Theme 6: Zoning and Landscape Management Unit Configuration

Jump to questions

More information
Get details on Yukon's regional land use planning process or read the plan in summary or full versions. Download a PDF of this theme in English or French.

The Plan recommends dividing the Peel watershed into 21 Landscape Management Units (LMUs). The size, shape, and designation of the LMUs are based on drainage patterns, land based values, and management intent. The zones range in size from 157 km(2) to 18,678 km(2)

Fish and Wildlife emphasis (4 LMUs): This management intent focuses on fish and wildlife, and renewable resource uses. The Commission proposes a regulatory designation such as: ecological or wilderness preserve, habitat protection area, or wildlife reserve.

Heritage emphasis (3 LMUs): This management intent is focused on preserving areas of high cultural importance identified by the First Nations as being important for traditional land uses, subsistence harvesting, and heritage sites. The Commission proposes a regulatory designation such as: heritage site or territorial park.

General environmental protection (8 LMUs): This management intent is focused on preserving ecological integrity and maintaining wilderness quality. The Commission proposes a regulatory designation such as: wilderness or ecological preserve.

Watershed management (1 LMU): This management intent is focused on ensuring watershed protection in an area that has a complex and sensitive drainage system, and high levels of water and land-based activities. The Commission proposes a regulatory designation such as: habitat protection area or ecological reserve.

