maximum potential for long term growth and development...(i.e.) s u i t a b i l i t y for use during development and production operations." ( ibid.:34-35) Of the c r i t e r i a used in delineating and then evaluating s i t e choices, only three deal with regulatory, socio-economic and environmental factors, respectively. The remaining f i f t e e n c r i t e r i a cover a variety of technical considerations, in most of which Stokes Point scores highly, and, hence, won Gulf's approval. As one government c r i t i q u e fo Gulf's proposal document notes (IERC, 1982: 2): "Gulf has understandably guided the s i t e selection to sa t i s f y their requirements for a marine support base...While i t i s realized that Gulf has made i t s s i t e choice on the basis of i t s own values..does the Stokes Point choice r e a l l y r e f l e c t the best consideration of environmental and technical c r i t e r i a ? " As to how Gulf proposes to deal with the other major interests in northern Yukon: 1. land withdrawal: "Gulf may apply to DIAND to request Privy Council to revoke the Order and establish a new Order excluding Gulf's recommended s i t e " (Gulf, 1982:59) 2. land claims: "Land claims negotiations could slow down the application approval process for which Gulf has no mitigative action other than applying for an 92 alternative location" ( ibid.:59). 3. park proposal: "It is..possible to obtain an exclusion from the proposed park area... (Also), Gulf w i l l cooperate with Parks Canada in designing the shore base f a c i l i t i e s to ensure minimal use of sensitive areas" ( ibid.:59). 5.4.3 Gulf's Application For A Land Use Permit Gulf submitted a formal land use application for the proposed marine support base at Stokes Point on March 11, 1983. The description of the required support base is much the same as is given in Gulf's 1982 proposal. However, there are several points in t h i s application worth noting. F i r s t , while Gulf states "The area needed to meet the exploration requirements is estimated to be 40 hectares", a much larger area is actually requested in the application, on the basis that the company needs to evaluate the entire area before f i n a l i z i n g i t s s p e c i f i c needs. "The additional area requested..wi11 be returned or remain unused upon f i n a l i z a t i o n of our s i t e plans" (Gulf, 1983:2). This leads one to speculate i f Gulf i s trying to ensure room for future expansion by requesting a larger land area than is immediately required. Second, the emphasis on use of the s i t e for exploration purposes only is apparent, but s t i l l c a r e f u l l y worded: "The application is for an exploration base only, and Gulf is designing a f a c i l i t y that can be removed at 93 the end of the exploration phase. Whether or not the base i s actually removed w i l l depend upon the need for the base, the requirements for the base and the outcome of the upcoming Environmental Impact Statement hearings. Gulf has followed standard engineering practices by modifying the i n i t i a l design at a small cost in order to provide options for the future (should they develop) which may otherwise require expensive a l t e r a t i o n . . . " (Gulf, 1983: attachment 1, p.1) Third, appended to the application is a three-page table e n t i t l e d " C l a r i f i c a t i o n of information provided in the July 1982 Stokes Point Report". In i t , Gulf performs a b i t of backpedalling regarding certain 'hot' issues that arose from the report, and apparent contradictions between i t , the Beaufort Sea EIS, and subsequent statements made by Gulf and DIAND o f f i c i a l s . Besides the exploration versus production requirements dispute, three other matters are dealt with: • whereas in i t s 1982 proposal, Gulf looked favourably upon an eventual link with the*Dempster Highway, i t now says i t has "no interest in building or maintaining such a road to the exploration base" ( i b i d . ; emphasis added). » Gulf had o r i g i n a l l y c ited the a b i l i t y to handle Boeing 767's as a c r i t e r i o n in choosing Stokes Point. However, now i t says: "Gulf has taken the position that Boeing 767's w i l l not be used at the Stokes Point exploration base. Normal a i r c r a f t operations w i l l involve approaches over water, with short f i n a l approaches overland, to minimize potential impacts with caribou during calving periods." ( ibid.) 94 © F i n a l l y , the p o s s i b i l i t y of obtaining granular resources from inland s i t e s was presented in the July 1982 proposal. However: "Gulf has taken the position that it' w i l l not require now, or for the duration of the Exploration Agreement as presently approved, the use of any borrow, granular or bedrock materials from inland sources in the v i c i n i t y of Stokes Point, including Mount Sedgwick." ( i b i d . ; emphasis added) A l l of the above issues have been raised volubly by environmental groups as being sources of major disturbance to the w i l d l i f e in the area. The fact remains, however, that while Gulf maintains i t does not require these f a c i l i t i e s and resources now - what about in the future? Stokes Point is i d e n t i f i e d in the Beaufort Sea EIS as an at t r a c t i v e s i t e for supporting offshore development and production. If the s i t e i s approved now for exploration purposes, there would obviously be a p r e j u d i c i a l influence on future decisions regarding production f a c i l i t y s i t e s ; the many environmental, s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l arguments against a permanent marine base would lose c r e d i b i l i t y as f a c i l i t i e s would be b u i l t , transportation routes established, and the area environmentally would become "already messed up". As i s discussed in the next section, no matter how much Gulf and DIAND i n s i s t otherwise, the future of Stokes Point's natural ecosystems, and perhaps those of the entire Yukon north coast, hinges on this land use permit. 95 5.5 Response To Gulf's Proposal 5.5.1 DIAND "One i s l e f t to wonder..that having acknowledged the area's s e n s i t i v i t y for aquatic and w i l d l i f e resources..and i t s importance in land claims and park proposals, and the federal government's withdrawal of the surrounding 15000 square miles...(why) Gulf would even consider the s i t e . " (IERC, 1982:1) What i s perhaps more bewildering, however, is the fact that DIAND would consider Gulf's proposal and application for a land use permit - and very seriously, at that. However, DIAND's attitude becomes apparent in the following quotes from G.N. Faulkner, Assistant Deputy Minister (ADM) for the Northern A f f a i r s Program of DIAND: "Gulf received approvals for new d r i l l i n g systems as integral parts of their exploration program, and i t would c l e a r l y be unreasonable of. government to approve d r i l l i n g programs and then impose constraints on support bases that would impede an e f f e c t i v e implementation of these programs. For these reasons, we consider i t appropriate that my Minister should be able to allow an exploration support base to be established provided i t is done in a c a r e f u l l y controlled manner." (Faulkner, 1982a; emphasis added) "I cannot be unmindful of the very real and legitimate pressures and concerns that should move us in the di r e c t i o n of a more noticeable pro-development  position. The National Energy Program and our own past support for hydrocarbon exploration in the Beaufort Sea - with i t s attendent multi-million dollar expenditures - reinforce the point that we should be  developing a bias toward encouraging a c t i v i t i e s that complement the objective of attaining energy s e l f -s u f f i c i e n c y . " (Faulkner, 1982b; emphasis added) Widespread negative response to Gulf's proposal, however, 96 precipitated a hurried government assessment of potential harbour s i t e s along the Beaufort coast. The resu l t i n g reports conclude in favour of either Stokes Point or King Point as a harbour f a c i l i t y s i t e , depending on anticipated depth requirements. However, the authors of the reports note: "The scope of the study was limited to locating a support base on the Beaufort Coast to serve the offshore o i l and gas operation using technical/environmental c r i t e r i a . Other resource sectors, community or t e r r i t o r i a l requirements were not taken into account. It i s therefore not a comprehensive coastal f a c i l i t i e s planning study not was i t intended to be one." ( F a c i l i t i e s S i t i n g : Beaufort Sea Shore Zone Study, 1983: 2). Moreover: "The 1978, 39000 kilometer 2 land withdrawal in the North Yukon...and the land claim interests, both COPE and CYI, were not a r e s t r i c t i o n in the selection of site s for this study" ( ibid.:14) . It is interesting to note that the federal government groups carrying out the study did not 'get r o l l i n g ' u n t i l February 1983, yet had to f i n a l i z e their reports by March 31. As was noted by one consultant providing supporting information to the study: "the brevity of the time period a l l o t t e d for the study...was a constraint on our a b i l i t y to review a l l relevant materials and make a l l the contacts one would want to make.." (Fox, 1983) Why by March 31? Apparently, Gulf claims that i t required n o t i f i c a t i o n of permission by the end of A p r i l , in order to take f u l l advantage of the 1983 open water season to start 97 construction at Stokes Point. It appears, then, that i n i t i a l l y , i n d u s t r y schedules took precedence over thorough evaluation by government, and other, primarily conservation interests that have been waiting for government action for fiv e years: "You w i l l appreciate that my Minister has important on-going r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s managing resources in the North and i t s i s not always possible to set these aside while other negotiations respecting establishment of parks, land claims, etc. are being f i n a l i z e d . However, every e f f o r t w i l l be made not to prejudice these processes." (Faulkner, I982d) In reviewing Gulf's proposal, DIAND pub l i c l y considers the company's request to be for a f a c i l i t y to support exploration a c t i v i t i e s only, regardless of indications to the contrary expressed in the company's proposal document: "The Gulf application is not, however, a request for a permanent port, but a request for a r e l a t i v e l y few hectares of coastal land for use as a marine support f a c i l i t y during the exploration phase of i t s operations." (Faulkner, 1982c) But as Fox (1983) again points out, regarding the s i t i n g study: "We wish to emphasize that the data and analysis provided is only relevant to an exploration base...We are concerned with the p o s s i b i l i t y that an exploration base si t e d from your study might eventually lead to a production base.." F i n a l l y , there i s some argument over whether Gulf's application for a land use permit i s a 'v i o l a t i o n ' of the withdrawal at a l l . Section 19(a) of the TLA states: 98 "The Governor-in-Council may..upon setting forth the reasons for withdrawal in the order, order the withdrawal of any tract or tracts of t e r r i t o r i a l lands from disposal under this Act..." (emphasis added) DIAND claims, upon consultation with legal advisors from the federal Justice Department, that a land use permit i s not le g a l l y a "disposition" because i t conveys no interest in the land i t s e l f , only the right to carry out certain a c t i v i t i e s not normally allowed. However, there are members of the legal profession who argue that such an interpretation does not uphold the " s p i r i t " of the l e g i s l a t i o n ; i . e . , that the land was withdrawn for conservation reasons, pending conservation, and not i n d u s t r i a l development decisions. 