YELLOWKNIFE HARBOUR PLAN

PHASE 1 BACKGROUND REPORT

APRIL 2011  The Harbour Plan is carried out with funding assistance of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency      

The Planning Partnership In association with

Avens Associates LTD • W.F. Baird & Associates • Plan B Natural Heritage • Poulos & Chung Miller Dickson Blais Inc • Thompson Dorfman Sweatman LLP

Canadian Northern EconomicDevelopment Agency

Agence canadienne de développementéconomique du Nord

   

Table  of  Contents  

 

1.0  Introduction  ...........................................................................................................  1  1.1  Study  Purpose  ......................................................................................................................................................  1  1.2  Study  Area  .............................................................................................................................................................  1  1.3  Previous  Reports  ................................................................................................................................................  1  2.0  Consultation  ..........................................................................................................  2  2.1  City  Directors  &  Managers  .............................................................................................................................  3  2.2  Harbour  Planning  Committee  .......................................................................................................................  3  2.3  Yellowknives  Dene  First  Nation  ...................................................................................................................  4  2.4  Community  Workshop  .....................................................................................................................................  6  3.0  Emerging  Philosophy  &  Principles  ........................................................................  13  3.1  Emerging  Philosophy  .....................................................................................................................................  13  3.2 Emerging Principles  .........................................................................................................................................  14  4.0  Understanding  of  Existing  Conditions  &  Emerging  Directions  ...............................  17  4.1  Natural  Heritage  ..............................................................................................................................................  18  4.2  Parks  &  Open  Space  ........................................................................................................................................  20  4.3  Trails  .....................................................................................................................................................................  21  4.5  Harbour  Users  ..................................................................................................................................................  24  4.6  Urban  Neighbourhoods  ................................................................................................................................  26  4.6.1  Character  Areas  ............................................................................................................................................  29  4.6.2  Interface  ...........................................................................................................................................................  30  

5.0  Harbour  Management  Authority  ..........................................................................  32  5.1  The  Need  for  Improved  Harbour  Management  ..................................................................................  32  5.2  Timeline  ...............................................................................................................................................................  34  5.3  Understanding  the  Jurisdictional  Complexity  .....................................................................................  35  5.4  Who  Does  What?  ..............................................................................................................................................  37  5.5  Spectrum  of  Regulatory  Options  ..............................................................................................................  40  5.6  Overview  of  Administrative  Models  .......................................................................................................  40  5.7  Case  Studies  .......................................................................................................................................................  43  5.8  Key  Directions  ...................................................................................................................................................  49    

    1  

1.0  Introduction  

The purpose of this Report is to provide a summary of the background work, research and consultations. This work was undertaken as part of the first phase of a three phase work program for the Yellowknife Harbour Plan (see diagram below).

This Report documents the considerable contribution from all those who have participated in the Phase 1 workshops. Their input helped to shape an early understanding of the complex array of issues associated with governance, development and activity within the Harbour, as well as opportunities for change. The Phase 1 Background Report also articulates the emerging philosophy, principles and key directions that will form the basis of the overall plan and management strategy to implement the long-term vision for the Harbour.

1.1  Study  Purpose  The purpose of the Yellowknife Harbour Planning Study is to develop a vision and implementation strategy for a well-managed and better-regulated Yellowknife Harbour. The control of development and activity within the Harbour will occur within the context of enhancing the potential for economic development, and the protection of natural and cultural heritage resources. This is the first of a three-stage project to create an overseeing authority to regulate development. Following completion of the Stage One Background Report and Implementation Strategy, Stage Two will focus on the conceptual design and establishment of the overseeing authority. Stage Three will be the feasibility analysis and preliminary design of priority projects.

1.2  Study  Area   The Study Area is illustrated on page 2 of the full report outlined in white. The Study Area extends from the mouth of the Yellowknife River in the north, encompassing the entire western shoreline (including Latham Island, Back Bay and Joliffe Island) to the southernmost boundary of the City of Yellowknife. The Study Area also encompasses Dettah.

1.3  Previous  Reports   Over the past decade, the City has undertaken numerous studies and planning initiatives, which provide a useful starting point for the development of the current Yellowknife Harbour Plan. The team has reviewed all of the background information and made reference to the most relevant documents in each chapter of this report. The recommendations in some of the key reports are summarized in this section. The Yellowknife Waterfront Management Plan was adopted in 2001. The map on page 4 of the full report is a compilation of the Plan’s key recommendations for much of the

    2  

same study area as for this Harbour Plan. As mentioned in the Terms of Reference for this Harbour Plan, despite the relevance of many of the policies and strategies in the Waterfront Management Plan, many of them have not been implemented due to land tenure issues, jurisdictional challenges or lack of resources and reinvestment. The City of Yellowknife General Plan was adopted in 2005 and amended in 2009. The City is in the process of updating the General Plan. It was prepared to provide a clear approach to planning and development. The map on page 5 of the full report illustrates some of the key recommendations with respect to the Plan’s growth and phasing of residential, commercial (office and retail) institutional/community use and park. These will be reassessed as part of this Study to provide input to the City’s update of the General Plan. The Giant Mine Lease Area/Water Use Plan was completed in 2006. The Terms of Reference for the Harbour Plan states that this part of the Yellowknife Bay has significant potential for redevelopment and revitalization, however, the Federal Giant Mine Abandonment and Restoration Plan has yet to be finalized by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada and the Government of the Northwest Territories. The drawings on the top of page 6 of the full report are excerpts from the report and recommendations will be reassessed as part of this study. The Yellowknife Smart Growth Development Plan, completed in 2010, provides a 50-year growth and development strategy for the City. Downtown, Old Town and Con Mine were focused areas of study. Old Airport Road, Giant Mine and Tin Can Hill were also included in the Smart Growth Development Plan. The drawings on the bottoms of pages 6 and 7 of the full report are excerpts from the report and describe the type and character of development envisioned for two of those areas. The Smart Growth Plan included a special Transportation Improvement Study proposing a number of long term improvements to the system, including the re-routing options for the Ingraham Trail. The recommendations will be reassessed as part of this study.

2.0  Consultation   The Yellowknife Harbour Plan is being prepared within the framework of two primary consultation events where all of the stakeholders are invited to collaborate with the team in the review of the work-in-progress. To date, the team has visited Yellowknife three times, each for several days, to enable focused working sessions on this project. During each visit, a number of sequential meetings and workshops were organized to provide opportunities to collaborate with the team. The team also met with City Council and MLAs on October 28, 2010 to introduce the team and describe the scope of work. This section summarizes the consultation during the Study’s Phase 1 - Background Research.

    3  

2.1  City  Directors  &  Managers   The City Directors and Managers provided a critical point of reference for the team for direction with respect to all aspects of city planning and development. The team met with representatives from:

• City Administration; • Community Services; • Corporate Services; • Economic Development; • Planning and Development; • Public Safety; and, • Public Works.

Four working sessions have been held to date with City Managers and Directors:

• October 28, 2010 project kick off, confirm scope of the project, discuss opportunities and challenges;

• November 30, 2010 to discuss key assets and challenges, preliminary directions with respect to natural heritage, parks and open space, heritage and culture, boats and planes, neighbourhoods and urban districts, and harbour management;

• December 2, 2010 to review input received from key stakeholders over the preceding week and to obtain additional input on the preliminary directions; and,

• January 28, 2011 to review the key directions for each of the components of the Harbour Plan.

2.2  Harbour  Planning  Committee   The City of Yellowknife organized a Harbour Planning Committee to engage stakeholders representing a diverse range of interests in the Study process. The Terms of Reference for the Study directs the team to meet with the Committee three times to gain input on the work as it progresses. The Harbour Planning Committee is to provide advice and input to the City on the formulation of the Plan which may include, but is not limited to, the following:

• review the relevant planning documents outlined in the Planning Context of the Terms of Reference as well as other relevant legislation and material relating to the feasibility of establishing a Harbour Plan and Commission.;

• review and provide feedback on the Terms of Reference for required consulting services;

• review and provide feedback on policies, programs, concepts, strategies, and policies relating to environmental conservation, transportation, tourism and recreation, commercial development, floating homes, and waterfront access;

• participate and assist in organizing and promoting public participation

    4  

components open houses, workshops, and media announcements; • collectively or individually, without breach of committee confidentiality, solicit

input from various sectors of the community or the public at large, and take a leadership role in promoting the objectives of the Plan; and,

• make recommendations, reached by the consensus of its membership, to the City of Yellowknife Council and Yellowknives Dene First Nation.

• To date, the team has met with the Harbour Planning Committee twice: • October 28, 2010 to introduce the team, confirm the scope of work, study area

and to discuss opportunities and challenges; and, • November 30, 2010 to discuss key assets and challenges, preliminary directions

with respect to natural heritage, parks and open space, heritage and culture, boats and planes, neighbourhoods and urban districts, and harbour management.

All of the meetings with the Harbour Planning Committee are open to the public and interested observers. Members of the Harbour Planning Committee Shelagh Montgomery, City Councillor, Chair Mayor Gordon Van Tighem , Vice Chair Ted Tsetta, Chief, Yellowknives Dene First Nation Edward Sangris, Chief, Yellowknives Dene First Nation Cathy Allooloo, Old Town Business Owner, Public at large Dallas Babuik, Transport Canada John Carter, CEO, Yellowknives Dene First Nation Luke Coady, (GNWT) Industry, Tourism and Investment Pete Cott, Department of Fisheries and Oceans (alternate) Jan Fullerton, Great Slave Cruising Club Kevin Hodgins, Public at Large Anne Lynagh, Floating Home Representative Gordon Piro, NWT Float Plane Association Doug Ritchie, Ecology North James Sosiak, Great Slave Yacht Club Michelle Swallow, Latham Island Resident Rick Walbourne, Department of Fisheries and Oceans David Wind, City Councillor,(Alternate) Doug Witty, Yellowknife Chamber of Commerce

 

 

2.3  Yellowknives  Dene  First  Nation   The City received written endorsement from the Yellowknives Dene First Nation on

    5  

the establishment of a structure to manage the Yellowknife Harbour. The study’s work program was organized to ensure regular collaboration with the Yellowknives Dene First Nation. To date, the team has met with the Elders Senate twice:

• October 27, 2010 to introduce the team, confirm the scope of work, study area and to listen to stories from the Elders with respect to their concerns regarding use of the Harbour and the adjacent lands;

• December 1, 2010 to discuss trails, heritage, culture, and issues/concerns related to harbour use.