Zoning table

Questions:
1. Do you feel that the number of Landscape Management Units proposed is reasonable? If no, are there too many, or too few?
16 sma's why not just one great big green one, that is pretty much all that this plan is recommending. This is ridiculous, this process is suppose to come up with a recommendation to the government's that they can use to "manage" the region, not give them something that is so one sided that it ends up in controversy for ever.
By somebody from on August 30, 2010 at 1:11 a.m.
Reasonable
By Bob Sharp from Yukon Territory on August 30, 2010 at 2:40 p.m.
In general the number is reasonable.
By D Reid from Yukon Territory on September 09, 2010 at 1:47 p.m.
Without flying over the area and looking at it this is a difficult question. I suggest there is no need to devide these areas period. Unless there is a bonified reason - no restrictions.
By Bob Scott, prospector from Yukon Territory on September 15, 2010 at 5:36 p.m.
This is the splitters vs. lumpers controversy. I would pose the question to those on the front line: FN Lands staff, YESAA staff, YG environment staff.
By chet from Yukon Territory on September 16, 2010 at 1:43 p.m.
My only hesitation is that the use of LMUs may distract from a focus on protection by designating one particular emphasis for a given LMU. To me it makes more sense to look at designating the entire area as a park, recognizing that there will be protection of fish and wildlife and heritage etc. in all areas.
By Jeremy Baumbach, Whitehorse from Yukon Territory on September 18, 2010 at 7:45 p.m.
If the entire region is protected, ecological integrity and wilderness qualities will remain, fish and wildlife values will be protected and maintained, water will remain unpolluted and rivers will run free and heritage values will also be maintained. The best "management" of a wilderness is usually to leave it alone. It seems to me that all these different designations are only focusing on different parts of the same big picture; maintaining the entire Peel watershed as an intact wilderness with all its values preserved for future generations.
By Maryann Emery from Alberta on September 24, 2010 at 10:44 a.m.
If you are managing for the same reasons ie SMA then why not make one unit. I think the government needs a big picture or vision. Planning for individual units makes it easy for policy makers to change their minds on a unit later - thus fractuing the concept of conservation for ecological integrity.
By Yukon citizen from Yukon Territory on September 24, 2010 at 5:00 p.m.
No. It should be one large continuous protected area.
By Blaine Walden, Walden's Guiding from Yukon Territory on September 26, 2010 at 3:22 p.m.
It took a lot of work to identified for the specific type of resources each SMA has. However, they all need the same level of protection and so the area should be protected as a whole. THe more areas there are, the more they can each be negotiated separately. The area needs to be protected as a whole.
By Johanne, Whitehorse from Yukon Territory on September 26, 2010 at 11:08 p.m.
I feel that there may be too many management units and amalgamating them under a larger umbrella area may simplify management planning and the costs of doing so in the future.
By David Blakeburn from Yukon Territory on September 29, 2010 at 2:45 a.m.
All LMUs should be Special Management Areas. There should be no Integrated Management Area.
By Marie from Yukon Territory on September 29, 2010 at 10:22 p.m.
Too many units smells of management to me at which we are no good. Could we please just have one large green unit meaning full protection covering the entire watershed.
By Jannik Schou from Yukon Territory on September 30, 2010 at 3:00 a.m.
Yes.
By Pippa from Yukon from Yukon Territory on October 01, 2010 at 12:25 a.m.
The number of LMU is irrelevant in my opinion. There should be as many, or few, as necessary so that each LMU is properly represented as a protection, Fish and Wildlife, Heritage, and Watershed Management area and one for the Dempster corridor.
By Maciej Stetkiewicz from Yukon Territory on October 01, 2010 at 4:02 p.m.
There are too many LMU's proposed. I'm sure that the people involved in this could modify it to a more manageable #.
By KIT from Yukon Territory on October 01, 2010 at 8:15 p.m.
2. Are there any LMUs you feel should be bigger or smaller?
Peel Plateau should be smaller.
By Bob Sharp from Yukon Territory on August 30, 2010 at 2:40 p.m.
No
By D Reid from Yukon Territory on September 09, 2010 at 1:47 p.m.
Remove them all and allow all to access.
By Bob Scott, prospector from Yukon Territory on September 15, 2010 at 5:36 p.m.
Yes the complete SMA Protection zone should be larger
By Yukon citizen from Yukon Territory on September 24, 2010 at 5:00 p.m.
the whole area should be one SMA
By Johanne, Whitehorse from Yukon Territory on September 26, 2010 at 11:08 p.m.
Yes, the entire area should be a SMA.
By Jannik Schou from Yukon Territory on September 30, 2010 at 3:06 a.m.
I believe the IMA should be re-designated as SMA. Again, the size and shape of the LUMs should be determined by the values which are emphasized within. It is difficult to comment on this criteria without more detailed maps and visiting each area. This is unrealistic for me so I will have to give the Planning Commission's the benefit of the doubt. What I do want to comment on is what occurs within the LMUs. All should be SMAs in one of the 5 SMA designations depending on the values within.
By Maciej Stetkiewicz from Yukon Territory on October 01, 2010 at 4:09 p.m.
3. Are there any LMU boundaries that you feel should be changed?
No
By D Reid from Yukon Territory on September 09, 2010 at 1:47 p.m.
Yes, remove all.
By Bob Scott, prospector from Yukon Territory on September 15, 2010 at 5:37 p.m.
The maximum protection should be given to Hart, Wind, Bonnet Plume and Sanke - this makes a contiguous planning unit that better meets management for ecological integrity.
By Yukon citizen from Yukon Territory on September 24, 2010 at 5:00 p.m.
Get rid of the IMAs.
By Birch from Yukon Territory on September 28, 2010 at 7:18 p.m.
Yes, see above
By Jannik Schou from Yukon Territory on September 30, 2010 at 3:07 a.m.
The boundary of SMA "M" should be increased to encompass all of IMA 5. SMA 'A' should be increased to encompass both of IMA 1s. IMA 2 should be narrowed.
By Maciej Stetkiewicz from Yukon Territory on October 01, 2010 at 4:12 p.m.
I do not agree with the amount of LMU's which indicate massive withdrawal of land from access for all.
By KIT from Yukon Territory on October 01, 2010 at 8:16 p.m.
4. Do you want to share any alternative suggestions for zoning or configuration?
The suggested zoning configuration depicts the distirbution of the main resource values. However, it is unlikely that each LMU designated as an SMA should get unique legal designation under legislation. There is reason to amalgamate some adjacent LMUs in a single legal land designation (e.g., Territorial Park; Wilderness Management Area), but the Recommended Plan's identification of resource emphasis could be maintained and acknowledged within the subsequent management of the larger legally designated SMA. An example might be the joining of small LMUs such as Hungry Lakes and Chappie Lakes within a bigger SMA. The final plan could recognize this possibility.
By D Reid from Yukon Territory on September 09, 2010 at 1:48 p.m.
Yes, remove all and allow access.
By Bob Scott, prospector from Yukon Territory on September 15, 2010 at 5:37 p.m.
Yes, as above.
By Yukon citizen from Yukon Territory on September 24, 2010 at 5:00 p.m.
remove zoning and protected the whole watershed for all the resources it offers
By Johanne, Whitehorse from Yukon Territory on September 26, 2010 at 11:08 p.m.
Ecological integrity should be the first priority in all areas.
By Doug Goodman from British Columbia on September 28, 2010 at 3:23 p.m.
remove IMAs, redesignated as SMAs
By Maciej Stetkiewicz from Yukon Territory on October 01, 2010 at 4:12 p.m.
5. Do you have any other comments on this topic?
I would like to see the entire region given the highest level of protection.
By Michael Purves, Whitehorse from Yukon Territory on August 27, 2010 at 2:05 p.m.
Protect 100%
By Johanne, Whitehorse from Yukon Territory on September 26, 2010 at 11:08 p.m.
110% protection.
By Jannik Schou from Yukon Territory on September 30, 2010 at 3:08 a.m.
First of all, I have to admit I don't have a full understanding of the rational behind establishing these management areas. My overall opinion on the Peel Watershed is to protect 100%. No development of any kind, especially mining. I also fail to see the point in dividing it into these micro-managed areas as proposed. Apply these individual principals to the entire area. I am in favor of leaving care of the area to the three first nations. If they choose to divide the area based on there historic cultural use of the land, so be it. Having said that, I would like some for of assurance that all people would have access to the rivers and land for the purpose of visiting and experience the wilderness. At some point in the future it will likely become necessary to limit the numbers of visitors per year based on noticeable impacts caused from travelers.
By John Quinsey, Whitehorse from Yukon Territory on September 30, 2010 at 6:59 p.m.
see above.
By Maciej Stetkiewicz from Yukon Territory on October 01, 2010 at 4:15 p.m.