5.5.2 DOE DOE i s decidedly against locating any permanent f a c i l i t y along the Yukon coast, as stated in a memorandum by the department's Corporate Planning Group (Environment Canada, I982d) : "The Department has advised DIAND and proposes to state p u b l i c l y , i t s unequivocable opposition to any permanent port s i t e being decided upon u n t i l : a) The Beaufort Sea Environmental Assessment Process is complete ( f a l l 1983) b) A regional plan or at least a shore zone plan has been developed for the Beaufort Sea c) Decisions are made on the f i n a l boundaries and disposition of the Northern Yukon National Park and National W i l d l i f e Area d) COPE and CYI native claims are resolved." This position was stated p u b l i c l y on December 12, 1982, when 99 J. Roberts, Minister of DOE, responded to questions before the parliamentary Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry (Canada Goverment, 1982: 62:13). Although this position makes reference only to a permanent f a c i l i t y , personnel within the department do not consider Gulf's proposal to be merely for a temporary f a c i l i t y at Stokes Point, even, i f a land use permit i s issued only for that purpose. Rather, i t would be merely a 'foot in the door' for expansion to development and production dimensions in the future (Maxwell, 1983). In a l e t t e r to the deputy minister of DIAND, DOE's deputy minister states (Seaborn, • 1982): "My concern is that interim arrangements such as are being considered at Stokes Point, w i l l be viewed by the public and those involved in native claims negotiations, as an incremental step toward more permanent f a c i l i t i e s which industry's proposals encompass." This view is shared by the Beaufort Sea EAR panel, who see serious implications for the north and the EARP's c r e d i b i l i t y (Tener, 1982): "If Gulf i s given approval to proceed with construction of an exploration related f a c i l i t y at Stokes Point before the Panel completes i t s review, the Panel's a b i l i t y to f u l l y consider a l l options for Beaufort Sea port f a c i l i t i e s could be seriously compromised. Furthermore, the Panel believes i t could lose i t s public c r e d i b i l i t y i f the public believed that decisions such as that r e l a t i n g to the Stokes Point proposal are made by the government before completion of a formal public review." However, DIAND i n s i s t s that the proposal is only in the interests of exploration a c t i v i t i e s , and therefore not within 100 the purview of the Beaufort Sea EARP (Faulkner, 1982c). DOE's position extends to any consideration of development proposals within the withdrawn area of the north Yukon coast: "The government has made i t clear that i t intends a park there - that i t is committed to a park. Therefore, we regard the area as almost a national park - and accordingly we are opposed to a port development in the park area or to a study of such development. The area was withdrawn for national park purposes by order in council. It should not be studied for development purposes without a cabinet decision to do so." (Davidson, 1982) However, DIAND i s adamant that the withdrawn lands should be considered in any study of f a c i l i t y s i t e s , so as not to foreclose any location a l options (Faulkner, 1982c). As a result, DOE refused to parti c i p a t e in any studies aimed s p e c i f i c a l l y at evaluating potential s i t e locations on the Beaufort coast, although i t was w i l l i n g to take part in any "generic" or process-oriented a c t i v i t i e s . Whether th i s was cause for concern or r e l i e f within DIAND i s speculative. A f i n a l concern within DOE rests with i t s hopes to renew discussions with the U.S. government regarding the establishment of a Canada/U.S. Migratory Caribou Agreement, which would include protection of the Porcupine herd's range: "For Canada to allow any development, at this stage, in the c r i t i c a l calving and summer range of the herd on the Yukon coastal plain would undercut Canada's strongly expressed interest in a caribou agreement with the United States." (Seaborn, 1982). 101 5.5.3 YTG The YTG, by and large, is in favour of locating a major port f a c i l i t y on the north coast. The proposal conforms to i t s v i s i o n of development as stated in i t s "North Yukon Resource Management Model". As was stated in the t e r r i t o r i a l l e g i slature: "Perhaps the most s i g n i f i c a n t benefit is that the development would make Yukon an active partner in the Beaufort development. It would provide us with an opportunity to establish a strong Yukon presence on our northern coastline." (Yukon Hansard, November 17, 1982) The YTG agrees with Gulf's conclusion that the Stokes Point s i t e i s environmentally favourable because i t is already "impacted" by the presence of an abandoned dewline station and associated a i r s t r i p . Moreover, i t anticipates greater developments to evolve from i t : "The development of a major harbour here, together with a land access corridor connecting i t to the Dempster Highway, could have a profound impact on the development of other land-based mineral, o i l and gas resources in Yukon." ( ibid.) As a result, the YTG passed a motion that "the Government of Yukon supports in p r i n c i p l e the development of a deep water port along the northern coastline of Yukon, providing such development is s o c i a l l y and environmentally sound" ( i b i d . ) . However, i t i s not endorsed by a l l Yukoners. Doubts have been expressed by some members of the l e g i s l a t u r e : 1 02 "(The) peripheral development must also be environmentally, s o c i a l l y and economically sound...Not only should i t be a good economic decision for the industry, but i t must also be a good economic decision for northern r e s i d e n t s . . . B r i e f l y , what would i t cost Yukon, what wi l l . Yukon receive?" ( ibid.) As well, concerns have been expressed regarding the effect on w i l d l i f e and on Yukon native people: "If we allow development to take place, and the consequences are that i t causes the downfall of (the Porcupine caribou) herd, we would be, in e f f e c t , destroying the community of Old Crow." ( ibid.) An environmental advisor to the Old Crow Indian band council commented that the government should have withheld the motion u n t i l land claims are s e t t l e d and further studies completed (Whitehorse Star, November 24, 1982). 5.5.4 Native Groups Obviously, native associations with a stake in northern Yukon are not in favour of Gulf's proposal, primarily because i t is a decision being contemplated, and l i k e l y w i l l be made, prior to settlement of land claims and agreements regarding native rights in the region. The CYI claims that the protection of the natural environment on which the people of Old Crow depend should be the primary goal for northern Yukon (CYI, 1982). COPE is opposed to any decision before the settlement of i t s land claims in the region. In response to DIAND's (I982e) statement that "the s p i r i t and understandings set out in the COPE Agreement in P r i n c i p l e are to be followed" when dealing with 1 03 Gulf's proposal, the president of COPE wrote to G. N. Faulkner (Green, 1982): "..any approval which would create an interest or an expectation of an interest to land by Gulf would be inconsistent with the Agreement in Pr i n c i p l e and would not be compatible with the good f a i t h in negotiations underway to the Fi n a l Agreement." Furthermore, in a l e t t e r to the president of Gulf, the NWT l e g i s l a t i v e member for the Western A r c t i c , a proponent of the interests of the Inuvialuit, condemned Gulf's actions: "Your company's proposal to develop the North Slope shows a blatant disregard for the l i v e l i h o o d , l i f e s t y l e and wishes of the residents of the Mackenzie Delta and North Slope, who have consistently maintained that the North Slope must be protected i f they are to survive as a people... Your request to the federal government to renounce i t s agreement between Canada and COPE for the settlement of Inuvialuit aboriginal rights, without the s l i g h t e s t consultation with the group affected, in order to f a c i l i t a t e Gulf's short term convenience, i s an outrageous a f f r o n t . " (Cournoyea, 1982) 5.5.5 Nongovernmental Organizations Nongovernmental organizations (NGO's) concerned with the northern environment and i t s administration strongly support DOE's arguments that Gulf's application should not be considered u n t i l commitments made under the land withdrawal and to COPE are honoured, or proposed changes are opened for public review. As C. Templeton (1982), an environmental consultant, wrote to the minister of DIAND: "If you decide to change the course set by Berger, the NEB and parliament regarding the development of 1 04 f a c i l i t i e s on the North Slope...I hope you w i l l document your reasoning and give the people a chance to express themselves before the action takes place." NGO's also argue that DIAND should acknowledge that the proposal has long-term significance, and should be reviewed in that l i g h t . As the executive director of CARC comments (Burnet, 1983:6) : "To suggest seriously that Gulf would build a 60-m i l l i o n dollar port and then cheerfully dismantle i t to build another (elsewhere)...is to str a i n c r e d u l i t y . One only has to refer to Gulf's own EIS to see i t has long-term plans, yet Gulf and DIAND continue to i n s i s t the project i s temporary." As indicative of their stance, CARC and the A r c t i c International W i l d l i f e Range Society (AIWRS) announced on March 23, 1983 that they w i l l seek a court injunction i f the federal government grants Gulf i t s land use permit for Stokes Point, on grounds that u n t i l the 1978 Order-in-Counci1 withdrawing the land from further disposal under the TLA is revoked or amended, "there is no authority to dispose of the land" (CARC, 1983). 105 5.6 The Implications For W i l d l i f e The potential effects of construction of a port f a c i l i t y on w i l d l i f e and w i l d l i f e habitat in the v i c i n i t y of Stokes Point are many. A major impact involves the Porcupine caribou herd, and the proximity of the proposed harbour s i t e to i t s calving grounds. "Biologists appearing before the (Mackenzie Valley Pipeline) Inquiry agree that t h i s calving period is the most c r i t i c a l and sensitive time in the caribou l i f e cycle, and, along with the period of post-calving aggregation, is the time when pa r t i c u l a r care must be taken to protect the herd." (CARC, 1976). The herd varies in i t s location of calving concentration from year to year, due to v a r i a b i l i t y in snow conditions, migrational hazards, etc., such that calving a c t i v i t y i s very l i g h t in some years and heavy in others in the immediate v i c i n i t y of Stokes Point. Apparently, this v a r i a b i l i t y has led Gulf (1982:21) to conclude: "The potential for any major impact on caribou w i l l be subjective and w i l l depend on the numbers in the area, and for t h i s reason w i l l probably be minor in nature." Whatever i s meant by "subjective" impacts i s anyone's guess. However, to use d i s t r i b u t i o n a l v a r i a b i l i t y as a means to j u s t i f y development acce p t a b i l i t y destroys any pretense at environmental planning. "(What is) more important, i f w i l d l i f e v a r i a b i l i t y is used as a j u s t i f i c a t i o n for development permission, is proof that o i l industry operations can be equally adaptable" 106 (IERC,1982:2). It has been noted by several b i o l o g i s t s that female caribou are more responsive to physical disturbance than males, p a r t i c u l a r l y during the calving and post-calving season (Calef, 1974; Cameron and Whitten, 1980). This is compounded by the fact that after the rigours of winter, northward migration, and with the added demands of bearing young, the caribou are at "the low point of their reserves for the year" (Martell, 1982:173). Prolonged disturbance or prevention from using portions of their range can cause greater s u s c e p t i b i l i t y to predators, insects, and cause physiological and/or behavioral changes. For example, Calef (1974) reports that disturbance at the time of calving may interfere with the normal cow-calf bonding interaction, and cause the pair to move before the c a l f has dried or been able to nurse, or even cause the cow to abandon the c a l f . A l l of these factors can lead to a lowered rate of success in breeding and rearing young, and, ultimately, to a decline in the population. A second major impact involves the migratory birds that use the area. Large numbers of snow geese use extensive regions around Stokes Point for staging, and other waterfowl occupy the productive i n l e t s and marshes along the coast during their moulting season. Again, Gulf claims that "the effect of Stokes Point development on waterfowl would appear to be r e l a t i v e l y minor considering the number of areas and yearly variation in the d i s t r i b u t i o n of waterfowl" (Gulf, 1982:23), and proposes to mitigate these effects by c o n t r o l l i n g -construct ion practices and 1 07 conducting personnel education programs. While the immediate sp a t i a l loss at Stokes Point appears not to be extensive, the disturbances created by construction, operation and transportation a c t i v i t i e s could mean a greater e f f e c t i v e loss of habitat throughout the region. For example, increased interference during pre-migration feeding periods could result in c o s t l y energy losses. Other w i l d l i f e populations whose use of the area could be severely c u r t a i l e d are Arctic fox that den in the region, and ringed seals. Gulf (1982) notes that the area had one of the highest densities of hauled out seals from 1974 to 1979, yet the company claims that icebreaking a c t i v i t i e s , while causing direct mortality to seal pups, w i l l have only "minor" impacts on the seal population. This may be true on the scale of the entire Arc t i c coast, but in a regional sense, considering the seals' importance to the l o c a l ecology and native culture, "these effects should not be dismissed" (IERC, 1982:3). Turning to types of a c t i v i t i e s , a i r c r a f t disturbance presents another category of environmental implications. Snow geese, and calving caribou are p a r t i c u l a r l y sensitive to a i r c r a f t . Gulf (1982) proposes to r e s t r i c t a l t i t u d e and f l i g h t patterns accordingly, but