The team held a public workshop on January 27, 2011 in Dettah to engage the community in a conversation about preliminary directions of the Harbour Plan. Yellowknives Dene First Nation Chiefs & Members of the Elder Senate Chief (Dettah) Edward Sangris Chief (N’Dilo) Ted Tsetta Council Cecilie Beaulieu Patrick James Charlo Bob Alex Drygeese Roy Robert Erasmus Peter John Goulet Eileen Liske Shirley Tsetta Alfred Crapaud-Baillargeon Lisa Pieper Noonee Sanspariel Elder Senate Isadore Tsetta Alfred Baillargeon John Drygeese Judy Charlo Marguerite Liske Michel Paper Modeste Sangris Peter D. Sanrgis Phillip Liske Eddie Sikyea

    6  

2.4  Community  Workshop   Two Community Workshops were held on December 1 and 2, 2010. The Workshops were advertised and invitations were sent to organized interest groups representing, for example, the arts, heritage, environment and business. The purpose of the Workshops was to engage the community in a conversation about the Harbour Plan. The Workshops began with a presentation that summarized the team’s thoughts on:

• key assets to leverage; • key challenges to overcome; and • preliminary directions with respect to natural heritage, trails and open space,

arts, heritage and culture, boats and planes, neighbourhoods and districts. Following the presentation, the team invited participants to join one of three table groups for a focused conversation on: Trails, Open Space and Natural Features; Neighbourhoods and Urban Districts; and Boats and Planes. Both Workshops were very well attended. The notes on this page and the following page summarize the input with respect to key issues and opportunities identified during the discussions at the Workshops. Trails, Open Space and Natural Features

• Lack of use of Rotary Park by pedestrians. • Acquisition/use of Johnson property supported. • Access is difficult and parking is too limited in Old Town. • Yellowknife River to Negus Point – opportunity for a multi-use trail. • Need clarity in the winter trails on ice. • Finger boardwalks hidden in winter. • Use remote parking lots and bus into Old Town.

o Maintain traditional trapping trails. o Continued access to traditional travel routes and fishing areas

   Neighbourhoods and Urban Districts

Public access on public land: Morrison Dr.

• Need to clarify what “public access” means.

    7  

• Concerned about loss of privacy, infiltration by other people, potential crime and incivilities.

• Some like the opportunity to use these lands. • Some would prefer to see the boardwalk completed first. • Crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) principles need to

be applied. • Need to consider accessibility standards.

Infill in Old Town and Public Realm

• Infill needs to “fit” . • Sidewalks – need and quality. • Site design must accommodate snow storage. • Fill in “gaps” in streetscape. • Need to ensure compatible uses . • Support for public docks and space on Johnson Site. • No more heavy industrial uses. • Squatters – Attraction and affordable housing. • Need to create a special zone – ie. Community Improvement Plan.

City needs to prove themselves

• Has done some things well recently Waterfront at City Hall, 49 Ave

streetscape, Rotary Park boardwalk. • Enforcing parking issues – ie. Woodyard area. • Do better job improving/maintaining public realm. • Better garbage removal at shoreline. • Need to make decisions and follow through. • Need to execute projects well. Aim for excellence/best practice.

Boats and Planes

• Desire to work together. • Need visible changes from whatever harbour entity “seizes control”, as there is

a concern it will just be added costs with little visible change. • Why is City paying for Harbour Commission/Entity when existing laws should

cover it? It is not necessary. Safety

• Safety concerns during all seasons with ice/lake users. • Kayaks not visible to floatplanes and other larger boats.

    8  

• Speed limits not always followed, especially between Joliffe Island and mainland. Need to control speed and educate users.

• Moored boats southwest of Joliffe Island have been creeping into the channel, raising concerns because they are moving into the aerodrome.

• A number of people on both nights suggested there is a need to control the creep of float homes and boat moorings into the aerodrome near Joliffe.

• Boats mooring in Joliffe/Old Town channel using propane tanks (can withstand ice) as buoys – these are sometimes found floating in the bay – there are environment and safety concerns.

• Pilots do not always use beacon. • Beacon was out of service for 2 years. Boaters said that beacon should be

standard operational requirement. • Conflicting opinions on how much pilots can see in terms of small crafts that

are low on water such as kayaks. • Pilots exceeding posted speeds for take-off/landing at Joliffe Island. When

float plane is on water, it is considered a boat, but they are exceeding posted speed limits. This seems to be an issue that Transport Canada may need to look into.

• Darkness/visibility in winter is a concern to avoid conflicts among users. • Other uses such as Ski planes, ice castle and related traffic, mushing (dog

sleds) need to be considered in the plan. • High speeds and alcohol lead to snow machine accidents. • Safety precautions identified included walking with lights, education and

enforcement.

Education

• Need to educate people on the need for proper pumpout. • Need to educate people on harbour rules.

Non-Houseboat Owners

• Could move the Floating homes to Kam Lake. • Want to see regulations on houseboat garbage, sewage and grey water. • Concerns regarding growing houseboat numbers, leading to loss of public

recreational space (both blue space (on water) and green space (on Joliffe Is).

• No mechanism for citizens to comment. • They should be paying taxes. They could lease water lots and this would be

a mechanism to collect taxes.

Houseboat Owners

• Do not want to be relocated to a marina.

    9  

• Some support paying taxes/fees (majority of those who attended), others do not.

• They noted that the houseboats are located in places that provide sufficient shelter from wind, currents and ice. There are few locations that provide enough shelter. Houseboats should therefore stay in existing locations as these are proven.

• Realistic approach would be to grandfather in the existing houseboats. New zoning/restrictions etc. would apply to new houseboats.

• No blackwater (sewage) is going into the lake. • Need evidence that greywater feeding into lake is more destructive than

city’s stormwater runoff and sewers. • Some noted that there is limited circulation in Back Bay when compared

with Yellowknife Bay (near Joliffe Island) and suggested that greywater may therefore need to be treated in Back Bay.

• Some boats already maintain greywater treatment facility. • Houseboats should be recognized for cultural heritage. • Concerns with potential Harbour Commission/Entity blaming houseboaters

for water quality issues. • The houseboaters feel that they are self-regulating at present – in term of

spaces occupied and numbers, this point was refuted by non-houseboat owners.

• An emergency response system is needed.

Ice Road • In the spring there is a lot of garbage that goes into the lake when the ice

melts.

Harbour Use

• Suggest you think of the use of water/air/ice in the same way you think about these issues on land

• Protect for continued access to traditional travel routes and fishing areas. • Some felt that uses should not be restricted by area as had been suggested. • Need to limit future development between Joliffe and gov’t dock – this is an

area of congestion and is mentioned in safety issues above. • Concerns with low water levels (more shoals, too shallow for some boats at

some docks, some boat ramps too shallow). • Shoals are marked by Coast Guard between July and September but boats

are on the water before and after this period and there are many shallow areas so this is a navigation hazard. Suggest Harbour entity make sure shoals are marked as soon as ice goes out.

• Some said the Coast Guard only do limited marking of shoals since there is limited commercial activity and this has decreased in recent years,

    10  

• Boat clubs could more responsibility for marking shoals.

Water Access • Public needs access. • There is a need to take some pressure off Old Town in terms of boat ramp

use. • Need for more parking and docking space. • Old Town launch should be available for use – there is currently a dredge

permanently moored at the launch, preventing anyone from using it. Several people mentioned this and said they want to be able to use it. Others said it should be closed and traffic moved out of Old Town.

• The launch is in a state of disrepair, however since it is gravel, some reported it offers good grip, is deep – good launch.

• There is limited space for visitors – most docks are occupied. • Joliffe Island - suggested development of a water taxi, it could be a

destination with bike paths – it offers a view of the entire bay (land claim mentioned). Revisit previous recommendations

Government Dock/Old Town Launch • The dock is used by tourists, fishermen, pleasure boats, but it is currently

blocked by barges, leaving it inaccessible. • There is no long term parking available for either boats or cars. The

designated parking is in a field some distance from the dock and has a time limit on parking. Street parking is less limited and closer so people use the streets. This creates other problems.

• Responsible authority for the Gov’t. Dock is DFO in Winnipeg. Historically there was a wharfinger responsible for the dock, however there is no longer anyone on site and there is no enforcement.

• People want to see a fuel/pumpout facility – possibly at the Gov’t. Dock.

Marina

• Support for marinas – economic benefits. Opposing view is that the season

is too short and therefore not viable economically. Comments on the options:

Mosher Island • Has depth, some degree of natural shelter but it is exposed to waves

    11  

from the south. • It is located out of town and there would be less resistance to

development. • Existing fueling/pump out facility. Rotary Park • Shallow and would require dredging. • Sediment controls would be needed during construction. • Wetland located adjacent to proposed marina location. • Close to town. • Neighbourhood resistance in the past – NIMBY. Giant Mine • Ample parking space. • Removes pressure from Old Town. Negus Point • Private property? • Exposed – windy. • Out of town. Latham Island • Option for fuel/pumpout –anchorage on west side.

Enforcement

• There is a lack of enforcement in all areas. • City needs to build trust that new Harbour Authority/Entity will enforce

rules, bylaws. • Enforcement must be year-round. • People do not see value in the money they spend on permits – for example,

there is a snowmobile bylaw and it costs $100 for a season permit – this recently doubled. The permit fee should cover enforcement of bylaws such as speeding. People do not feel they are getting value for their money from the City.

