Final Recommended Peel Watershed Regional Land Use Plan Consistency Checks
- Created: Sunday, 18 July 2010 21:17
With the publication of the Final Recommended Peel Watershed Regional Land Use Plan in July 2011, the Peel Watershed Planning Commission finished its work. Before they finished, Yukon land claims agreements allowed them to comment on proposed projects in the Peel Watershed to the YESAB. The same agreements (and YESAA) allowed them to determine if a project conforms to their approved plan. However, without an approved plan, the Peel Watershed Planning Commission has no official avenue to evaluate projects in their region.
To fill this gap, the Yukon Land Use Planning Council has recommended that they (YLUPC) perform consistency checks on proposed projects in such planning regions.
These checks will be provided to YESAB as part of their assessment process. The term ‘consistency’ is used to differentiate this process from the ‘conformity’ checks done for approved plans.
Here's how it works:
When the Yukon Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Designated Office seeks views and information from the public and stakeholders about a proposed project, it determines if the project will fall within the Peel Watershed Planning Region. If so, it sends a letter requesting a consistency check to the Senior Planner (or other nominated staff) at YLUPC. YLUPC staff then visit YESAB’s online registry (YOR) to read the project’s specifications. They then fill in a form that indicates whether or not a project would be consistent to the plan, and what practices and strategies recommended in the plan would be the most relevant. Completed consistency checks will be listed below.
- pdf 2012-0092: Crest Remediation (April 11, 2012) (125 KB)
- pdf 2012-0030: Quartz Exploration – Mike Lake Project (April 2, 2012) (252 KB)
- pdf 2017-0088: Culvert Replacement KM 227 and KM 237 – Dempster Highway (May 4, 2017) (69 KB)
- 2018-0011: Km 129.5 Dempster Highway Culvert Replacement (February 2, 2018)
Part of the consistency check includes the comparison between projected landscape disturbance indicators for each of the Landscape Management Units (LMUs) potentially affected by the project and the cautionary and critical levels assigned to each LMU. Two indicators are assessed: new surface disturbance (or “footprint”), and new linear disturbance. To do this, the YLUPC needs an estimate of the current amount of each disturbance indicator. Unfortunately, these estimates have not yet been determined. Until these estimates are published, the YLUPC usually cannot determine if a proposal will result in excessive landscape disturbance or not, except where no new disturbances are allowed. As a result, consistency checks for projects in areas where disturbance is allowed will consist of a list of relevant mitigative strategies and practices.