as the IERC (1982:3) point out: "This sounds easier said than done. How w i l l rotation of personnel and supply of goods be achieved during the several month period of snow goose and caribou s e n s i t i v i t y ? " 108 Although Gulf denies a present interest, the p o s s i b i l i t y of a road eventually connecting the proposed port to the Dempster Highway or to inland gravel borrow s i t e s , l a n d f i l l areas, etc. presents another source of disturbance to w i l d l i f e populations. In a summary analysis of data to date, Klein (1980:519) concludes: "Roads, railroads, pipelines...or other man-made linear features can block, delay, or deflect the movements of caribou...The l e v e l and type of vehicular t r a f f i c and other human a c t i v i t i e s associated with these features, as well as the season of the year..are major factors influencing reaction of caribou." Any routes to or from a Stokes Point f a c i l i t y would l i k e l y cross paths with the routes used by pregnant females to reach calving grounds, or those used by post-calving aggregations. Again, as Martell (1982:173) points out: "Because caribou are at the low point of their energy reserves for the year, and cows have the added demands of a growing fetus, i t i s essential during the spring migration that caribou have the freedom to choose the least energetically costly routes for movement, and have access to the best areas for feeding." This, compounded by the natural shyness of female caribou to roadways, make the Porcupine herd p a r t i c u l a r l y vulnerable to any consideration of a road to or along the north slope. In i t s 1982 proposal, when i t was s t i l l contemplating a road, Gulf suggests that i t would build "key crossings" to allow caribou passage (studies discussed by Klein (1980) showed these worked only occasionally), control the use of vehicles, give caribou "the right of,way" and educate i t s personnel. Again i t must be 109 asked: how well can work schedules and supply demands conform to the needs of the herd? More c r i t i c a l l y , how w i l l i n g i s the industry to adapt these schedules to the caribou's clock? F i n a l l y , and perhaps the most fundamental implication of development a c t i v i t i e s in northern Yukon, is the 'opening up' of wilderness areas, and removing northern w i l d l i f e ' s most ef f e c t i v e survival ploy - remoteness. Findings from recent studies by the Yukon W i l d l i f e Branch of the effects of the Dempster Highway indicate that the road may be perceived by caribou as neutral or s l i g h t l y positive in terms of providing accessible vegetation and a travel route when no vehicles are present. However, the study suggests that strong avoidance to the entire corridor area w i l l l i k e l y occur with increased vehicular use, notably so when caribou associate the road with hunting. More importantly, "whenever roads have been b u i l t in migratory caribou winter ranges and hunting was uncontrolled, these large herds have declined" (Russell, 1982:188). Restricted use and no-hunting prohibitions are obvious mitigative procedures for these roadways, but the l o g i s t i c s of enforcement become immense over such vast and unpopulated areas. Moreover, once the roads are constructed, public pressure demanding their use may be insurmountable. As Russell (1982:189) notes: " . . . i t is_not the road i t s e l f , nor the present t r a f f i c l e v e l s , th'at jeopardize the Porcupine herd; i t is the increasing pressure from natives and non-natives a l i k e to open up the Dempster to hunting that can turn the tide, and can result in the eventual decline of this valuable northern w i l d l i f e resource." It i s apparent from both the Beaufort Sea EIS and Gulf's proposal that environmental research are not major objectives the industry's plans. Gulf (1982:71) pays perfunctuary acknowledgement to "studies (that) may be required following conceptual and/or actual approval of our request for a marine support base". Doubts regarding the company's assessment of impacts on w i l d l i f e have been expressed. For example, IERC (1982:2) states: "There i s i n s u f f i c i e n t information available (or made available) to judge the actual impacts of development, and the vagueness of some of the related discussion is merely a hindrance to useful assessment." The Beaufort Sea Environmental Assessment Panel (1983b:17 18) points out similar d e f i c i e n c i e s in the EIS: "..the Panel i s not s a t i s f i e d that conclusions concerning environmental risks and effects can be inferred from the evidence presented in the EIS... cumulative and synergistic e f f e c t s were inadequately described... The EIS should have assessed, in some cases, impacts prior to implementation of mitigative measures..." The Panel (1983b:19) also c r i t i c i z e s the EIS's treatment of mitigative measures: "The EIS should have specified mitigative measures to be used to avoid or reduce potential impacts, 111 i d e n t i f i e d situations where no mitigative measures are available, and developed a program to monitor the  effectiveness of the mitigative measures proposed." (emphasis added) The same situation has been found to be true with other northern i n d u s t r i a l projects, whether they involve recommendations made through an EARP review (Rees, 1980) or conditions imposed under the TLUR 's (Podlog, 1977). Therefore, even i f mitigative measures are required under l e g i s l a t i o n , subsequent inadequate monitoring by industry or government negates their effectiveness in the development process. In general, many who favour developing Stokes Point view disturbance of some 80 hectares of the vast coastal plain as inconsequential in i t s overall e f f e c t on w i l d l i f e populations. On a national scale, this may be true; but on a regional scale, i t can have a devastating effect d i r e c t l y and secondarily on the natural ecosystems and the human way of l i f e dependent on them. As well, disruption of a few key regions of ecological richness can have much wider repercussions than o r i g i n a l l y anticipated. F i n a l l y , the long-term, second-order impacts of developing Stokes Point must be considered, with respect to the region, i t s w i l d l i f e , and the many values that t h e i r existence represent. A 60-hectare f a c i l i t y , and each subsequent development, alone may be regarded as inconsequential, "but the t o t a l can equal destruction by i n s i g n i f i c a n t increment" (McTaggart-Cowan, 1977:81). 1 12 5.7 Summary Gulf's proposal for Stokes Point could p o t e n t i a l l y result in the loss of c r i t i c a l w i l d l i f e habitat and a portion of northern Yukon's unique natural environment. However, the issues surrounding Gulf's application indicate that there is more at stake. F i r s t , since 1978, northern Yukon has been publicly acknowledged by i t s administrators, the federal government, to be of primary importance to w i l d l i f e and a p r i o r i t y conservation area. The federal government committed i t s e l f to make a decision regarding conservation interests well before proposals for hydrocarbon development support bases along the Yukon coast were put forward. Granted, circumstances have changed since 1978 with respect to our knowledge of o i l and gas potential in the offshore area. Nevertheless, DIAND appears to be backing out of a long-standing commitment to conservation interests in the region, in response to f i n a n c i a l and p o l i t i c a l pressure from i n d u s t r i a l interests. The long-term economic and soc i a l gain from also conserving the l i v i n g renewable resources of the region, and the values inherent in them, have been lost in the push to exploit the non-renewable ones. Second, the federal government has committed i t s e l f to maintaining natural ecosystems in the north (DIAND, 1972); to allow "balanced development" (DIAND, I982a,b). Yet there is no strategy available indicating a comprehensive, coordinated e f f o r t to plan the use of land and resources to f u l f i l l these statements. 1 1 3 Third, the government, by signing an agreement-in-principle regarding Inuvialuit and government use, ownership and management of north Yukon, has committed i t s e l f to honour the components of that agreement u n t i l a f i n a l one i s reached. That agreement specified the establishment of a "National Wilderness Park for the purpose of w i l d l i f e protection and wilderness conservation" (COPE, 1978) in northern Yukon. Fourth, DIAND's consideration of Gulf's proposal contradicts the federal government's long-standing "one-harbour" policy for Beaufort Sea exploration. In addition, recent press coverage quotes Canadian Marine D r i l l i n g Limited (Canmar), a subsidiary of Dome Petroleum Limited, as stating that i t could carry out Gulf's d r i l l i n g program at substantially reduced costs to those estimated by Gulf (Financial Post, July 23, 1983; Globe and Mail, August 3, 1983). Moreover, Canmar would operate out of McKinley Bay, making the development of a harbour at Stokes Point unnecessary. It must be noted that Gulf's present course of action - development and use of i t s new d r i l l i n g equipment and building the deep-water harbour needed to support i t - i s heavily subsidized by the federal government. The question then arises-: why should federal policy be compromi sed, . and Canadian taxpayers as well as the northern environment pay for Gulf's doubtful endeavours? F i n a l l y , in the interests of e f f e c t i v e long-range management, the government has an obligation to review development in the north in l i g h t of potential future implications for other uses and interests in the land. DIAND's 1 1 4 refusal to examine Gulf's application beyond the exploration stage displays a short-sightedness that has been severely c r i t i c i z e d by other agencies, NGO's, and native groups a l i k e . DIAND's consideration of Gulf's application leads one to question the federal government's willingness to f u l f i l l i t s mandate of protecting the northern natural environment, and the w i l d l i f e values associated with i t . Furthermore, while acting contrary to the apparent conservation policy for the withdrawn lands in northern Yukon, DIAND did not openly state a change in i t s p r i o r i t i e s in the use of these lands or consult- with those who would be most affected by such a change. Burnet (1983:8) describes the situ a t i o n eloquently: "The Stokes Point application i s more than a serious threat to a unique and sensitive environment. It i s a direct challenge to a l l the p r i n c i p l e s of northern development that have been developed so p a i n f u l l y over the years. To approve a major and l i k e l y permanent i n d u s t r i a l structure in a withdrawn area without a public review and in contravention of a land claims agreement in p r i n c i p l e i s , quite simply, outrageous." Why even contemplate allowing further, p o t e n t i a l l y extensive development to take place, without at least a game plan that meets past commitments and indicates an acceptable process to determining land use? Stokes Point may be the best place for a marine support f a c i l i t y . But the point is that as yet, there has been no trustworthy mechanism applied whereby i t has been shown that the Stokes Point proposal has been considered in an accountable, comprehensive and rational manner. 1 1 5 VI. EVALUATION How do the current administration and government t a c t i c s at Stokes Point meet the c r i t e r i a , for a land use planning system sensitive to the habitat needs of w i l d l i f e , that are suggested in t h i s thesis? 1. Is there a systematic and comprehensive approach to land use  planning and managment? • As concluded in chapter IV, as yet, there is no well-defined approach to land use planning and management for the Beaufort Sea-Mackenzie Delta region through which consideration of land use decisions, such as Gulf's application for Stokes Point, can be dealt with in a systematic and comprehensive manner. Negotiations to establish a land use planning process are now underway among federal and t e r r i t o r i a l governments, and, in the NWT, native organizations. However,, the fundamental purpose of the negotiations may be threatened by underlying struggles for greater p o l i t i c a l autonomy and control over land and resources, and by doubts whether the federal government i s sincerely committed to developing a land use planning system with any 'teeth'.,at a l l . » There are few provisions for consulting the affected public in setting planning p r i o r i t i e s or reviewing decisions. As a re s u l t , land use decision-making lacks means for systematically accounting for s i g n i f i c a n t values associated with the land, which include those attached to w i l d l i f e . » There are no p u b l i c l y a r t i c u l a t e d and accepted p o l i c i e s to 1 1 6 guide land a l l o c a t i o n in the North. Rather, land use is determined on an ad hoc, reactive basis, usually on application by i n d u s t r i a l developers, and therefore r e f l e c t s i n d u s t r i a l p r i o r i t i e s and c r i t e r i a . Even where land use proposals are referred to the federal EARP, thi s i s again a reactive process, i t does not guarantee a formal review and therefore input by the affected public, and is not a substitute for a planning process. • DIAND's approach to land administration is not comprehensive, as i s evident from i t s apparent attitude regarding Stokes Point. By refusing to acknowledge the li k e l i h o o d of a deep water harbour f a c i l i t y growing from an exploration to a development and production support base, and a l l the attendant environmental, social and p o l i t i c a l implications, DIAND f a i l e d to take an appropriately comprehensive view of Gulf's proposal. 