• There need to be regulation of houseboat numbers and enforcement. Some said there are abandoned houseboats – no one does anything about them.

• Precedents for houseboat legislation exists in ON and BC. • Any fees for harbour use should cover enforcement. • There was support for a boat licence. • No enforcement of docks on public land.

    12  

• DFO enforces fisheries window for construction – it is limited to month of March.

• DFO spends money on permitting, none on enforcement.

    13  

3.0  Emerging  Philosophy  &  Principles  

3.1  Emerging  Philosophy  

1. Yellowknife Residents Must Equally Contribute to the Well-being of the Community Yellowknife is small but vibrant capital city that relies on the residents of the city and surrounding areas and visitors to contribute to the City’s public functions. Contribution in the form of taxes or other fees is necessary to ensure that, for example, roads are maintained; transit operates; libraries and community centres are provided; parks, trails and sports fields are developed; and, emergency services are provided. Although a city can provide much, Yellowknife is made better by the volunteer efforts and public involvement of all its citizens and visitors.    

2. The Management and Enhancement of the Natual Environment is Vital to the Community’s Health Yellowknife is unique in that the natural environment has experienced the impacts of urban growth over a relatively short time frame (i.e. 50 -75 years), and with a relatively small population. As a result, the reference point or baseline environmental condition is relatively healthy compared to older urban areas with larger populations. Indeed, the extensive and extraordinary natural setting is undeniably one of the City’s greatest assets and a fundamental part of its appeal for residents and visitors alike. Yellowknife has an unmatched opportunity for achieving environmentally sustainable growth provided that the environment is well managed and enhanced through the implementation of key supportive policies and directives.

3. Strengthening and Expanding Waterfront Public Access is a Priority Much of the urban water’s edge on Yellowknife Bay land is either difficult to access, or in private control or ownership. There is a very strong desire on the part of most residents for greater public access to the waterfront: to walk along the shoreline; to recreate in parks at the water’s edge; to launch and dock boats; or, to sit in waterside restaurants and cafes. Furthermore, public access on public waterfront land is a fundamental principle for any Harbour Plan. Given the limited amount of public land on the urban waterfront, it simply must be made more available for the use and enjoyment of all citizens. Signage and the infrastructure to identify and enable unfettered access are required to clarify and utilize these public waterfront lands. Even on private waterfront lands, there may be opportunities to explore partnerships for

    14  

public access.  

4. The Framework to Manage Land and Water Use must Ensure Fairness, Consistency, and Effective Enforcement The entity and the structure developed to manage the Yellowknife Harbour will ensure that rules and regulations are enforced in a manner that is fair and consistent. Federal, Territorial and Municipal government, large landowners, homeowners, houseboaters, boaters, float plane owners, etc. will be expected to adhere to the framework developed to manage the land and water use of the Yellowknife Harbour.  

5. Stewardship and Management of the Harbour is a Community Wide Responsibility The elements to be addressed in the management of the Harbour are comprehensive and complex, including the need to balance natural features; water quality; wildlife habitat; appropriate development use, form and character; circulation and parking; and, public access. The health and utility of the Harbour will require that all residents become its stewards; advocating and championing for its environmental protection; its revitalization and improvements; its fair use and access; and, for its appropriate and sensitive urban growth and development context.  

3.2 Emerging Principles  1. Plan the Harbour as a Commonly Shared Public Resrouce, Amenity and

Open Space The Yellowknife Harbour is a commonly shared resource and public open space. It, along with the discovery of gold in the area, is the heart and source to Yellowknife’s historic and contemporary human settlement and growth. Its waters know no boundaries and connect both people and nature. Accordingly, the Harbour Plan, its initiatives and its impacts must consider all users and uses in a comprehensive, fair, equable and balanced manner, including considerations for future generations.

2. Plan Through a Lens of Balanced Co-existence and Partnership with First Nations The First Nations have a rich and storied history with the Harbour and well beyond its immediate environs. This history includes an enlightened and extraordinary understanding of this environment and its interconnectivity with all natural and human aspects; an understanding that can greatly inform the long-term vision for the Harbour Plan. The First Nations have and continue to be stewards of extensive parts of the Harbour and should be an integral partner in

    15  

both defining and managing its future.  

3. Protect and Enhance Environmentally Sensitive Areas  The expansive natural setting of Yellowknife is a defining aspect of its image and integral to its appeal as an urban area as well. The Harbour is fundamentally a natural environmental resource that is inextricably linked to the broader regional eco-system. The Plan and its initiatives should seek to protect those areas sensitive to human impact, as well as strengthening and revitalizing impacted areas that serve as important natural links for flora and fauna. Human coexistence with the natural environment can be achieved through well-designed developments, sensitive access and adequate buffering.  

4. Ensure Healthy Water and Land Resources    Significant areas of contamination exist, primarily as an outcome of local economy rooted extensive in resource extraction. With advances in preventative knowledge and technology, practices have greatly improved, however, continuing to mitigate and decontaminate the hazardous remnants of past activities will continue to be a key aspect of the Harbour Plan with respect to meeting environmental objectives. Furthermore, given that these areas are already utilized for human activity, they logically serve as areas for further urbanization. Initiatives to ensure safe and healthy water and land use and access on these lands should be prioritized for future waterfront neighbourhoods.    

5. Provide Unfettered Public Access on Public Lands The philosophical underpinning of the Harbour Plan is to make access to public land on the waterfront a priority. This will require changes in the current patterns of use that, in some cases, have existed for a very long time. Public land on the water’s edge in the built up area of the City are a very precious resource that must be made available for all citizens to enjoy.  

6. Partner to Establish Useable and Linked Access to and Along the Waterfront A frequently identified opportunity has been for clearly identified and continuous public access along the water’s edge. A key component of this principle is also the need for clearly defined routes to the waterfront to enable all those who live in Yellowknife the opportunity for access to and enjoyment of the Harbour. People want a linked route. The route does not necessarily have to follow the water’s edge at all times, the route could also follow neighbourhood streets. As demonstrated in other cities, the Plan should seek to explore opportunities to partner with private landowners to

    16  

enable connections and public easements through and along key waterfront properties. Significant new developments along the waterfront should also ensure public access to and along the waterfront.  

7. Protect, Interpret and Celebrate the Industrial and Cultural Heritage Yellowknife is afforded with heritage resources that include both First Nations and early European settlers. While the former spans thousands of years, the latter is more recent and relatively young compared event to other North American cities. Consequently the remnants of early Yellowknife, including its industrial heritage, are somewhat few and vulnerable. The Harbour Plan should seek to identify, protect and celebrate heritage resources of both cultures not only for their symbolic importance, but also as a critical component of local distinction and identity. Steps should be made to ensure heritage buildings and sites continue to be used and integrated into the fabric of the city as homes, offices and parks. This distinction forms the essence of ‘place-making’ and can be key to a tourism and economic development strategy.  

8. Provide a Sequence of Cultural Attractions and Destinations The successful revitalization of the urban waterfront is linked to its accessibility as well as its purpose and meaning to residents and visitors as shaped by potential public functions that can draw a critical mass of activity and people. The viability of commercial activity in all seasons in the Old Town will also depend on a consistent volume of traffic. To generate this traffic and to stimulate pedestrian movement through the area, the Harbour Plan should seek to provide a sequence of cultural anchors within walking distances to spur a vibrant waterfront.  

9. Create Sustainable and Livable Waterfront Neighbourhoods and Districts The Old Town and its surrounding neighbourhoods serve as a demonstration of local urban development patterns that are sustainable and livable places. These include the original very compact homes that continue to be occupied as “shacks” to the modern interpretation of this original way-of-life, the houseboat. Infill and new waterfront developments should build on and reinforce these urban design characteristics to ensure Yellowknife grows smartly, while enhancing the quality of life for its citizens.  

10. Provide One Coordinating and Empowered Entity for Management and Stewardship A fundamental objective of the Harbour Plan is to establish a governing

    17  

body to manage its use and planning, to bring to fruition these principles and the long-term vision. To do so, a singular entity with input that is broad in its representation and that includes First Nations will be necessary to ensure that the various functions, initiatives and changes occur in a coordinated manner. Key to its success will be empowering this entity with adequate jurisdiction, controls and resources to make the necessary decisions and to enforce its rules and regulations.

11. Marry Commercial and Recreational Uses and Users to the Benefit of All The Yellowknife Harbour and surrounding bays, lakes and rivers were the highways, meeting places and an important places of commerce. The Yellowknife Harbour still has important role as a working harbour as it is home to commercial fishers, commercial shipping and the aviation industry. The commercial aspect of the harbour should not give rise to conflict with the growing non-commercial uses of the harbour

4.0  Understanding  of  Existing  Conditions  &  Emerging  Directions  Understanding of Existing Conditions

The following chapters summarize the understanding of existing conditions with respect to natural heritage, parks and open space, trails, arts, heritage and culture, harbour uses and urban neighbourhoods. The maps are a compilation of information collected from background reports, input from the consultation events held to date and a synthesis of the observations made by the team. For each component, we summarize the key messages we’ve heard from stakeholders, implications to consider and questions to be addressed in the next two phases of the study.

Emerging Directions The Harbour Plan is evolving based on the emerging directions described in the following chapters for each of the core components:

• natural heritage; • parks and open space; • trails; • arts, heritage and culture; • harbour uses; and • urban neighbourhoods.

The directions will be described in more detail in the next two stages of the work program.

    18  

4.1  Natural  Heritage    There has been extensive mapping (coniferous forest, mixed/deciduous forest and wetlands (fens)) within the Yellowknife region. Significant Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs), nature preserves, and high level protection areas are evident in the Yellowknife region, including significant portions of the Yellowknife Bay shoreline and interior lakes. ESAs, numbered in red on page 24 of the full report, have been identified for a high level of protection in the Natural Area Preservation Area study for the 2010 Smart Growth Plan. The small inset map on page 24 of the full report illustrates that Vegetation is predominately coniferous forest with pockets of deciduous and wetlands. Several rivers and streams outlet from the interior lakes to the bay.

What We Heard

1. A strong message from several groups, including the Yellowknives Dene, is that habitat quality has declined over the years as a result of urban growth and industry (mining) and that we should make every effort to protect and restore the natural environment.

2. Need to place similar water contamination restrictions on landowners as well as water users (boaters, house boaters etc.).

3. Treat the ‘whitespace’ of ice in a similar fashion as the public greenspace on land.

4. Maintain unspoiled wilderness character of Yellowknife.

Implications

• High use activities should be located in less sensitive areas or disturbed sites with a restoration/enhancement potential.

• Water quality impacts, related to houseboats, water lots, current shoreline development, recreational use – boating, float planes, untreated stormwater runoff from older neighbourhoods (approximately 6 outlets to Yellowknife bay) needs to be controlled. Currently Frame and Niven Lakes provide quantity control function for adjacent neighbourhoods – flow control culvert and weir at outlets: there is potential for water quality improvements through Storm water management (SWM) retrofits in other areas.

• Appropriate policies, site control measures, monitoring and impact contingency measures should be implemented to protect groundwater and surface water quality.

• The future Harbour Authority should have a review and approval role for activities that have the potential to impact all water based habitats in the City (harbour, lakes, watercourses, wetlands).

    19  

• Appropriate steps should be taken to ensure that proper erosion/siltation control plans are effectively implemented during site development adjacent to shorelines, wetlands and watercourses.

• The reference point or baseline environmental condition in Yellowknife is at a much higher level compared to the older communities with larger populations. There is a very high opportunity for sustainable development.

• Yellowknife Bay needs to be viewed as a unified environmental system under an umbrella governing authority, not as a segmented entity.

• Need for management plans for Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) to guide recreational activities and protect sensitive areas.

• All use/activity in the harbour must be environmentally sustainable. • Water quality impacts related to garbage/debris and hydro-carbon spills on

“ice-roads” needs to investigated. • Regulation/control over boats, planes, houseboats within the harbour is

important to avoid cumulative water quality impacts. • Given the sensitivity of the area, careful consideration needs to be given to not

exceed the carrying capacity of the environment.

Key Directions

1. Protect intact shoreline and wetlands and near shore islands. 2. Integrate sustainable storm water management practices into both

developed and newly developing areas. 3. Prepare development guidelines that are context specific to topography,

landscape and drainage of neighbourhoods. 4. Promote an ecosystem based approach to planning and design.

Sources

• Public Meetings Dec. 1 and Dec. 2, 2010 • Site Inventory Oct. 25-29, Nov. 29-Dec. 3, 2010 • Air Photos – historical and recent • Ecological Resources Inventory, May 2007 • The Giant Mine Lease Area Land/ water Use Plan, 2006 • Integrated Parks, Trails, and Open Space Development Study, Sept. 2005 • Giant Mine Abandonment and Restoration: Preliminary Identification of the

Issues and Potential Impact on the City of Yellowknife, March 2007 • Waterfront Management Plan, 2000. A report prepared by the City of

Yellowknife, Planning and Lands Division, Public Safety and Development. Dated December 21, 2000.

• City of Yellowknife stormwater outfall mapping • City of Yellowknife GIS Mapping • NWT GIS Mapping

    20  

 

4.2  Parks  &  Open  Space   An extensive parks, recreation, and open space system is well threaded into the City of Yellowknife. Many parks are evident within the Yellowknife region, particularly in connection to the interior and bay waterfronts. The Map on page 26 of the full report depicts the nature preserves, existing municipal parks, and potential sites for parks as defined in the 2005 Integrated Parks, Trails and Open Spaces Study. Tin Can Hill is currently an undesignated open space. What We Heard

1. There should be public use on public land. Currently public lands are not being used for the public use and/or are not viewed as public.

2. Link and connect the parks, both to each other and to the water’s edge. 3. Maintain and improve the existing parks. 4. Create an integrated system of parkland including the N’dilo and the broader

Akaitcho lands. 5. Need more public parks connected to the water’s edge. 6. Need better access for all user groups (more definition of uses). 7. Need to manage and protect the frozen water as regulated ‘white space’.

Implications

• There will be a change in use as public lands are phased back into the realm of public use.

• Connections of inland parks need to be created and enhanced to maintain a network of ‘green fingers’ to the water’s edge. This could possibly involve private land acquisition.

• Parks may need to be retrofitted to serve more users (or different users). • Enhanced management of existing parks needs to occur. • To achieve a well designed, managed, and executed integrated parks system,

mutual cooperation and partnership with Yellowknives Dene is required. • The parkland system needs to treated as a holistic system integrated with the

natural environment. • Strong support will be needed to overcome local special interest groups

regarding public or the perceived private spaces. • Management of parks following construction continues to be a problem in

most municipalities. Funding and political will needs to provide enough direction to keep existing parks infrastructure from falling into disrepair.

Key Directions

1. Re-establish public use on public lands.

    21  

2. Work with the Yellowknives Dene to establish integrated parkland system for a broad range of uses year round.

3. Create a well distributed system of places at the water’s edge for public access. 4. Create a network of open space/green fingers to the waterfront. 5. Create recreational plan for the winter “white space” in the harbour.

Sources

• Public Meetings Dec. 1 and Dec. 2, 2010 • Site Inventory Oct. 25-29, Nov. 29-Dec. 3, 2010 • Air Photos – historical and recent • Waterfront Management Plan, December 21, 2000 • Integrated Parks, Trails, and Open Space Development Study, Sept. 2005 • Niven Lake Area Re-Design Information Session, October 2006 • City of Yellowknife Mapping • NWT GIS Mapping • 2010 Yellowknife Tourist Map

4.3  Trails   There is a significant network of existing trails, including formal and informal routes in the Yellowknife Bay Region. The map on page 28 of the full report illustrates the location of sidewalks, formal and informal trails and specific use trails for snowmobiles, dog sleds and cross country skiing. Most of the Yellowknife region is connected to the lakes (interior and the Bay) in some form of path or route (mostly informal). The Yellowknife trail network includes multiple, and in some cases, overlapping uses. What We Heard

1. Establish connected routes (Mine to Mine, Willow Flats boardwalk) – pick the “low hanging fruit” first to ease the idea of trail connections into the public eye.

2. Walking along the shoreline is mostly not accessible during the summer, however during the winter the ice makes the shoreline completely accessible. Why is there so much opposition to access along the shoreline in the spring, summer and fall?

3. Maintain and improve the existing trails. 4. Keep the trails safe during all times of the year. 5. Link and connect the parks, both to each other and to the water’s edge. 6. Provide clear signage and wayfinding for all trails. 7. Provide clearly marked multi-use trails on the ice for pedestrians, skiers,

snowmobilers, dog mushers etc. Implications

• Sections of claimed public space need to be phased into public use.

    22  

• Private land acquisition may be required to complete links. Alternately, agreements can be made with private landowners.

• Better connections need to be established to better link the existing trails within the network.

• The trail network needs signage improvements (consistency/continuity) and unified mapping to clarify location of trail heads, connections, length, character etc.

• Awareness of trail etiquette needs to be established. • Consideration of increased integrated lighting on certain portions of urban

trails. • To achieve a well designed, managed, and executed integrated trails system,

mutual cooperation with Yellowknives Dene will be required. • Strong support for trails along existing public ROWs, and on public land will be

needed to overcome local residents. • Management of the trail network following construction continues to be a

problem in most municipalities. Funding and political will need to provide enough direction to keep existing trail infrastructure from falling into disrepair.

Key Directions

1. Encourage public use on public land. 2. Work with Yellowknives Dene to establish an integrated trail system for a broad

range of uses year round. 3. Create a distribution of places at the water’s edge to enable access to the trail

system. 4. Create a network of open space/green fingers to the waterfront.

Sources

• Public Meetings Dec. 1 and Dec. 2, 2010 • Site Inventory Oct. 25-29, Nov. 29-Dec. 3, 2010 • Air Photos – historical and recent • Waterfront Management Plan, December 21, 2000 • Integrated Parks, Trails, and Open Space Development Study, Sept. 2005 • Niven Lake Area Re-Design Information Session, October 2006 • City of Yellowknife Smart Growth Development Plan: Transportation Study, July

2010 • City of Yellowknife Mapping • NWT GIS Mapping • 2010 Yellowknife Tourist Map

    23  

4.4  Arts,  Heritage  &  Culture   Yellowknife’s vibrant landscape and community has created a home for a vast collection of cultural historic and civic resources. The map on page 30 of the full report indicates historic walking trails linking sites of discovery, studios, and abandoned settler cemeteries. Displays and murals placed strategically in the landscape in both Old and New Town provide cues of cultural diversity (i.e. the Cultural Crossroads Exhibit), while the legislative building and museum represent the region’s political centre. The Yellowknife community is also well served with a collection of public facilities including community arenas, recreational clubs, and sports fields. What We Heard

1. Need to enforce parking by-laws in Old Town because it’s affecting the character of the neighbourhood and access to places, like the Government Dock.

2. Establish Old Town Theatre (such as H.B.C. Warehouse). 3. Need to preserve, recognize, and maintain a greater number of the existing

historic buildings and features (such as the developing Mining Museum). 4. Need greater recognition of Yellowknife’s multiculturalism. 5. Need greater recognition (signage) of historic points along walking routes. 6. All funding goes to sports and recreation. The City needs to celebrate arts and

culture. An Arts Centre, that could include an “artist in residence” program, would have great appeal in Yellowknife.

Implications

• Close cooperation with the Yellowknives Dene and other cultural groups will be needed to provide a greater breadth of cultural/historical elements.

• Need to assess the options in terms of locations associated uses, scale, etc to create a focus to celebrate Yellowknife history, culture, and community.