2. Does land planning and management recognize w i l d l i f e habitat  as an important land use? » The stated p r i o r i t i e s of the land withdrawal did recognize the importance of the natural environment as w i l d l i f e habitat in northern Yukon. However, DIAND's willingness to consider a harbour f a c i l i t y in this area, and the F a c i l i t y S i t i n g Study that was car r i e d out, ignore the withdrawal and, therefore, the apparent importance of w i l d l i f e habitat at the decision-making l e v e l . This leaves one to wonder by what 1 1 7 c r i t e r i a did the department change i t s previous p r i o r i t i e s -or were conservation interests o r i g i n a l l y p r i o r i t i e s at a l l . • There is no formal process in place by which areas can be id e n t i f i e d for their importance as w i l d l i f e habitat. E f f o r t s by federal and t e r r i t o r i a l w i l d l i f e agencies are aimed at establishing a system of land c l a s s i f i c a t i o n for w i l d l i f e , but the implementation of such a system w i l l depend on the vigour with which DOE and the respective t e r r i t o r i a l agencies apply pressure for i t s application, and the p o l i t i c a l w i l l present to follow their recommendations. 3. Has a cautious attitude toward a l t e r i n g the natural  environment been taken? • Gulf apparently did not attempt to adapt i t s designs and technology to the environmental conditions of the Beaufort Sea coast. Therefore: "...I see no reason why so many other values, agreements, and land use alternatives should be compromised by Gulf's executives' unfortunate choice of d r i l l i n g technology. Surely, given the p o l i t i c a l and ecological s e n s i t i v i t y of the region, i t should be the environment that determines the choice of technology and not the other way around." (Rees, I983a:2) e Gulf has attempted to some degree to be cognizant of eco l o g i c a l l y sensitive c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the region in i t s proposal and land use permit applic a t i o n . However, i t s analyses of the impacts on w i l d l i f e and proposed mitigative 1 18 measures are judged to be inadequate by parties within and outside government. • The proposed development a c t i v i t i e s carry no hint of an experimental approach whereby the proponents or government could learn about the effects on the natural environment. • Under the main l e g i s l a t i v e tools dealing with land administration, there i s l i t t l e obligation imposed on developers or government to pursue research and analysis before, during or after acceptance of a land use proposal. While f u l f i l l i n g terms and conditions related to environmental protection i s required by a land use permit, monitoring for their effectiveness i s at best sporadic. • Overall, a cautious approach to physical a l t e r a t i o n of the natural environment, incorporating research and monitoring, in the design and development of a supply f a c i l i t y at Stokes Point by project proponents or government land administrators is not yet evident. 4. Is there an e f f e c t i v e basis in l e g i s l a t i o n for the 'management and protection of lands for w i l d l i f e in place? • Obviously, withdrawal under the TLA is not an e f f e c t i v e means of enforcing planning and management of lands for w i l d l i f e habitat. As Hunt et a l . (1979) noted even prior to the Stokes Point proposal, such withdrawals only "maintain the status quo"; the situation with Stokes Point, where lawyers are arguing about the meaning of terms such as "withdrawal" 119 and "disposal", place even this interpretaion in doubt. The National Parks Act provides r e l a t i v e l y strong protected status to national parks, but the mandate and p o l i c i e s of Parks Canada and the purpose of national parks have been questioned by interested parties in terms of their s u i t a b i l i t y for maintaining w i l d l i f e habitat in northern Yukon. Amendments to the Act to strengthen the legal status of northern wilderness areas are being developed, but whether and when these w i l l be passed through Parliament is uncertain. The Canada W i l d l i f e Act is more s p e c i f i c a l l y directed towards w i l d l i f e protection and management than the NPA, but has been c r i t i c i z e d as being too dependent on bureaucratic d i s c r e t i o n in i t s application. Native land claim proposals have emphasized w i l d l i f e habitat protection. Adding the authority of these claims to the establishment of w i l d l i f e and park areas could contribute to the e f f e c t i v e f u l f i l l m e n t of w i l d l i f e habitat conservation and management goals. Therefore, l e g i s a t i v e tools exist or are being contemplated that could be used to e f f e c t i v e l y plan and manage lands for w i l d l i f e habitat. What i s required i s the p o l i t i c a l w i l l to apply them. Does cooperation occur among a l l effected parties? C r i t i c i s m aimed at DIAND's October 1982 proposal for northern 120 land use planning i l l u s t r a t e s that DIAND did not adequately involve affected parties in the design of thi s process. The Beaufort Sea F a c i l i t y S i t i n g Study was characterized by a hurried approach, also denying involvement at the t e r r i t o r i a l l e v e l and by the private sector. Cooperation i s evident among federal and t e r r i t o r i a l w i l d l i f e agencies but they have r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e authority in the realm of land use decision making. Despite breakdowns at the time of writing, the recent negotiations among federal, t e r r i t o r i a l and .native representatives to resolve a land use planning policy and process appear to acknowledge the need for cooperation beyond the l e v e l of p o l i t i c a l statements. F i n a l l y , i t would seem that the federal government could have anticipated development interests in Yukon's north coast, and could have broached the subject of appropriate modifications of the land withdrawal with a l l concerned parties, in an open and diplomatic manner, two or three years ago. However, such foresight was not applied. Instead, a c r i s i s situation has developed, and 'bush-fire' t a c t i c s p r e v a i l . 121 VII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS From the foregoing description of the present administrative regime of northern lands and resources, the federal government's attempts to develop a policy for land use planning, and DIAND's treatment of Gulf's application for a harbour f a c i l i t y at Stokes Point, i t can be concluded that: • DIAND's commitment to protecting the natural environment and maintaining the i n t e g r i t y of w i l d l i f e habitat in the North i s in serious doubt; • there is l i t t l e evidence in DIAND's policy documents to date to suggest that the department is commited to developing a land use planning process that would be e f f e c t i v e in land and resource-use decision-making; • the government's actions regarding Stokes Point are markedly inconsistent with past statements of p r i o r i t i e s for the area and with commitments made to native people in land claim negotiations; • apparent changes in these p r i o r i t i e s and commitments were made without n o t i f i c a t i o n to or input from the agencies and people who would be most affected. J. Munroe, minister of DIAND, has deferred any decision regarding Gulf's application u n t i l the f a l l of 1983 (DIAND, 1983b). Whether t h i s delay i s to allow time for developing a land use planning policy, for completion of the Beaufort Sea EARP hearings, for f i n a l i z i n g native land claim negotiations in northern Yukon, or simply to allow the p o l i t i c a l l y v o l a t i l e 1 2 2 Stokes Point issue to 'cool' is not cl e a r . However, the fact that Gulf has committed much time and resources into investigating the f e a s i b i l i t y of locating i t s harbour f a c i l i t y at Stokes Point puts pressure on Ottawa to permit some form of development to occur there or elsewhere along the northern Yukon, a predicament that could have been"avoided i f the purpose of the land withdrawal had been upheld at the outset. Obviously, in the interests of managing lands for w i l d l i f e .habitat, there i s room for improvement in the present administration of northern lands. Therefore, the following measures are recommended. 1 . DIAND should maintain the momentum to establish a northern land use planning policy in cooperation with t e r r i t o r i a l governments and native organizations. This policy should include a structured process by which decisions, such as the one regarding Stokes Point, can be systematically made. As part of this approach, goals, objectives and their r e l a t i v e p r i o r i t i e s for land and resource use for a given -planning area should be put forward and c l a r i f i e d . These objectives and p r i o r i t i e s should be based on environmental, s o c i a l and economic goals and values as presented and negotiated by l o c a l , t e r r i t o r i a l and national representatives. Such a land use planning process would incorporate the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s described in chapter III*. Furthermore, there should be some mechanism to ensure the commitment of a l l agencies to the 123 planning process and resulting plans. Planning may take the form of actually zoning land for certa i n uses, based on c l e a r l y a r t i c u l a t e d purposes and p r i o r i t i e s . A l t e r n a t i v e l y , a 'plan' may simply be a set of p r i n c i p l e s that i s applied systematically and consistently to land and resource decisions. In either case, land use planning should be recognized as an ongoing and evolutionary process, which encourages review of the process and i t s results, and which is applied consistently to land and resource use dec i sions. 2. A land use planning process should r e f l e c t the p r i n c i p l e that w i l d l i f e habitat is an important land use by systematically determining the areas of importance to w i l d l i f e on a regional basi s. Much has already been done in this regard (e.g., Wiken et a l . , 1981), or i s in progress. The agencies carrying out these studies should have greater input to land use decisions than i s presently available to them. Federal and t e r r i t o r i a l w i l d l i f e agencies should be represented at both the policy development and implementation levels of a northern land use planning process to help ensure that these e f f o r t s are supported and the data used in the land use planning process. The outcome of these a c t i v i t i e s could be the establishment of management zones, based on c r i t e r i a regarding the ' c r i t i c a l n e s s ' of the zones to w i l d l i f e . The i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and planning process should be capable of acknowledging that in 1 24 areas of exceptional importance to w i l d l i f e , i t w i l l be necessary to set single-purpose or exclusive-use designations. In other areas, terms and conditions for regulating other land uses for a given zone type would be based on the best knowledge available concerning the importance of that zone type for maintaining important w i l d l i f e resources. Where w i l d l i f e populations are migratory, the zoning status of areas could change temporally as well as s p a t i a l l y , to deflect disruptive a c t i v i t i e s during c r i t i c a l stages of a w i l d l i f e population's l i f e cycle, such as caribou calving or snow goose staging. Similar measures are already being employed at Norman Wells, with respect to waterfowl migration, and through the caribou monitoring program in the NWT. Obviously, the designation of land areas for w i l d l i f e habitat protection can not be 'set in stone', given that the data base regarding w i l d l i f e i s inadequate in some regions, and that p r i o r i t i e s and attitudes may change. However, the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a given zone type could be established by l e g i s l a t i o n , to ensure that, once applied, implementation and monitoring could be backed by law. The purpose of such a system i s not, as many industry representatives might claim, to alienate land from development. Rather, i t i s recommended simply as a means of recognizing r e l a t i v e importances of areas to maintaining important renewable resources and their associated values. Formal recognition through such means as a zoning scheme would in eff e c t reduce the uncertainty associated with locating development a c t i v i t i e s . Incorporating some form of formally recognizing w i l d l i f e habitat 1 25 in land use planning indicates where appropriate measures are necessary before development schemes are proposed, rather than just adding them on once such a c t i v i t i e s are underway. As such, w i l d l i f e habitat can be acknowledged as a land use, and not designated to those lands that are 'leftover' after man's development a c t i v i t i e s have been accomodated. 