• Funding and direction will be required from the governing agencies (municipal and territorial) to explore opportunities to establish an area (or the revitalization of an existing heritage structure) for development of an arts and culture focus.

• Parking in busy urban areas is always an issue. If Old Town were to capitalize on its cultural heritage potential, a strategy needs to be developed for long-term parking during periods of high use

• Are there opportunities for the municipality to partner with private developers to provide arts and culture facilities in new developments?

• Arts and cultural stakeholder groups will need to spearhead local initiatives.

    24  

Key Directions

1. Encourage arts/ cultural focus in private development. 2. Celebrate and interpret aboriginal and non aboriginal heritage. 3. Enable a better understanding of aboriginal heritage through story telling. 4. Complete a thorough inventory, identification and protection of significant

heritage resources. Assess the opportunities to leverage the resources for economic development and tourism.

Sources

• Public Meetings Dec. 1 and Dec. 2, 2010 • Site Inventory Oct. 25-29, 2010 • Discussions with the City of Yellowknife of Heritage Committee • Air Photos – historical and recent • City of Yellowknife Smart Growth Plan: Yellowknife: 50 Year Vision, January

2009 • City of Yellowknife Urban Design Initiative, June 2010 • Smart Growth Redevelopment Plan: Final Recommendations Report, July 2010 • City of Yellowknife Heritage Map, 2006, 2010 • City of Yellowknife 2010 Tourist Map • New Town Heritage Walking Tour of Yellowknife, 2006 • Old Town Heritage Walking Tour of Yellowknife, 2006

4.5  Harbour  Users   The water and harbour facilities map on page 32 of the full report shows the intensity of use in the Old Town area, including boat launches, docks, the government dock, moorings, float homes and boat clubs. Much of the dockage is private docks on public land. The Giant Mine site offers an alternative location for boats, with mooring, parking and boat launch and winter storage. Alternative sites for possible future boating facilities are indicated at Mosher Island and Con Mine. The inset map on page 32 of the full report shows the locations of stormwater outfalls. The float plane/ski plane map on page 34 of the full report shows that the aerodrome extends into Back Bay and Yellowknife Bay. Commercial facilities are located on the east side of Old Town and private planes use Back Bay. What We Heard

1. There is a desire to work together and make the harbour safe for all users: Summer - float homes, sailboats, motor boats, float planes, canoes, kayaks, personal water craft, kite boards, swimmers; Winter - snow machines, cars, float homes, dog sleds, cross-country skiers, skaters, ski planes, kite boards, pedestrians, snowshoers.

    25  

2. There is a need for visible change and value from the formation of the “Harbour Entity”.

3. There are safety concerns due to increased use of the harbour and lack of awareness of other users. This is particularly true in the winter in Yellowknife Bay from Air Tindi to the Dettah Road.

4. Speed limits are not adhered to or enforced. 5. There is “creep” of float homes and moored boats into aerodrome near Joliffe

Island. 6. There is a need for year-round enforcement in terms of use of public facilities

including public land, docks, boat launches and use of the water/ice. 7. Concern with growing float home numbers and loss of public, recreational

space including blue space (water) and green space (Joliffe Island). 8. Concern with float home sewage disposal, lack of building codes (safety). They

should pay taxes like everyone else. 9. Float home owners said:

• float homes should be recognized for their cultural heritage; • they do not want to be forced to moor in a marina; • some support paying taxes, others do not; • they do not discharge black water to the lake, most discharge intreated

grey water; some felt an emergency response system is needed. 10. Garbage disposal on ice road needs to be addressed. 11. There is a need for more parking (including long term) and docking space. 12. There is a need for upkeep of public docks and launch facilities. 13. There is a need for visitor docking space. 14. A water taxi to Joliffe Island would be nice. 15. Need public fueling and pump out. 16. The boating community said there is a need for more docking space for boats.

There are waiting lists at both boating clubs. There is some support for a community marina.

17. The float plane community said they need more docking space. There is limited space for visitors, particularly during special events such as the “Fly-In”.

Implications

• Safety concerns due to increased traffic and competing uses in the harbour must be addressed. This may be accomplished through development of some designated use areas.

• Development and implementation of appropriate policies and or by-laws for harbour use will be required to ensure a safe, clean, highly functional harbour for all.

• Education of all harbour users will be essential. • Year round enforcement of harbour by-laws including use and misuse of public

space within the harbour (waterways, ice, land, docks and launch ramps) will be critical to the success of the harbour plan.

    26  

• There is a need for improved facilities for users including boat launches and parking in locations throughout the Harbour, including N’dilo and Dettah.

• Environmental issues must be addressed including provision of a public pump-out facility.

• Additional docking for float planes and boats must be developed, including facilities for visitors.

• Regulation of float homes in terms of safety, location, building codes, services and collection of taxes must be addressed.

• There is limited space in Old Town available for the development of additional facilities. Reclaiming public space that is currently occupied by private docks will be key to the success of the harbour plan.

• An alternative to alleviate pressure in Old Town, is to develop a marina. Significant funding would be required for a marina development.

• The Giant Mine site provides an alternative location for boating facilities, however there is a need for improvements at this location and there are questions about permitting due to contamination from the mine.

• Provision of services including sewage, water, garbage and emergency services to float homes is a significant challenge. Access is very difficult during freeze-up and thaw. Relocating the float homes to a marina would address this issue, however such a location does not currently exist and some float home owners have said they do not want to be relocated.

• Many existing float homes would not meet a building code. If the City develops regulations for float homes, there may be a need to provide servicing, liabilities related to emergency response.

• Important to balance the need for some regulation to address safety and user concerns, while maintaining the free spirit atmosphere of Yellowknife. Avoid perception of too much regulation.

• The new harbour entity must have the authority to enforce the harbour plan

Key Directions

1 Improve safety for all users during all seasons. 2 Increase moorings/dockage for boats and planes. 3 Improve, enhance and distribute launches and parking considering different

user needs. 4 Develop environmentally sound facilities for fuel and pump-out. 5 Enhance education for all users. 6 Resolve float home issues: safety, building codes, location, numbers, taxation,

provision of services.

4.6  Urban  Neighbourhoods   The map on page 36 of the full report identifies the neighbourhoods in Yellowknife. The Harbour Plan focuses on Downtown, Old Town and N’dilo. The map on page 38 of the full report illustrates “urban character areas” in Downtown, Old Town and N’dilo.

    27  

Urban character defines the key built qualities of the neighbourhood or district for which new developments and change ought to reinforce. Character is shaped by the pattern of streets and public spaces, land uses and building types. Downtown Yellowknife generally has an urban character that lends to a well defined urban structure that appropriately transitions between areas of differing densities and intensities of uses and built forms. The Old Town is recognized for its eclectic character with narrow streets, diversity of housing types, mix of uses, and broad variety of architectural styles. What We Heard

1. Need more and clear access to the urban public waterfront. 2. Landowners adjacent to public waterfront lands have concerns about loss of

use, view, privacy and security associated with public access. Accumulated garbage on the shoreline is also an issue.

3. Need more opportunities for waterfront related cafes and restaurants but concerned about the viability of such uses in all seasons

4. Walking experience is not appealing and need to improve the streetscapes by providing for better pedestrian amenities, sidewalks, snow clearance and filling in or addressing the unsightly ‘gaps’

5. Discourage incompatible industrial uses in the Old Town 6. Protect and enhance the character of Old Town. 7. Make sure new development is compatible with the scale, form and character

of Old Town and its surrounding neighbourhoods. 8. Repurpose heritage buildings such as the former Hudson Bay Store 9. The building of more land based housing inspired by an ‘off the grid’ lifestyle,

may reduce less demand for the freedom inspired houseboat life. 10. Parking solutions and enforcements are need in Old Town. 11. Provide waterfront related attractions and public docking facilities in Old Town. 12. Squatter areas provide for affordable housing and are an attraction in their own

right

Implications

• The nature and extent of Improved public access to public lands on the waterfront should correspond to anticipated use while being sensitive to adjacent residences. Mitigation measures and CPTED principles may be required to ensure adequate privacy and security.

• A public and connected ‘dock walk’ could be created along the waterfront in Old Town through shared use and/or easement agreements.

• The compactness, narrow streets, small blocks and variety of buildings that characterize Old Town area lends to its walkability, social cohesion, visual appeal, and environmental sustainability. It presents a good opportunity for a model of sustainable living that can inform the design of future neighbourhoods.

    28  

• There is a distinct and unique architectural sensibility that lends to Old Town’s ‘sense of place’ and which should continue to be encouraged and promoted.

• As with most traditional mixed-use areas, parking congestion is and will continue to be an issue in Old Town. Improvements to the public realm and infill developments will help to encourage active transportation choices. Still, a comprehensive parking strategy may be required to accommodate the car while not undermining character of the area and the pedestrian realm.

• Existing developed areas around Giant and Con Mines should be prioritized for decontamination and urban expansion.

• Key Directions

• Retain harbour functions & provide public docking facilities. • Protect and repurpose all heritage buildings. • Provide continuous public access - ‘dock walk’. • Provide a series of anchor attractions to stimulate greater foot traffic and

enhance the vibrancy of Old Town, including a central focus area comprised of a public space and commercial uses.

• Identify opportunities for mixed-use infill to create critical mass of residents and activity and to ensure the viability of businesses in all seasons.

• Provide Urban Design Guidelines to ensure appropriate infill that is consistent with local character.

• Improve the public realm through well-designed streetscapes and a central public plaza or square on the waterfront.

• Introduce innovative strategies to utilize limited road right-of-ways to accommodate pedestrians and parking, including ‘shared streets’ and ‘parking courts’.

• Introduce CEPTD principles in the design of all public waterfront spaces. • Given the complexity and challenges of the uses and ownership patterns in Old

Town, incentives, partnerships and programs should be introduced to encourage and enable appropriate and desirable developments.

Sources

• Public Meetings Dec. 1 and Dec. 2, 2010 • Site walks Oct. 25-29, Nov. 29-Dec. 3, 2010 • Air Photos – historical and recent • City of Yellowknife Smart Growth Plan: Yellowknife: 50 Year Vision, January

2009 • City of Yellowknife Urban Design Initiative, June 2010 • City of Yellowknife Smart Growth Development Plan: Transportation Study, July

2010 • City of Yellowknife Smart Growth Redevelopment Plan: Final

Recommendations Report, July 2010 • City of Yellowknife Downtown Plan – Background Report

    29  

• New Town Heritage Walking Tour of Yellowknife, 2006 • Old Town Heritage Walking Tour of Yellowknife, 2006

4.6.1  Character  Areas   Urban Village

• A broad mix of residential, retail, and port-related commercial uses • Walkable narrow streets and small blocks • Compact low-rise form – buildings placed close together • Variety of building types and eclectic mix of architectural styles • Historic and culturally significant resources • Significant infill opportunities

Urban Neighbourhoods

• Located to the periphery of Old Town • Predominantly residential uses • Walkable narrow streets and small blocks • Compact low-rise form – buildings placed close together • Variety of building types and eclectic mix of architectural styles • Historic and culturally significant resources • Some opportunities for sensitive infill

Downtown Core

• Located along Franklin Avenue and the adjacent blocks • Mix of residential, retail, office, commercial, hotel and institutional uses • Walkable grid of streets and small blocks • Street oriented retail and enclosed shopping malls • Compact low to high-rise form – buildings placed close together • Variety of building types, scales and architectural styles • Significant opportunities for infill and intensification

Downtown Neighbourhoods

• Located at the periphery to the Downtown Core • Predominantly residential uses with some commercial and institutional • Walkable grid of streets and small blocks • Predominantly compact low-rise form with some high-rise apartments –

buildings placed close together • Variety of building types, scales and mix of architectural styles

Suburban Neighbourhood

    30  

• Generally located in more contemporary development areas • Predominantly residential uses with some institutional • Automobile-oriented curvilinear street patterns with larger blocks – less

walkable • Predominantly low-rise spread form – buildings placed further apart • Limited housing variety and types

Informal Water Settlements

• Generally clustered adjacent to islands around the Old Town peninsula • Residential uses on water without legal status • Unserviced floating structures that vary in quality, scale and architectural styles  

4.6.2  Interface    

Urban Waterfront Interface defines the nature of the relationship between existing built areas and the waterfront. This helps to identify potential opportunities to improve waterfront access and edge conditions. The map on page 40 of the full report illustrates the Interface types as defined by the team and includes:

• Public/Natural Frontage • Undefined/Constrained Public Frontage • Private/Closed Frontage

Public/Natural Frontage

• Clear and unfettered public frontage and access on the waterfront • Generally defined by natural areas, parks, streets, and public uses on the

water’s edge • Continue to protect and maintain and enhance connections

Undefined/Constrained Public Frontage

• Lands on the water’s edge that are in public ownership but which are inaccessible or in private use

• Generally defined by private residential docks or illegal settlements • Potential for re-establishing sensitive public access and use

Private/Closed Frontage

• Lands on the water’s edge that are in private ownership or use

    31  

• Generally defined by private commercial docks and other uses with fencing and limited points of entry

• Potential for expanded public access through partnerships to enable shared uses and/or easement agreements

• Concerns are growing that some city lots with water frontage (namely streets fronting Back Bay including Wiley Rd and McAvoy Rd) are expanding into “public waters” as owners backfill their lots and/or add floating barges and docks.

    32  

5.0  Harbour  Management  Authority   This chapter summarizes the need for harbour management, case studies of management structures for harbours in other cities and towns that have relevance to Yellowknife. It also describes the options for an administrative structure that would be responsible for a well managed Yellowknife Harbour.

5.1  The  Need  for  Improved  Harbour  Management   This project is being driven by the need to better manage the tremendous range and volume of year round use and activity occurring within the Harbour. While an important consideration in the long-term planning and management of the Harbour is the desire to better regulate “float home” development - from the perspective of land/water use permissions, development standards, service provision and resulting taxation/user fee mechanisms - it is just one of the issues that will be examined through this process. Current Harbour Functions

• Residential Use • Commercial Activity • Transportation (float planes, boats, off road/ice road vehicular use) • Recreation • Servicing (stormwater management and potential potable water resource) • Cultural Heritage • Tourism

Ultimately, any governance structure to manage the myriad of issues related to the Yellowknife Bay will need to ensure collaboration with all interests, including all levels of government (City of Yellowknife, Federal Government, GNWT and the Yellowknives Dene First Nation), and provide the operational capacity/regulatory power to deliver on its established mandate (which will be further defined through the later stages of this Study). What We Heard

1. It is generally agreed that there is a need for enhanced enforcement and regulation of development and activity within the Bay, but that it should be done in a way that is fair and equitable.

2. Cooperation and coordination between all interests should be a driving principle in the long-term planning and management of the Harbour.

3. Protection of the environment and water resources is a shared concern and must be a shared responsibility of all users of the Bay.

    33  

4. There is general agreement that the increasing number and density of float homes is generating conflict between float home residents and users of the Bay more generally.

5. Float homes are a lifestyle choice and an affordable housing option. The floathome community is just off-shore from a modern urban city, yet it still offers a sense of self-reliance and closeness to the environment that was once the way of life in Yellowknife.

6. There is wide agreement that the Back Bay is not an appropriate location for float homes, due to conflicts with other uses such as float planes.

7. There is willingness among many float home residents to pay taxes and/or user fees as long as they are levied in a fair and equitable way.

Issues and Impacts  

• Limited enforcement and development control. • Lack of coordinated long-term vision for the waterfront lands. • Limited access to the water. • Mismatch between service provision and revenue tools. • Impacts on water quality and environment. • Impacts on natural and cultural heritage resources. • City  needs  to  manage  the  risk.

    34  

5.2  Timeline  

1995

2001

2005

2008

2009

2010/11

City enters into litigation against three houseboat owners in order to establish its jurisdiction through the Courts City drop’s case and a partnership agreement is reached between the City and MACA to address jurisdictional questions

The City’s Waterfront Management Plan is approved – it consolidates and refines the City’s waterfront policies and establishes a 5-stage implementation framework, which sets out a series of priority actions and implementing policies.

The City’s “Greater Land Application” initiative seeks jurisdiction over considerable portions of the shoreline within the municipal boundary. While a fee simple arrangement is sought, 30-year lease agreements are put in place following consultation with the Akaitcho.

The City hosts a series of informal meetings with governmental organizations with a jurisdictional interest in the “float home” issue.City applies to Indian and Northern A!airs Canada (INAC) for funding under the Strategic Investment in Northern Economic Development (SINED) Program to establish a harbour authority, develop a plan and corresponding implementation strategy for Yellowknife Bay

The City, through ongoing discussions with the MACA and INAC, is close to reaching an agreement to attain jurisdiction over the lake bed. The City suspends the transfer talks in order to engage in further consultation with the YKDFN

The City receives written endorsement from the YKDFN on the establishment of the Harbour Commission

The City’s Smart Growth Development Plan is released – it establishes a number of recommended actions to be overseen by the Harbour Planning Committee, including the establishment of a regulatory system and permitting process for float homes in the Yellowknife Bay Area.

Yellowknife Harbour Planning Committee is established (January 25, 2010) and the Yellowknife Harbour Plan (this Study) is initiated October 2010.

    35  

5.3  Understanding  the  Jurisdictional  Complexity   Discussions and negotiations around the regulation of development and activity in the Yellowknife Bay have been ongoing for years and are subsequently well documented. Questions surrounding the issue of regulation of development and activity along the waterfront and on the water itself have, in large part, been precipitated by the City’s desire to resolve ambiguities with respect to where jurisdiction over float home development rests. The timeline on the previous page provides an overview of how the issue has evolved over the past 15 years. The City’s desire to clarify the jurisdictional question over float home development stems from three primary concerns:

• the need for a fair and equitable fee/taxation system that is aligned with the City’s servicing obligations to the float home community;

• the need to better manage float home development in order to mitigate conflicts among all uses and users of the Harbour; and,

• the need to ensure that all development within the Harbour is safe and environmentally responsible.

In 1995, the City entered into litigation against three individual houseboat owners to establish its jurisdiction of the Yellowknife Bay Harbour through the Courts. The City’s legal action led to formal discussions on the regulation of activities, particularly with respect to “float homes”, which culminated in a partnership agreement between the City and MACA to deal with the jurisdictional questions surrounding the Harbour. As a result, the City proceeded to abandon its legal actions and pay legal costs to the respondents. However, due in part to the issues’ complexity and lack of committed funding, the jurisdictional questions remain unresolved and the development of a harbour authority was never fully explored until more recently. While the City, since 1995, has undertaken a range of planning studies and policy initiatives – some with specific recommendations for the development and management of the Yellowknife Harbour and others with broader directives for the City’s long-term growth and development – it has only been in the last few years that the City has reinvigorated its efforts to resolve still outstanding jurisdictional issues with respect to the Harbour. In 2005, the City, through its “Greater Land Application” initiative (By-law 44-56), asked the Commission to transfer jurisdiction over considerable portions of the shoreline within the municipal boundary. While the City sought a fee simple arrangement, consultation with the Akaitcho suggested that most of the City’s objectives could be met through a lease agreement (30 years). The Commission agreed with this position and the lease agreements were put in place.