3. The development of a northern land use planning policy and a northern conservation strategy should be closely coordinated within DIAND, and among DIAND, the t e r r i t o r i a l governments, native and nongovernmental organizations. The present s i t u a t i o n in which the development of these two p o l i c i e s i s occurring simultaneously provides an excellent opportunity to integrate conservation p r i n c i p l e s with a land use management regime. This coordination should occur on two le v e l s . F i r s t , there should be greater philosophical integration - a common acceptance of the p r i n c i p l e that conservation or 'wise use' of the land and i t s resources, both l i v i n g and non-living, i s in i t s e l f a desirable goal, and i s also a form of long-term economic development. Secondly, there should be closer coordination at the operational l e v e l between these two p o l i c i e s with respect to land use planning and a l l o c a t i o n . For example, the establishment of committees, commissions, etc., their mandates and functions, as proposed under each policy, should be integrated to reduce unnecessary overlap of e f f o r t and ensure greater coordination in achieving 1 26 land use goals and objectives. Also, common goals and objectives should be derived; otherwise, the r i f t that i s perceived to exist between 'conservation' and 'development' w i l l only be widened. 4. DIAND should review, and where necessary amend, present l e g i s l a t i o n and i n s t i t u t i o n s that a f f e c t land administration for: a) their congruence with goals regarding the maintainance of the natural environment, and b) how they relate to land use planning/conservation a c t i v i t i e s . It i s not clear, for example, how the current administrative regime under the TLA and TLUR 's w i l l be related to a land use planning process. Obviously, the a l l o c a t i o n of land use permits independent of p r i n c i p l e s , strategies and comment from committees involved in the planning process would defeat the purpose of e f f e c t i v e land use planning. The linkages and respective mandates should be c l e a r l y delineated between those designing and those implementing the plans and associated land use regulations. The same can be said for other operating or proposed agencies, such as federal and t e r r i t o r i a l park, agencies, t e r r i t o r i a l Water Boards, and COGLA. For consistency, a l l the a c t i v i t i e s of such agencies should take place within the pr i n c i p l e s established through the land use planning process. 5 . Lastly, the government should take steps to ensure that 1 27 decisions regarding Stokes Point are consistent with government policy, agreements and commitments that were in place prior to Gulf's application. W i l d l i f e habitat protection has been acknowledged as the p r i o r i t y land use for the withdrawn lands in northern Yukon. Government action should r e f l e c t t h i s p r i o r i t y . If, in the government's view, i t i s no longer in the best interests of the region or the country to manage the withdrawn area as w i l d l i f e habitat, due process should be followed in re-assessing this p r i o r i t y and reviewing the future use of the withdrawn lands-. An open rather than 'behind-closed-doors' approach should be used to indicate the p r i o r i t i e s for land use within the withdrawn area and whether development a c t i v i t i e s are compatible with habitat conservation goals. This approach could involve negotiations, public hearings, a planning commission, etc., and could amount to a f i r s t step in a land use planning process for the region. If, through this process, w i l d l i f e habitat protection remains a high p r i o r i t y for northern Yukon, a number of proposals have already been made which r e f l e c t , to varying degrees, th i s priority,. As suggested in chapter V, the arrangement most l i k e l y to protect s i g n i f i c a n t w i l d l i f e habitat in northern Yukon is some combination of national park and national w i l d l i f e area in agreement with a native land claim settlement. The l e g i s l a t i o n establishing the settlement could stipulate more or less rigorous regulations than do the NPA or CWA, where these may be considered necessary. Also, i t is of 1 28 note that COPE, in i t s present negotiations for a f i n a l land claims agreement, has outlined a public review process for considering i n d u s t r i a l development proposals within any wilderness area that may be established along the north slope under land claims l e g i s l a t i o n (COPE, 1983). Designation of such an area need not completely prohibit development. Some a c t i v i t i e s may not be inconsistent with protecting w i l d l i f e habitat. Within a land use planning process designed to give p r i o r i t y to w i l d l i f e values, a range of levels of protection and use would be considered, according to the perceived needs of w i l d l i f e . As such, northern Yukon may present an excellent opportunity to develop and experiment with an ecological management regime. 129 7.1 Summary The following recommendations are made for planning the use pf land north of 60° in a manner that recognizes w i l d l i f e habitat as an important land use. 1. The momentum should be maintained to cooperatively formulate a land use planning process, and thi s process should be established'before further major development proposals are considered. 2. W i l d l i f e habitat should be recognized as an important, and where appropriate, highest p r i o r i t y land use. A regional zoning strategy based on c r i t e r i a and pr i n c i p l e s regarding c r i t i c a l w i l d l i f e habitat is a possible means of r e f l e c t i n g this p r i o r i t y in land planning and a l l o c a t i n g . 3. Development of northern conservation and land use planning p o l i c i e s and strategies should be closely integrated, to best derive and achieve common goals of resource conservation with economic development. 4. The elements of the current regime of land, resource and water administration should be reviewed in l i g h t of the goals and p r i n c i p l e s established under a coordinated and comprehensive land planning poli c y . 5. P r i o r i t i e s regarding land use in northern Yukon should be 1 30 p u b l i c l y reviewed and assessed. Where i t is resolved that w i l d l i f e habitat should be the primary land use, i t is suggested that a park, national w i l d l i f e area or combination thereof be established in conjunction with native land claim agreements in the region. 131 7.2 F i n a l Comments... Two major problems have been posed in this thesis: 1) the present system of land use a l l o c a t i o n in the North i s inadequate in dealing r a t i o n a l l y with major land use decisions, and 2) this system does not adequately recognize the value of conserving land for w i l d l i f e habitat in land use decisions. My general recommendation i s to establish a systematic and comprehensive land use planning process to achieve better land use decisions. The planning process that I propose should lead to improved representation of interests and values, which, in turn, should lead to better recognition of w i l d l i f e habitat values at the decision making l e v e l . In the interests of achieving better government, obviously there i s value in improving the planning and a l l o c a t i o n process for i t s own sake. However, I recognize that an improved process w i l l not guarantee that the substantive issue w i l l be resolved; that i s , that the system w i l l necessarily recognize the values in conserving w i l d l i f e habitat. There are two possible reasons for t h i s . F i r s t , the planning process can never be 'perfect', such that one can be assured that a l l s i g n i f i c a n t values are being adequately represented; indeed, what constitutes adequate representation i s a value-laden judgement. Second, given the intangible nature of many w i l d l i f e values, the conservationist may wonder whether there is adequate awareness and a r t i c u l a t i o n and, therefore, adequate representation of these values in a planning process. Gibson (1982: 49) suggests that "the central issue... is 1 32 often what and whose values s h a l l be recognized, granted precedence and applied. This is not a question of philosophy. It i s a question of p o l i t i c s . " If t h i s is indeed the case, perhaps an improved planning and decision-making process w i l l achieve greater p o l i t i c a l recognition of w i l d l i f e values. However, in the interests of enhancing this recognition, I would suggest that education regarding these values, the substantive issue, might well accompany e f f o r t s to improve the process. F i n a l l y , the effectiveness of my recommendations depends on there being the p o l i t i c a l w i l l in government to improve northern land use planning and w i l d l i f e habitat management and conservation. However, I have noted that the strength of t h i s p o l i t i c a l w i l l i s in doubt. Although both federal and t e r r i t o r i a l governments have stated a commitment to conserving w i l d l i f e and w i l d l i f e habitat, what governments say and do are often quite d i f f e r e n t . The opinion among some c r i t i c s of government i s that the land and resource-use 'plan' i s to extract non-renewable resources from the North with minimal impediment from environmental considerations. Again, developing the p o l i t i c a l w i l l necessary to achieve environmental goals requires a combination of improved representation of environmental values ( i . e . , a better process) and greater e f f o r t to increase public and, hence, p o l i t i c a l awareness of the importance of these values. 1 33 VIII. ADDENDUM On July 21, 1983, J. Munro, Minister of IAND, announced the following i n i t i a t i v e s regarding a decision for Stokes Point and northern Yukon (DIAND, 1983c). • In addition to Gulf's proposal, DIAND i s considering the proposal by a contracting firm to develop a large quarry in the Stokes Point v i c i n i t y to supply rock for the Canadian and Alaskan offshore o i l and gas operations. • A special Project Review Group w i l l be formed to assess Gulf's application for the offshore base and the quarry proposal. The Group w i l l have members from COPE, CYI, the YTG and GNWT, and w i l l be chaired by DIAND. The Group w i l l "provide advice quickly to the Minister (reporting within two months) without jeopardizing the Claims negotiations" ( i b i d .: 3). • It is "hoped" ( ibid.) that a comprehensive package regarding Yukon's north slope would be f i n a l i z e d by the f a l l . In addition to s e t t l i n g the land claims, t h i s package would consist of four elements ( i b i d . : 2): consensus on park boundaries and "some additional progress on i t s establishment"; the .creation of a caribou management board for the Porcupine herd; land use planning east of the Babbage River "where the p r i n c i p l e objective w i l l be protection and management of the w i l d l i f e resources"; "a decision on where to focus i n d u s t r i a l a c t i v i t i e s ...so as to contain environmental disturbance". 134 It i s also noteworthy that the Minister w i l l seek an amendment to the 1978 Order-in-Council should some decision or package be f i n a l i z e d . This e f f e c t i v e l y 'takes the heat off' regarding disputes over the l e g a l i t y of DIAND's actions to date respecting use of lands in the withdrawn area. It i s encouraging that DIAND has f i n a l l y decided to s o l i c i t public input in to the northern Yukon issue. However, again i t is a short-notice, short-term, ad hoc endeavor - a 'knee-jerk' reaction instead of a rational planning approach which takes a comprehensive point of view. Furthermore, adding the quarry proposal to Gulf's puts additional, unnecessary pressure on issues that already need careful and thorough consideration. However, to industry's and perhaps DIAND's advantage, i t does make the development of the north Yukon slope appear to be that much more necessary. As well, there i s no indication that DOE, p a r t i c u l a r l y CWS . and Parks Canada who also have interests at stake in northern Yukon, are having dir e c t input to the advisory process. While "some progress" on a national park may s a t i s f y the department's ambitions for involvement in northern Yukon, a national park alone is inadequate in serving the long-term interests of w i l d l i f e and environmental values and their influence on a l l land use and development decisions. 135 BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Adler, P. 1982. Metis, Dene agree on claims process. News North 37(34): A14. 