    36  

Throughout 2008, the City hosted several informal meetings with governmental organizations with a jurisdictional interest in the “float home” issue, including MACA, Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), Transport Canada, Environment Canada, and the Yellowknives Dene First Nation (YKDFN). These discussions resulted in an understanding that inter-jurisdictional cooperation and leadership are essential to the establishment of a vision and regulatory framework for the Yellowknife Bay Area. In early 2008 the City made an application to Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) for funding under the Strategic Investment in Northern Economic Development (SINED) Program to establish a harbour authority, develop a plan and corresponding implementation strategy for Yellowknife Bay. In early 2009, the City, through ongoing discussions with the MACA and INAC, was close to reaching an agreement to attain jurisdiction over the lake bed. However, due to anticipated opposition from the YKDFN, the City suspended the transfer talks to engage in further consultation. Based on discussions between the City and MACA to date, the transfer of lake bed jurisdiction from INAC to the GNWT would be a relatively simple process. Upon transfer, the GNWT could then devolve that jurisdiction to the City through the City’s passage of an Acquisition By-law. In September of 2009 the City received endorsement in writing from the YKDFN on the establishment of the Harbour Commission. In addition to the location of N’dilo and Dettah on Great Slave Lake, it is evident that the Akaitcho Land Claim process will impact shorelines in the Yellowknife Bay area, including Joliffe Island and the eastern shoreline of Yellowknife Bay. It is the position of the YKDFN that the establishment of a Planning Committee is appropriate at this time given the ongoing discussions with the City regarding municipal boundaries. With the Harbour Planning Committee now in place and improved relations between the City and the YKDFN, this project will aim to build on the momentum and spirit of collaboration to establish a regulatory framework and management structure to guide and regulate development and activity within the Yellowknife Bay. Concurrent Initiatives The following is a summary of concurrent planning and governance initiatives that need to be considered as this Harbour Planning process advances.

• The City and the YKDFN are in discussions regarding adjustment to the municipal boundary. The determination of the municipal boundary may be tied to the eventual establishment of a harbour authority.

• The GNWT is currently preparing its new Planning Act. Although the draft is confidential, it is presumed that new authorities may be granted to the City of Yellowknife upon its passage.

    37  

• The City of Yellowknife is in the process of reviewing and updating its General Plan. The completion of the new General Plan will likely coincide with the completion of the Harbour Plan (summer 2011).

• The Akaitcho Dene Interim Land Withdrawal expires on November 2, 2011. Due to the current status of the negotiation process, the Akaitcho will likely request a five-year extension to the Land Withdrawal process. Under the current Interim Land Withdrawal Protocol, 1,034 hectares of specifically identified lands within the municipal boundary are protected from sale, lease or the creation of new interests in those lands for the period of the Withdrawal Protocol (five years) or until an agreement between the Akaitcho Dene First Nations, the Government of Canada and the GNWT (the signatories) is reached.

• Devolution negotiations are ongoing between the GNWT and the Federal government. An Agreement-in-Principle, which sets out the terms for the eventual transfer of increased province-like powers to the GNWT, was recently signed (January 26, 2011). However, negotiations have been ongoing for years and an imminent agreement or transfer of authority is unlikely given the nature and complexity of concurrent land claims negotiations.

5.4  Who  Does  What?   The following is a summary of the current roles and responsibilities of the various regulatory authorities and/or jurisdictions with interests in Yellowknife Bay. City of Yellowknife The City is responsible for establishing and enforcing land use/development regulations within its municipal boundaries through its General Plan, corresponding Zoning By-law and other City by-laws. The City is also responsible for providing and maintaining municipal services, including, but not limited to, water, sewage, roads and transit. Government of the Northwest Territories (GNWT) The Government of the Northwest Territories, unlike other Provincial governments, has no inherent jurisdiction or sovereignty and effectively falls under federal jurisdiction (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs). As such, the GNWT’s powers are limited to those delegated to it by the Federal Government under the Northwest Territories Act. As indicated above, devolution of increased powers to the Territorial Government have been the subject of ongoing negotiations for decades. Notwithstanding the status of devolution talks or the nuances of the jurisdictional authority of the GNWT, there are three key Territorial Agencies that will be integral to the creation of a regulatory authority to manage the Yellowknife Bay Harbour, they are:

    38  

Municipal and Community Affairs (MACA) Municipal and Community Affairs (MACA) is the agency responsible for community operations, local governance, capital infrastructure, planning policy (under the Planning Act and Area Development Act) and the management of public land under the administration and control of the Commissioner. Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations (DAAIR) The Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations (DAAIR) is the central agency responsible for managing and coordinating the GNWT’s participation in all negotiations related to land, resources and intergovernmental relations. Department of Transportation The Territorial Department of Transportation is responsible for the operation and maintenance of public transportation infrastructure under the NWT Highway Act, including the annual construction and maintenance of the Dettah Ice Road. Aside from the operation of ferry services elsewhere in the Territory (Fort Simpson and Inuvik regions), the Department of Transportation has limited involvement in marine-related transportation issues. Government of Canada As indicated above, the Federal Government retains considerable regulatory authority within NWT. With respect to the creation of a regulatory authority/structure to manage the Yellowknife Bay Harbour, the involvement of the following Federal Agencies/Departments will be essential: Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (DIAND) Act gives Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) provincial-like responsibilities for the Northwest Territories, including overall responsibility for water management and other natural resources. Federal jurisdiction over land use, land resource management and development are further established under the Territorial Lands Act, which set out comprehensive regulatory powers over territorial lands. The Territorial Lands Act also makes specific reference to the Dominion Water Power Act, which establishes Federal jurisdiction over the bed – below the high water mark – of all bodies of water within the Territories.

    39  

INAC’s mandate to manage the Territories’ water resources are further articulated under the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act (MVRMA) (the regulation of Territorial water resources are also addressed under the Northwest Territories Waters Act, however this piece of legislation is only applicable in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region). The MVRMA establishes the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board, whose mandate is to regulate land/water use and ensure that the conservation, development and use of land/water resources provides the optimum benefits of residents in the Mackenzie Valley and, more broadly, to all Canadians.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) has jurisdiction over fishing and recreational harbours under the Commercial Fishing and Recreational Harbours Act. The Coast Guard is a Special Operating Agency under DFO, whose mandate is to promote and ensure the safe, accessible and secure use of Canadian waterways. In Yellowknife, Coast Guard operations are supported by the volunteered-based Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary (CCGA) Yellowknife Unit, which operates as first responder to marine search and rescue emergencies on Great Slave Lake and is responsible for all water-based search and rescue in the north portion of the Lake. The CCGA operates under a Memorandum of Understanding with the RCMP. Environment Canada Issues related to water quality and any uses or activities that could impact water quality within the Harbour fall under the jurisdiction of Environment Canada, which administers the Canada Water Act. Transport Canada Transport Canada has jurisdiction over all activities occurring on the lake, under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, which ensures the public’s right to navigate Canadian waters without obstruction. Transport Canada is also responsible for the regulation of the Yellowknife Water Aerodrome. Yellowknives Dene First Nation (YKDFN) The Yellowknives Dene First Nation is one of three First Nations in the Akaitcho (the term Akaitcho refers to the people and their territory). Given their physical and cultural relationship to the Lake and its environs, the Dene communities of N’Dilo and Dettah have a significant direct interest in the management of development and activity in the Yellowknife Harbour. The YKDFN are represented by the Chiefs of N’Dilo and Dettah, a joint Council and Elder Senate.

    40  

5.5  Spectrum  of  Regulatory  Options   Notwithstanding the array of overlapping jurisdictions and mandates pertaining to the regulation of land/water use in Yellowknife Bay, the long-standing lack of enforcement of those regulations has led to the current situation, defined by endemic confusion and neglect of mandated roles and responsibilities, and an ingrained culture of non-compliance by all users of the Bay. Without a doubt, this situation has also likely limited opportunities for development and enhancement of the waterfront and associated public facilities – hence the need for the improved management of the Harbour. Why does the City want to control the lake bed? As discussed earlier, the City has been in ongoing negotiations to attain jurisdiction over the lake bed. Jurisdiction over the lake bed would give the City considerable capacity to address long-standing management and enforcement issues, including the potential ability to use existing municipal tools, such as zoning, user fees and taxation mechanisms, to regulate development and uses within the Harbour. At the same time, jurisdiction over the lake bed would potentially increase the City’s responsibilities with respect to the provision of marina facilities and the extension of municipal services (utilities, emergency services, etc.), particularly to float home residents.

5.6  Overview  of  Administrative  Models   Based on a review of case studies and examples of other harbour and/or municipal facility management frameworks, the following four administrative models emerge as possibilities for the future management and regulation of development and activity within the Yellowknife Harbour. The relative strength and weaknesses of the various models will be explored in further detail as this study progresses.

A. Harbour Authority A third party Harbour Authority, governed by a Board of Directors (elected or appointed) to oversee planning and management of the Harbour and its facilities. Traditionally, harbour-related planning, development and operations in many jurisdictions have been assumed by Harbour or Port Authorities (the terms “Harbour Authority” and “Port Authority” are often used interchangeably, however the term “Port Authority” generally refers to larger, nationally significant commercial facilities). Harbour Authorities are local organizations, typically functioning as third-party not-for profit entities, responsible for the operation and management of harbours in accordance with local needs. A board of directors, representing

    41  

local interests and users of the harbour, typically govern such authorities. In general, Harbour Authorities have relatively limited powers, focused on the operation of marine and docking facilities, generating revenues through berthage and other user fees. While harbours in Canada have historically been owned and operated by the Federal Government, the last few years have been marked by the active divestiture of Federal harbour facilities. The Federal Government’s divestiture program, directed by DFO’s Small Craft Harbours agency (SCH), has facilitated the transfer of ownership of approximately 1000 recreational and “low-activity” harbours to third party organizations, including municipalities and private interests. The purpose of the divesture program is to focus Federal efforts and investments on “core harbours” critical to the fishing industry and commercial-based activity.