2. Allen, H. 1982. What can indigenous people do to f u l l y participate? p.96-101. In: Proceedings of the 9th  National Northern Development Conference, 1982. Edmonton, Alberta. I84p. 3. Anonymous. 1982. A W i l d l i f e Strategy for Canada ( d r a f t ) . 4. A r c t i c Waters Advisory Council (AWAC). 1980. Assessment of environmental issues a r i s i n g from offshore d r i l l i n g a c t i v i t i e s of Canmar in the Beaufort Sea during 1979. ( d r a f t ) . 28p. .5. Bayly, J. 1983. On the brink of large-scale o i l and gas extraction from the Beaufort Sea and Mackenzie Delta, can land use planning help the native residents of the region? Paper written for the Mackenzie Delta REgioanl Council, Fort McPherson, NWT. 27p.+ appendix. 6. Beauchamp, K.P. 1976. Land Management in the Canadian  North. CARC, Ottawa. I05p. 7. Beaufort Sea Environmental Assessment Panel (BSEAP). 1981. Report from a meeting with Neil Faulkner, Assistant Deputy Minister, Northern Programs, DIAND. December 7, 1981. 6p. 8. . 1983a. A short statement on where the panel is going. January, 1983. 11p. 9. . 1983b. A statement of d e f i c i e n c i e s on the Environmental Impact Statement for Hydrocarbon Development in the Beaufort Sea-Mackenzie Delta region. 31p. 10. Berger, T.R. 1977a. Northern Frontier, Northern  Homeland. The report of the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry. v o l . 1. James Lorimer and Co., Toronto. 213p. 11. . 1977b. Northern Frontier, Northern Homeland• The report of the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inqui ry. vol 2. Terms and conditions. Min. Supply & Services, Ottawa. 268p. 12. Boulding, K.E. 1974. Reflections in planning: the value of uncertainty. Technol. Rev. Oct.-Nov. 1974: 8. 13. Burnet, P. 1983. Stokes P'oint, Yukon. Northern Perspectives 11(2): 1-13. 1 36 14. Calef, G.W. 1974. The predicted e f f e c t of the Canadian Arctic Gas pipeline project on the Porcupine caribou herd, p.101-120. In: Environmental Impact Assessment of the  Portion of the Mackenzie Gas Pipeline from Alaska to  Alberta. Research reports, volume IV. Environmental Protection Board, Winnipeg. 15. Cameron, R.D. and K.R. Whitten. 1980. Influence of the trans-Alaska pipeline corridor on the l o c a l d i s t r i b u t i o n of caribou. p.474-484. In: E. Reimers, E. Gaare and S. Skjenneberg (eds.). Proc. 2nd International  Reindeer/Caribou Symposium, Roros, Norway, 1979. Direktoratet for v i l t og ferskvannsfisk, Trondheim. 16. Canada Government. 1978. Canada Gazette Part II, vo l . 112, no. 14: 2995. 17. . 1982. Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, House of Commons Issue no. 62. Thursday, December 2, 1982. 18. Canada, Department of Indian A f f a i r s and Northern Development (DIAND). 1966. "Canada's National W i l d l i f e Policy and Program". Press release/ communique. 12p. 19. . 1972. "Canada's North: 1970-1980". Report by the Honourable Jean Chretien, Minister of IAND to the Standing Committee on IAND on the government's northern objectives, p r i o r i t i e s and strategies for the '70's; March 28, 1972. 20. . 1978. Faulkner announces northern Yukon land withdrawal. Communique #1-7821. July 6, 1978. 21. . 1982a. Land use planning in northern Canada. - (dr a f t ) . I60p. 22. . 1982b. A comprehensive conservation policy and strategy for the Northwest T e r r i t o r i e s and Yukon, (draft discussion paper). Northern A f f a i r s Program, Ottawa. 98p. 23. . 1982c. Statement to the Beaufort Environmental Assessment Panel from the Department of IAND. October 29, 1982. 87p. 24. . I982d. A Comprehensive Conservation Policy and Strategy for the Northwest T e r r i t o r i e s and Yukon. Draft Discussion Paper. 98p. 25. . I982e. DIAND position on F a c i l i t i e s S i t i n g in the Beaufort Sea - d r a f t . November 9, 1982. 26. 1 982f . Constitutional development in 1 37 Canada's North. Communique #1-8227. November 26, 1982. 27. . I982g. Notes for an address by the Honorable John C. Munro P.C., M.P., Minister of I AND. (To the l e g i s l a t i v e Assembly, Yellowknife, NWT.) Communique #3-8212. November 26, 1982. l i p . 28. . I982h. IBP ecological s i t e approved. Communique and Backgrounder #1-8214. July 30, 1982. 29. . 1983a. $960 mi l l i o n investment in Beaufort Sea o i l and gas exploration announced. Communique #1-8237. March 10, 1983. 30. . 1983b. Munro extends consideration of Gulf application. Communique #1-8302. A p r i l 22, 1983. 31. . 1983c. Munro seeks comprehensive agreement on north slope. Communique #1-8316. July 21, 1983. 32. and Department of Energy, Mines and Resources (EMR) . i~982. Presentation by the Canada O i l and Gas Lands Administration to the Special Committee of the Senate on the Northern Pipeline. September 14, 1982. 29p. + annexes. 33. Canada, Environment Canada. 1981. Environment Canada and the North. Draft discussion paper. 46p. 34. . 1982a. Environment Canada's proposed response to Beaufort Sea Hydrocarbon Production. 37p. + appendices. 35. . 1982b. Brief to the Special Committee of the Senate on the Northern Pipeline. Policy Directorate Corporate Planning Group. 28p. + appendices. 36. . 1982c. Canada's Special Places in the North: an Environment Canada perspective for the 80's. Min.Supp.Serv., Ottawa. l i p + table and map. 37. . L. I982d. M i n i s t e r i a l B r i e f i n g Note, by Corporate Planning Group, Intergovernmental A f f a i r s Directorate. December 6, 1982. 38. . 1983. Environment Canada and the North: the Perceptions, Roles and P o l i c i e s of the Department of the Environment regarding development north of 60°. Draft Discussion Paper. May 1983. 52p. 39. Canada, Environment Canada, Parks Canada. 1978. Northern Yukon - a Natural Area of Canadian Significance. 11p. 40. 1980a. Parks Canada Policy. Min. of Env. 1 38 69p. 41. . 1980b. Parks Canada's Position with respect to northern Yukon. Position paper presented to the Northern Wilderness Park Working Group. 3p. 42. Canada, Federal Environmental Assessment and Review O f f i c e (FEARO). 1981. Beaufort Sea Hydrocarbon Production Environmental Assessment Panel: Terms of Reference. I0p. 43. Canada, National Energy Board. 1977. Reasons for  Decision - Northern Pipelines volume 1. Chapter 1 - Board Decisions. I89p. 44. Canadian A r c t i c Resources Committee. 1976. The f i n a l agreement - CARC's f i n a l submission to the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry. Northern Perspectives 4(5): 1-1 1 . 45. . 1983. Press release, March 23, 1983. 46. Canadian Environmental Advisory Council. 1979. Environmental Assessment and Review Process; Observations and Recommendations. A report to the Minister of the Environment. Ottawa. 47. Committee for Original Peoples Entitlement (COPE). 1979. COPE statement - A r c t i c International W i l d l i f e Range. Northern Perspectives VII(7): 11-12. 48. . 1983. Confidential working document for comprehensive land claims negotiations, February 1983. 49. and Government of Canada. 1978. Inuvialuit Lands Right Settlement Agreement-in-Principle. 50. Couch, W.J. (ed.). 1982. Environmental Assessment in  Canada. 1982 Summary of Current Practice. Can. Council of Resource and Environmental Ministers. 35p. 51. Council for Yukon Indians (CYI). 1982. Land Use Planning, Environmental Assessment and Land Ownership in Yukon. A discussion paper. I2p. 52. Cournoyea, N. (MLA Western A r c t i c , NWT government). 1982. Letter to S.K. McWalter (President, Gulf Canada Resources Inc.) August 6, 1982. 53. Dacks, G. 1981. A Choice of Futures. P o l i t i c s in the  Canadian A r c t i c . Methuen Publications, Toronto. 226p. 54. Davidson, A.T. (ADM, Parks Canada). 192. Letter to G.N. Faulkner, December 22, 1982. 139 55. Davis, H.C. and G.B. Hainsworth. 1983. A c r i t i c a l appraisal of the economic aspects of the proposed Beaufort Sea development. Prepared for the Beaufort Sea Environmental Assessment Panel. 26p. 56. Diebel, L. 1982. The troubled northern dream. Maclean's 95(49): 18-20. 57. Dome Petroleum Limited, Esso Resources Canada Limited, and Gulf Canada Resources Incorporated. 1982a. Environmental  Impact Statement for hydrocarbon development in the  Beaufort Sea-Mackenzie Delta region. Volume 1 - Summary. 153p. + appendices. 58. . 1982b. Environmental Impact Statement for Hydrocarbon Development in the Beaufort Sea-Mackenzie  Delta Region. Volume 2 - Development Systems. 59. Donihee, J.P. (Chief, Environmental Planning and Assessment Di v i s i o n , GNWT). 1982. Interview, October 24, 1982. 60. and P.A. Gray. 1982. An approach to habitat management in the Northwest T e r r i t o r i e s . Discussion paper. 2p. 61. Dorney, R.S. 1978. Philosophical and technical p r i n c i p l e s for ide n t i f y i n g environmental planning and management strategies, p.144- 149. i n : R.F. Keith and J.B. Wright (eds.) Northern Transitions v o l . 11. CARC, Ottawa. 47Op. 62. Ehrenfeld, D. 1978. The Arrogance of Humanism. Oxford Press. (see: ch.5, The Conservation Dilemma: 176-277). 63. F a c i l i t i e s S i t i n g : Beaufort Sea Shore Zone Study. Part I, Group I Report. March 16, 1983. 68p. + appendices. 64. Faulkner, G.N. (ADM, Northern A f f a i r s Program, DIAND). 1982a. Letter to P. Burnet (Executive Director, CARC). December 24, 1982. 65. . 1982b. Memorandum to C. Demers (ADM, O f f i c e of Native Claims, DIAND). September 9, 1982. 66. . 1982c. Letter to J. Gerin (Senior ADM, Environment Canada). November 17, 1982. 67. . I982d. Letter to CA. Lewis (IERC member, Environment Canada). December 7, 1982. 68. Fenge, T. 1981. Northern Environmental Conservation: the case of Polar Bear Pass. Northern Perspectives 9(6): 2-9. 1 40 69. . 1982. Environmental policy in the Northwest T e r r i t o r i e s . The case of environmentally s i g n i f i c a n t areas. Ph.D. thesis. Univ. of Waterloo. 491p. 70. , J.E. Gardner, J. King and B. Wilson. 1979. Land Use Programs in Canada. Northwest T e r r i t o r i e s . Min. Supp. Serv. Ottawa. 296p. 71. Flook, D.R. 1983. The w i l d l i f e aspects of Environment Canada's proposal for a national park and national w i l d l i f e area in the northern Yukon. Draft position paper. CWS. 6p. 72. Friesen, B.F. and J.G. Nelson. 1978. An overview of the economic potential of w i l d l i f e and f i s h resources in the Canadian A r c t i c . p.163-180. i n : R.F. Keith and J.B. Wright (eds.). Northern Transitions. v o l . II. CARC, Ottawa. 73. Fox, M. (Project Manager, DCH Consulting Inc.). 1983. Letter to C. Bugslag (Land Use Planning Coordinator, DIAND). March 10, 1983. 74. F u l l e r , W.A. and B.A. Hubert. 1981. Fish, fur and game in the Northwest T e r r i t o r i e s : some problems of, and prospects for, increased harvest, p.12-29. i n : M.M.R. Freeman (ed.). Proceedings of the F i r s t  International Symposium on Renewable Resources and the  Economy of the North. Banff, Alberta, May 1981. ACUNS. 75. Gardner, J.E. and J.G. Nelson. 1981. National parks and native peoples in northern Canada, Alaska, and northern A u s t r a l i a . Env. Cons. 8(3): 207-215. 76. Gibson, R.B. 1982. Values, interests and preferences: non-factual considerations in the work of the Beaufort Sea Environmental Assessment Panel. A study prepared for the Beaufort Sea Research C o a l i t i o n . 5lp. 77. G i l e s , R.H. (ed.) 1969. W i l d l i f e Management Techniques. 3rd ed. W i l d l i f e Society., Washington. 623p. 78. Goodman, A. 1982. -Waterfowl habitat conservation, p.177-184. i n : Transactions of the 46th Federal- P r o v i n c i a l W i l d l i f e Conference, Whitehorse, Yukon. June 1- 4, 1982. 79. Green, P. (President, COPE). 1982. Letter to G.N. Faulkner (ADM, DIAND). November 10, 1982. 80. Gulf Canada Resources Incorporated. 1982. Marine Support Base, Stokes Point, Yukon T e r r i t o r y . 235p. 1983. Application for land use permit, 141 Stokes Point Yukon, 60 -20'N, 138 -44'W. Supporting documentation. 7p.+ maps, tables. 82. Holt, S.J. and L.M. Talbot. 1978. New p r i n c i p l e s for the conservation of wild l i v i n g resources. Wildl . Monogr. 59: 83. Hunt, C , R. M i l l e r and D. Tingley. 1979. Wilderness  Area: l e g i s l a t i v e alternatives for the establishment of a  wilderness area in the northern Yukon. CARC, Ottawa. 1 30p. 84. and A.R. Lucas. 1980. Environmental Regulation - i t s impact on major o i l and gas projects: O i l Sands and  A r c t i c . Can. Inst, of Resources Law, Calgary. 155p.+ appendices. 85. Interdepartmental Environmental Review Committee (IERC). 1982. IERC meeting, August 10, 1982. 3p. 86. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN). 1980. World Conservation Strategy. 87. Jakimchuk, R. 1979. A National W i l d l i f e Area for the northern Yukon and Northwest T e r r i t o r i e s . Prepared for CWS. 9p. 88. Keith, J.A. (A/Director, Ontario Region, CWS). Interview, February 17, 1983. 89. Klein, D.R. 1980. Reaction of caribou and reindeer to obstructions .- a reassessment. p.519-527. i n : E. Reimers, E. Gaare, and S. Skjenneberg (eds.). Proc.  2nd International Reindeer/ Caribou Symposium, Roros,  Norway, 1979. Trondheim. 90. Kovacs, T.J. (Head, Northern New Park Selection and Establishment, Parks Canada). 1982. Letter, September 2, 1982. 91. Lang, R. and A. Armour. 1982. Environmental Planning  Resourcebook. Lands Directorate, Ottawa. 355p. 92. LeBlond, N.R. 1982. The Northern Yukon. Part II . Thwarted by i n f l u e n t i a l powers. Unpublished manuscript. 13p. 93. Lee, G.O. (Chief, Federal Land Services D i v i s i o n ) . 1982. Memorandum to L.C. Munn. December 3, 1982. 3p. 94. Livingstone, J.A. 1981. The Fallacy of W i l d l i f e  Conservation. McClelland and Stewart Ltd., Toronto. 117p. 1 42 95. Loh, J.K.S. (Gulf Canada Resources Inc). 1982. Letter to P. Green (President, COPE). October 5, 1982. 96. Martell, A.M. 1982. Caribou habitat requirements. p.172-176. In: Trans. 46th Federal-Provincial W i l d l i f e  Conference, Whitehorse, Yukon Te r r i t o r y , 1-4 June, 1982. Environment Canada, Ottawa. 331p. 97. Maxwell, J. (Director, Program Planning and Evaluation, DOE). 1983. Interview, February 16, 1983. 98. McFarland, F.J. (Wildlife B i o l o g i s t , Northern Environmental Protection Directorate, DIAND). Letter, November 26, 1982. 99. Mclnnes, S. (Senior Advisor, Northern Energy Strategies and I n i t i a t i v e s , EMR). 1982. Memorandum to M. Glen. October 19, 1982. 100. McTaggart-Cowan, I. 1977. Cumulative impact of development of the Mackenzie Estuary/Delta, NWT. p.71-82. In: Mackenzie Delta: P r i o r i t i e s and Alternatives. Conference Proceedings, 3-4 December, 1975. CARC, Ottawa. 1 93p. 101. . 1981. W i l d l i f e Conservation Issues in Northern Canada. Cndn. Env. Advisory Council report no. 11. 30p. 102. Mercredi, J. 1978. Metis Association of the Northwest T e r r i t o r i e s . p.103-104. i n : R.F. Keith and J.B. Wright (eds.) Northern Transitions v o l . I I. CARC, Ottawa. 470p. 103. Munro, J.C. (Minister of DIAND). 1980. Letter to Hon. J.C. Roberts (Minister of Environment) July 22, 1980. 104. . 1982. Letter to C. Pearson (Leader of the Yukon Government). 105. Naysmith, T.K. 1973. Toward a Northern Balance. Information Canada, Ottawa. 30p. 106. . 1976. North of 60. Land Use and Public Policy in Northern Canada. Min.Sup.Serv., Ottawa. 2l8p. 107. Nelson, J.G. 1976. The future role of conservation reserves in the A r c t i c . Contact 8(4): 76-116. 108. Northwest T e r r i t o r i e s Government. 1977. Goals, objectives and p o l i c i e s of the Northwest T e r r i t o r i e s Fish and W i l d l i f e Service. 6p. 109. 1982a. Submission to the Beaufort Sea 1 43 Environmental Assessment and Review Panel on Beaufort Sea Hydrocarbon Production and Transportation Proposal. August. I54p. 110. . 1982b. Land Use Planning Decision Paper ( d r a f t ) . August 10. 3p. 111. . 1983. M i n i s t e r i a l Update - Land Use Planning. For Minster, Renewable Resources, GNWT. January 20, 1983. 4p. 112. Norwegian, H. (Vice-president, Dene Nation). 1983. Letter to Y. Dube. January 20, 1983. 113. Park, C. 1980. The ecological bases of environmental management. p.218-249. i n : C. Park (ed.). Ecology and  Environmental Management, a geographical perspective. Dawson Westview Press, Kent. 114. Podlog, M.M. 1977. Communication problems in the administration and enforcement of the T e r r i t o r i a l Land Use Regulations: a case study. M.S. Thesis, Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University. 205p. 115. Proceedings of the A r c t i c International Wilderness Range Conference. 1971. U.B.C. Law Review 6(1). 116. Redpath, D.K. 1979. Land Use Programs in Canada. Yukon  T e r r i t o r y . Min.Supp.Serv., Ottawa. 303p. 117. Rees, W.E. 1978. Development and planning north of 60: past and future. p.42-61. in: R.F. Keith and J.B. Wright (eds.) Northern Transitions vol.11. CARC, Ottawa. 472p. 1 1 8 . . 1980. EARP at the crossroads: environmental assessment in Canada. EIA Review 1(4): 355-377. 119. . 1982. Planning on our A r c t i c f r o n t i e r . Plan Canada 21(4): 107-116. 120. . 1983a. Letter to J. Munro, Minister, DIAND. March 22, 1983. 121. . 1983b. Northern Land Use Planning: in search of a poli c y . Background paper on land use planning for 3rd National Workshop on People, Resources and the Environment north of 60, Yellowknife, NWT, 1-3 June, 1983. 41p. 122. and N. Russell-LeBlond. 1979. Last chance for the Porcupine caribou. Northern Perspectives VII(7): 2-7. 123. Revel, R.D. 1981. Conservation in northern Canada: International B i o l o g i c a l Programme conservation s i t e s 1 44 r e v i s i t e d . B i o l . Cons. 21: 263-287. 124. Richardson, N.H. 1982a. Northern land use planning. Written as advisor on land use planning to DIAND. 36p. 125. (Consulting Ltd.). 1982b. Land use planning, regional planning and environmental assessment: a preliminary review of issues. Prepared for the Beaufort Sea EnvironmentalAssessment Panel. 15p. 126. Robinson, R.M. (Chairman, FEARO). 1982. Memorandum to the Minister of Environment. May 14, 1982. 127. Russell, D. 1982. The Dempster Highway and the Porcupine caribou herd. p.185-188. In: Trans. 46th Federal- Provincial W i l d l i f e Conference, Whitehorse, Yukon, 1-4  June 1982. Environment Canada, Ottawa. 331p. 128. Russell, N.J. 1979. International Bioresource Agreements: the case of the Porcupine caribou. M. A. Thesis, University.of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver. 174p. 129. Schaefer, 0. and J. Steckle. 1980. Dietary habits and  n u t r i t i o n a l base of native populations of the Northwest  T e r r i t o r i e s . Science Advisory Board, NWT. 38p. 130. Schoenfeld, CA. and J . C Hendee. 1978. W i l d l i f e  Management in Wilderness. Boxwood Press, C a l i f o r n i a . I72p. 131. Seaborn, J.B. (Deputy Minister, Environment Canada). 1982. Letter to M. Lafontaine (Deputy Minister, DIAND). December 21, 1982. 132. Stabler, J . C 1978. The report of the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline, volume 1; a socio-economic c r i t i q u e . p.187-198. in : R.F. Keith and J.B. Wright (eds.) Northern Transitions  volume 11. CARC, Ottawa. 472p. 133. Summers, T.J. 1982. C r i t e r i a and considerations for the implementation and conduct of regional planning in northern Canada: a discussion paper. For Lands Directorate, Env. Canada. 47p. 134. Task Force on Beaufort Sea Developments. 1981. Report of the Task Force on Beaufort Sea Developments. Submitted to Senior Policy Committee, Northern Development Projects, Government of Canada. 34p. + apps. 135. Tener, J.S. (Chairman, Beaufort Sea Environmental Assessment Panel). 1982. Letter to J. Roberts (Minister, Environment Canada). December 7, 1982. 1 45 136. Templeton, C.H. 1982. Letter to J. Munro (Minister, DIAND). December 4, 1982. 137. Theberge, J.B. 1981. Commentary: conservation in the North - an ecological perspective. Ar c t i c 34(4): 281-285. 138. , J.G. Nelson, and T. Fenge. 1980. Environmentally Signif i c a n t Areas of the Yukon T e r r i t o r y . CARC, Ottawa. 134p. United States Government. Congress, House of Representatives. 1978. Letter to P.E. Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada. June 28, 1978. 139. Usher, P.J. 1973. Land use regulations: a c o n f l i c t of interest. Northern Perspectives 1(3): 1-4. 140. and G. Beakhust. 1973. Land regulation in the North: an introduction. Northern Perspectives 1(8): 8-12. 141. Wiken, E.B., D.M. Welch, G.R. Ironside and D.G. Taylor. 1981. The Northern Yukon: an ecological land survey. Ecological Land C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Series no. 6. Lands Directorate, Ottawa. I97p. 142. Wood, T. and T. Heggie. 1979. Environment Canada's proposal for the conservation of northern Yukon. Presented to the Northern Yukon Wilderness Park Steering Committee. 11 p. 143. Workshop on Northern Conservation Policy. Whitehorse, Yukon T e r r i t o r y , February 27 - March 3, 1983. Conference Resolutions and Action Plan. 7p. 144. Yukon Government. 1976. Goals and objectives of the government of the Yukon T e r r i t o r y and departments. 145. . 1980. Northern Yukon Resource Management Model. 20p. + appendices. 146. . 1982a. Land: a Yukon Resource - a land use po l i c y . I0p. 147. . 1982b. Yukon Hansard. November 17, 1982. 1 46 LEGISLATION 148. Canada. An Act to Amend the Yukon Act, the Northwest  T e r r i t o r i e s Act, and the T e r r i t o r i a l Lands Act. ch.48 (1st supp.) 1970, c.69. 149. . Canada W i l d l i f e Act. S.C. 1973, 21-22 E l i z . 2 , c.21 and accompanying Regulations. 150. . Fisheries Act. R.S.C. 1970, c.F-14 as amended 1977. 151. . Migratory Birds Convention Act. R.S.C. 1970, c.M-12 as amended and accompanying regulations. 152. . National Parks Act. R.S.C. 1970, c.N-13 as amended and accompanying regulations. 153. . Northern Inlands Water Act. R.S.C. 1970, c.28 (1st S u p p T ) and accompanying regulations as amended. 154. . Northwest T e r r i t o r i e s Act. R.S.C. 1970, c. 155. . T e r r i t o r i a l Lands Act. R.S.C. 1970, c.T-6 and accompanying T e r r i t o r i a l Land Use Regulations as amended. 156. _. Yukon Act. R.S.C. 1970. c.Y-2 and accompanying regulat ions. 157. Northwest T e r r i t o r i e s . Area Development Ordinance. Revised Ordinances of the Northwest T e r r i t o r i e s , 1974 and accompanying Commissioner's Orders. 158. __. Environmental Protection Ordinance. Revised Ordinances of the Northwest T e r r i t o r i e s , 1974, vol.1. c.E-3. 159. . T e r r i t o r i a l Parks Ordinance. Ordinances of the Northwest Territories,, 1973 (3rd session) , c.T-5, s.1, 160. . W i l d l i f e Ordinance. Ordinances of the Northwest T e r r i t o r i e s , 1978 (3rd session), c.8. 161. Yukon T e r r i t o r y . Area Development Ordinance. Ordinances of Yukon Territory as consolidated to December 31, 1976, c.A-4 and accompanying Commissioner's Order 1978/110. 162. . Land Planning Act. Statutes of Yukon Te r r i t o r y , 1982, c.22. 163. . T e r r i t o r i a l Parks Ordinance. Ordinances of the Yukon Terr i t o r y , 1972 (2nd session), c.13. 1 47 . W i l d l i f e Ordinance. Ordinances of the Yukon Ter r i t o r y , 1981 (2nd session), c.16. 148 APPENDIX A - LEGISLATION FOR NORTHERN LANDS AND WILDLIFE The following are relevant components of l e g i s l a t i o n that deal with land use or w i l d l i f e habitat management north of 60°. FEDERAL Indian A f f a i r s and Northern Development Act (1970): gives the Minister of IAND control, management and administration of a l l vacant Crown land and resources in the t e r r i t o r i e s not assigned to other departments or the t e r r i t o r i a l governments. T e r r i t o r i a l Lands Act (TLA) (1950, amended to 1975): provides for the sale, lease, or other d i s p o s i t i o n of northern lands,controlled by DIAND by the Governor-in-Council (Cabinet) or Minister. sec.19(a),(e) : lands can be withdrawn by Order-in-Council, pending formal designation for "other public purposes". This i s the only indication in the Act that development may be precluded for protection purposes. The main effect i s "maintenance of the status quo", in that "while any further d i s p o s i t i o n of land i s temporarily prevented, the land does not receive any permanent or secure status...no special management regimes are applied to withdrawn areas...Thus section 19..can be used as an e f f e c t i v e interim measure to impose a temporary freeze on an area, while permanent plans are being devised. It has very limited use as a long term l e g i s l a t i v e t o o l . " (Hunt et a l . , 1979:60). 15,000 square miles in northern Yukon were withdrawn under section 19 in 1978, and s t i l l await decisions regarding use of the area. T e r r i t o r i a l Land Use Regulations (TLUR's) (1977): The TLUR's i n s t i l l a component of environmental protection to the allocation-of land rights. However, "they constitute a system of land use controls rather than a management scheme (involving) some pre-selection and a l l o c a t i o n of s p e c i f i c lands to appropriate uses" (Beauchamp, 1976:30). sec.31(1)(h): "Application of the regulations to w i l d l i f e i s limited to the Engineer's d i s c r e t i o n , 'to include in any present terms and conditions respecting the protection of w i l d l i f e and f i s h e r i e s habitats'." (Rees, 1978:49). Two intergovernmental committees exist to'advise on the administration of the TLA and TLUR's. They are not based in the l e g i s l a t i o n , but were formed at the request of the Minister of 149 IAND (Fenge et a l . , 1979): Land Advisory Committees (LAC) - Yukon, NWT: coordinate mutual action, exchange information, review policy and regulatory proposals, provide a regional forum for land administration issues (Fenge et a l . , 1979:76-77). Membership: DIAND and the respective t e r r i t o r i a l governments. Land Use Advisory Committees (LUAC) - Yukon, NWT: "provision of expert advice to the 'Engineer' on the environmental and operating conditions... for class 'A' permits" granted under the TLA (Fenge et a l . , 1979:55). Membership: DIAND, DOE, DFO, GNWT/Yukon The 'Engineer' (assistant regional d i r e c t o r , Renewable Resources Branch, DIAND) issues class B and "uncomplicated" class A permits by himself; LUAC advises only on "unusual land use operations where environmental damage is p o t e n t i a l l y serious" (Fenge et a l . , 1979:55). However, "(LUAC's) capacity is s t r i c t l y an advisory one, and a l l evidence suggests their advice i s largely ignored" (Usher and Beakhust, 1973:82, c i t e d by Rees, 1978:49). Furthermore, applications often do not reach LUAC member or advisors u n t i l after they have already been approved by the Engineer or even the Minister (anon.: pers.comm.) Beauchamp (1976) questions the adequacy of the Engineer and land use inspectors, in terms of time, resources, and expertise available.- He perceives the TLUR's to be ambiguous in key elements as well as lacking guidelines for enforcing o f f i c e r s (p.35-36). Moreover, Podlog(1977) claims the protection mandate of the TLUR's i s seriously undermined at the l e v e l of implementation due to " p o l i t i c a l i n f i g h t i n g , haphazard planning, i n t e r - o f f i c e paper wars and a lack of internal control..." (p.95); "When administrations themselves have l i t t l e f a i t h in the system, i t can never work" (p.75). Canada W i l d l i f e Act (1973): s e c . 4 ( l ) : "Where the Governor-in-Counci1 i s s a t i s f i e d that any public lands are required for w i l d l i f e research, conservation or interpretation, he may assign the administration, management and control of such lands to the Minister (of Environment)." In the t e r r i t o r i e s , DOE must request a l l o c a t i o n of lands (surface rights only) from DIAND before i t can establish a w i l d l i f e area. The f i r s t National W i l d l i f e Area north of 60 was established in July 1982 at Polar Bear Pass. sec.5,6,7: the Minister, with Cabinet approval, can enter 150 into an agreement with any p r o v i n c i a l or t e r r i t o r i a l government, municipal authority, or other organization or person for undertaking w i l d l i f e research, conservation or interpretation programs, or for administering land for such purposes. Sec.lO(l): Cabinet may authorize the Minister to purchase, acquire or lease land for such purposes. These provisions allow for the acquisition of national w i l d l i f e areas without outright federal ownership, and allows j o i n t management regimes (with public or private e n t i t i e s ) to be established. This allows much greater f l e x i b i l i t y in managing protected natural areas than does the National Parks Act, and is of p a r t i c u l a r relevance to native land claim settlements, where joint management regimes may be desirable (Keith, 1983). National W i l d l i f e Area Regulations (1977): sec.3(1): prohibits hunting, f i s h i n g , molesting of w i l d l i f e , recreational commercial, and i n d u s t r i a l a c t i v i t i e s . sec.4: permits can be granted for the above a c t i v i t i e s "where, in the opinion of the Minister, the a c t i v i t y w i l l not i n t e r f e r e with the conservation of w i l d l i f e " . Therefore, regulatory 'clout', p a r t i c u l a r l y via the conditions set in the permits, depends largely on m i n i s t e r i a l ( i . e . , bureaucratic) d i s c r e t i o n . national w i l d l i f e areas are appended in a Schedule to the regulations; they are ( r e l a t i v e l y ) e a s i l y established, modified or removed by Cabinet via Order-in-Council. Migratory Birds Convention Act (1916) and Migratory Birds  Sanctuary Regulations (1974): se c . 4 ( l ) : authorizes the Governor-in-Counci1 to regulate hunting of migratory birds. sec.4(2): Cabinet may ,establish regulations providing for "prescribed areas" (sanctuaries) where hunting or disturbance of migratory birds (only) is prohibited, except by special permit issued by the Minister. In the t e r r i t o r i e s , land within sanctuaries is controlled by DIAND. CWS has authority only over the use of migratory birds and their habitat. Therefore, two permits for land use within sanctuaries are required: a standard one from DIAND under the TLUR's, and a Migratory Bird Sanctuary permit, the conditions of which are negotiated informally between the applicant and a CWS representative (Fenge et a l . , 1979:207). Sanctuaries are appended as a Schedule to the Regulations, and therefore are subject to modification by Cabinet. 151 There are 16 sanctuaries in the NWT, covering 3% of the t o t a l land area. Four of these are located around the Beaufort Sea. There are no sanctuaries in Yukon. National Parks Act (1930, 1974): sec.4: "The National Parks of Canada are hereby dedicated to the people of Canada for their benefit, education and enjoyment, subject to this Act and the regulations, and the National Parks s h a l l be maintained and made use of so as to leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations". The dual goals of public use and preservation are often questioned in the context of thi s Act being an ef f e c t i v e conservation/management tool in the north (Hunt et a l . , 1979; Theberge et a l . , 1980; Fenge, 1982). National parks are established as amendments to the Act i t s e l f ( i . e . , by parliamentary consent), thereby a l l o t t i n g land within parks a r e l a t i v e l y permanently protected status (Hunt et a l . , 1979; Fenge, 1982). sec.6(2): s p e c i f i e s that certain land uses are permitted in parks: rights-of-way for roads, railways, pipelines, transmission l i n e s , etc. w i l d l i f e regulations: prohibit hunting, trapping, disturbance of w i l d l i f e . " T r a d i t i o n a l " use by native people in the t e r r i t o r i e s i s permitted. Fisheries Act (1970, 1977): - prohibits a l t e r a t i o n (sec.31) and po l l u t i o n (sec.33) of f i s h habitat. This i s probably the most comprehensive l e g i s l a t i o n regarding any sort of habitat. Northern Inland Waters Act (1970): administered by DIAND and t e r r i t o r i a l water boards sec.27: Cabinet, at the di s c r e t i o n of the Minister, may withdraw lands or deny water licences for the protection of water resources. This r e l a t i v e l y powerful conservation tool has not been used to date (Theberge et a l . , 1980). 1 52 TERRITORIAL Yukon W i l d l i f e Act (1981): establishes regulations and prohibitions for hunting and trapping in Yukon. However, as stated under the federal Yukon Act, native subsistence hunting is exempt from any regulations set under th i s act. sec.140(l): establishes w i l d l i f e sanctuaries in which hunting is prohibited. The sanctuary designation relates solely to prohibition of hunting; other resource a c t i v i t i e s are permitted (Redpath, 1979). Two sanctuaries (Kluane and McArthur) are described in the Schedule appended to the Act. sec.179(1): the Commissioner may make regulations to designate protected areas because of their "uniqueness, s e n s i t i v i t y to disturbance...(and) importance as habitat"; (3) Council may make regulations "prescribing programs of land use for the preservation, maintenance and restoration of habitat on Crown land" in designated areas. This i s the f i r s t sign of an attempt to control other land uses in the interests of habitat. Protected habitat areas have been established along the Dempster Highway to protect falcon nesting areas. However, since land use in sanctuaries or any other designated areas i s s t i l l under the administrative control of DIAND under the TLA, t h i s section could be challenged as being beyond t e r r i t o r i a l j u r i s d i c t i o n . Yukon T e r r i t o r i a l Parks Act (1979): objective: "to protect unique natural and h i s t o r i c features and to provide comprehensive outdoor recreational opportunities". Land for t e r r i t o r i a l parks is made available under the TLA, but "the land is only 'set aside' for park purposes (and) the right to dispose of surface rights, to use or occupy the surface of the land...remains with the federal government..."(Naysmith, 1975:80). sec.7(3): designates various c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s of parks; 11(1) designates land use zones for each c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , to be used as the main management t o o l . Development a c t i v i t i e s are allowed in sp e c i f i c zones where the Commissioner deems them to be "in the best long term economic interests of the Te r r i t o r y " . The Act defines six types of parks. Only the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of "wilderness preserve" i s designated to protect and maintain features in their natural state (Theberge et a l . , 1980). So far, only campgrounds and picnic s i t e s have been established, although a long-range plan for a system of parks 153 of a l l types i s being developed (Theberge et a l . r 1980; DIAND, 1982 ). Yukon and NWT Area Development Act/Ordinance (1958): provides for "the orderly development of any development area" designated by the Commissioner; the Commissioner can make regulations for land use zoning within designated development areas. "This ordinance applies to a l l land, not only to those lands known as Commissioner's lands. Although under t h i s ordinance (act) the t e r r i t o r i a l government controls zoning, i t has no direct control over dispositions, since t i t l e i s s t i l l issued by the federal government" (Redpath, 1979:75). However, since the t e r r i t o r i a l governments can decide, to some extent, what and how a c t i v i t i e s are to proceed in development areas, the ordinance/act has the potential to function as "regional planning l e g i s l a t i o n " (Naysmith, 1976: 79). It has been used to control development along the Dempster Highway and in the Mackenzie Development Area. It has the potential to be used as a control on surface development in the interests of habitat management; however, as in the TLA, the statutes are aimed more towards "accomodating" i n d u s t r i a l development. NWT W i l d l i f e Ordinance (1978, amended 1983): establishes regulations and prohibitions for hunting and trapping; native subsistence hunting i s exempt sec.20(1),(2): the Commissioner can designate land into one of several c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s for w i l d l i f e management purposes; (3) the Commissioner can make regulations regarding w i l d l i f e use in any of these areas. Four sanctuaries and two preserves are in existence. As in Yukon, regulations pertain only to use of w i l d l i f e ; use of the land in these areas is s t i l l under the administration of DIAND. sec.29,30: no hunting i s permitted in,.wildlife sanctuaries; hunting for subsistence purposes allowed in preserves. - sec.9l(k): the Commissioner may make regulations regarding "the preservation, maintenance and restoration of habitats". To what extent such regulations can impinge on general land use regulations set by DIAND i s uncertain. NWT Parks Ordinance (1973): sec.4(6): four classes of parks are i d e n t i f i e d : community, wayside, natural environment recreational, and outdoor 1 54 recreation parks. The l a t t e r two classes require land to be set aside*by DIAND under the TLA. Like national parks, these two types of parks are designated the role of preserving the natural environment for the benefit, enjoyment and education of the public. However, so far, only community and wayside parks (being of small size and not requiring DIAND's authorization under the TLA ) have been established. NWT Environmental Protection Ordinance (1974): aimed primarily at pr o h i b i t t i n g and regulating the discharge of contaminants. 155 APPENDIX B - COMPONENTS OF THE INUVIALUIT AGREEMENT-IN-PRINCIPLE The following are components of the "Inuvialuit Lands Rights Settlement: Agreement-in-Principle", signed between the government of Canada and the Committee for O r i g i n a l Peoples Entitlement in 1978, that are relevant to land use or w i l d l i f e management in northern Yukon. Goal #4: "to protect and preserve the A r c t i c w i l d l i f e , environment and b i o l o g i c a l productivity". Sec. 7(1)(a): provides the Inuvialuit with t i t l e in fee simple, including a l l minerals, o i l and gas, and granular materials, to 5000 square miles of land in the western A r c t i c region. Sec. 7(1)(b): provides t i t l e in fee simple, less minerals, o i l , etc., to 32000 square miles of land to be selected from t r a d i t i o n a l Inuvialuit lands. Sec. 11: establishes a framework for land use planning for the western Ar c t i c region. F i n a l settlement l e g i s l a t i o n s h a l l provide for a Land Use Planning Commission and Land Use Applications and Review Committee; both would be advisory to the Minister or appropriate government o f f i c i a l s . Sec. 11(5): the two parties agree that special environmental protection measures are required for proposed IBP s i t e s , and agree to joint-management of s i t e s that are established. Sec. 12: the two parties agree to establish a 5000-square-mile National Wilderness Park in northern Yukon "for the purpose of w i l d l i f e protection and wilderness conservation". A National Wilderness Park Steering Committee i s proposed with native, t e r r i t o r i a l and federal representation. Native t r a d i t i o n a l harvesting would be permitted. Any lands later withdrawn from the Park would become Inuvialui t-owned. Sec. 14: deals at length with the use and management of w i l d l i f e , p a r t i c u l a r l y the a l l o c a t i o n of exclusive or p r e f e r e n t i a l hunting, trapping and fishing rights to Inuvialuit and "the integration of the Inuvialuit into a l l structures, functions and decisions pertaining to w i l d l i f e management and land management in the Western A r c t i c Region" . 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0095771/manifest

Comment

Related Items