B. Specialized Municipal Department/Division

A specialized City department/division to lead the planning, permitting, management and enforcement of development and activity within the Harbour. Some jurisdictions have established a specialized municipal department or division mandated with managing municipal harbour facilities. While the functions of such departments may not differ significantly from that of a traditional Harbour/Port Authority, greater opportunities exist to coordinate and integrate harbour planning and operations into broader municipal planning initiatives, land use regulations and service delivery. Coinciding with the desire to attain jurisdiction over the lake bed, placing the responsibility of harbour planning and management within a newly formed City department or division, would potentially allow the City to extend its regulatory (ie. zoning) and taxation abilities into the Harbour. This administrative model could include oversight by an Inter-governmental Steering Committee and regular stakeholder consultation facilitated through a group like the City’s current Harbour Planning Committee.

C. Intergovernmental Development Corporation

An inter-jurisdictional corporation with a specific mandate and powers to control and oversee development and activity within the Harbour. The City could, together with the GNWT, INAC and the YKDFN, establish an Intergovernmental Development Corporation to control and oversee development and activity within the Harbour. The Toronto Waterfront

    42  

Revitalization Corporation (Waterfront Toronto) is probably the best example of this type of governance approach. While such an approach has the potential to pool significant regulatory and fiscal capacity to manage the Yellowknife Harbour, the implementation of a formalized intergovernmental agency can become overly complex to administer and can also lend itself to increased inter-jurisdictional conflict at the expense of local needs and objectives. As has been well documented in the Waterfront Toronto example, the complexity and inherently bureaucratic nature of this sort of approach places considerable limitations on such an organization’s ability to be responsive and act nimbly when potential issues or opportunities necessitate.

D. Memorandum of Understanding

A Memorandum of Understanding between the City, the GNWT, the Government of Canada and the YKDFN that sets out core principles, objectives and reinforces the established roles and responsibilities of all signatories. The City could, together with the GNWT, INAC and the YKDFN, take a less structured approach to the planning and management of the Yellowknife Harbour through the development of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). An MOU could set out a series of core principles and objectives for the long-term planning and management of the Harbour, while at the same time reinforce the existing mandated roles and responsibilities of all signatories. In other words, it could be used as a tool to set out common objectives for the Harbour’s evolution and ensure all relevant agencies are held accountable for the delivery of their respective obligations. The use of Memorandum of Understandings, particularly between Territorial and Federal Government agencies, has a long tradition in northern Canada.

    43  

5.7  Case  Studies   Gellatly Bay Joint Management Committee West Kelowna, Biritish Columbia, Canada Contextual Similarities to Yellowknife Bay: Fresh water Mixed use harbour – recreational uses and tourism Overview of Management Framework In August 2010, the Councils of the District of West Kelowna and Westbank First Nation signed an agreement to jointly oversee management of Gellatly Bay on the Okanagan Lake. The Agreement establishes the Joint Management Committee, comprised of two representatives from each Council. The binding Agreement recognizes each Council’s interest in the Bay, including the Westbank First Nation’s intent to file a Specific Claim for past government actions that resulted in a lost of the foreshore lands. The intent of the agreement, in addition to establishing a management framework, is to facilitate cooperation between the two governments to ensure activities and development within the Bay are done in a way that protects the natural environment and improves management of recreational uses of the Bay. Powers and Initiatives The Joint Management Committee’s primary responsibility is to review and recommend policies to their respective Councils on the public and private use of the Bay. The Committee’s policy work builds on the recently established W1 (Water Use – Recreational) Zone passed by the District of West Kelowna. The intent of the W1 Zoning designation is to prohibit moorage of floating residential structures, such as houseboats, boat houses and boat shelters. Further, the W1 Zone only permits temporary boat moorage and only where it is accessory to the use of the immediately abutting upland parcel. Gimli Harbour Authority Rural Municipality of Gimli, Manitoba, Canada Contextual Similarities to Yellowknife Bay: Fresh water Winter freeze over Mixed use harbour – recreational uses, tourism and commercial activity (commercial fishery)

    44  

Overview of Management Framework The Gimli Harbour Authority is a non-profit corporation established under Small Craft Harbour (DFO) guidelines. The Authority manages and operates the Gimli Harbour and related facilities, which are under lease from the Government of Canada. The Harbour Authority is governed by an elected (by members of the Harbour) Board of Directors (7 Directors), representing commercial fishing interests (4), the Rural Municipality of Gimli (2) and the Gimli Yacht Club (1). Planning and development of the Harbour facilities is done on the basis of 5-year plans, which are advanced annually. According to the current Harbour Master, Gimli’s Harbour facilities currently operate at capacity and expansion plans are under development. Powers and Initiatives The mandate of the Gimili Harbour Authority is relatively limited and focused largely on the management and maintenance of harbour facilities and ensuring the long-term sustainability of the local commercial fishing industry. The Authority is responsible for establishing a framework of user fees and rates to cover all operational expenditures. The Authority also establishes a user handbook and enforces its own set of Moorage Rules and Regulations. Juneau Docks And Harbors Department The City and Borough of Juneau, Alaska, USA Contextual Similarities to Yellowknife Bay: Northern community Active float plane base Mixed use harbour – recreational uses, tourism and commercial activity Overview of Management Framework The Juneau Docks and Harbors Department is a City/Borough Department. The Department is responsible for maintaining and operating all City-owned harbor facilities. The City’s extensive harbour facilities include: two cruise ship docks, a number of small boat harbours, boat launch facilities, two commercial loading facilities, two storage yards, and several hundred acres of tidelands and waterfront properties under lease. The Department is also involved in a number of development and planning projects, including waterfront planning exercises, facility design and upgrades and harbour master planning initiatives.

    45  

Powers and Initiatives The Docks and Harbors Department is defined as an “enterprise fund”. This distinction means that unlike typical municipal departments, it operates without a local property or sales tax subsidy. Instead, the Department is financed through a combination of user fees, lease fees, fisheries business taxes, state and federal grants, and local special sale taxes for specific projects. The Department’s annual operating budget is approximately $5 million, while its capital improvement budget is upwards of $10 million annually. In addition to setting fees/rates, the Department also establishes and enforces a range of regulatory ordinances related to fee, permitting, operations and land/water use. Columbia Shuswap Regional District Columbia Shuswap Regional District, BC, Canada Contextual Similarities to Yellowknife Bay: Fresh water Winter freeze over Significant float home community (seasonal/tourist-based) Active float plane base Mixed use harbour – recreational uses, tourism and commercial activity Overview of Management Framework While the Columbia Shuswap Regional District (CSRD) does not have a formal authority specifically devoted to harbour management, the CSRD has been actively involved in the planning and development of a comprehensive framework for managing water and foreshore development and activity. The CSRD’s jurisdiction extends over four primary waterbodies: Shuswap Lake, Mara Lake, Little Shuswap Lake and Little River. The CSRD works closely with the Provincially-initiated Shuswap Lake Integrated Planning Process (SLIPP), which was established to provide better coordination among the various regulatory agencies and interests involved in planning and development activities on and around Shuswap Lake. SLIPP includes representation from 14 agencies/interests from the Federal, Provincial, Regional and First Nations governments). SLIPP operates in accordance with a Strategic Plan and is responsible for reviewing large scale development proposals and their impact on foreshore habitat values; streamlining the development application review process; developing inter-agency programs for foreshore development, water quality and recreation management

    46  

monitoring and reporting; and, coordinate stewardship, education, stakeholder engagement and enforcement initiatives. Powers and Initiatives Building on the recommendations stemming from the Shuswap Lake Foreshore Inventory and Mapping Project (June 2009), the CSRD is currently undertaking a major initiative to establish a Zoning By-law for the water and foreshore area. The Zoning By-law, which is based on the CSRD’s jurisdiction over the lake surface (granted through Provincial legislation; the lake bed jurisdiction is retained by the Province), will establish “water use” zones over the surface of the District’s waterbodies. These zoning designations will, in turn, set standards for permitted uses, the size and density of docking facilities and private moorage bouys. In addition, the new Zoning By-law project is exploring the potential implementation of regulations designed to restrict house boating activity in order to preempt any future attempts by individuals to take up permanent and/or r longer-term house boat residency. The Foreshore Zoning By-law is slated to be implemented before the next boating season commences (Spring 2011). Kenora Port Authority Kenora Ontario Canada

Contextual Similarities to Yellowknife Bay: Fresh water Winter freeze over Active float plane base Mixed use harbour – recreational uses, tourism and commercial activity Overview of Management Framework The Kenora Port Authority was established through a City of Kenora By-law in 2002. The Kenora Port Authority includes representation from City Council (2), the Lake of the Woods Property Owners Association (1), and members representing the local business community (2) and the public-at-large (2). All members are appointed by City Council. The Port Authority receives technical support from the Ontario Provincial Police and Kenora Police Marine Units, municipal planning and engineering staff, the City’s CAO and City Clerk.

    47  

Powers and Initiatives The Kenora Port Authority oversees, on behalf of the City of Kenora, the management and long term planning of marine facilities within the City of Kenora, including related docking, boat launching and vehicular/trailer parking. Marine facilities within the City include both municipally-owned docks and Federally-owned docking facilities, which are managed by the City. The City is currently in discussions with Small Craft Harbours (DFO) to potentially take over ownership of remaining Federal marine facilities. In addition, the Port Authority is also responsible for developing recommendations related to enforcement and the safe use of waterways within the City. The Kenora Port Authority is responsible for establishing user fees, rental and lease rates for marine facilities. NOTE: The Kenora Port Authority was disbanded in November 2010 under the direction of the new Council (based on a recommendation from the former Council). The cancellation of the Authority was done as a corporate cost-cutting measure. The responsibilities of the Authority have been assumed by a committee of Council and City staff. Greater Victoria Harbour Authority Capital Regional District, British Columbia, Canada Contextual Similarities to Yellowknife Bay: Permanent house boat community Active float plane base Mixed use harbour – recreational uses, tourism and commercial activity Overview of Management Framework The Greater Victoria Harbour Authority (GVHA) is a registered not-for-profit “society”, established under British Columbia’s Society Act. The GVHA is responsible for the operation of four separate port facilities that were divested by Transport Canada in early 2002, including: the Ogden Point Marine Terminals and breakwater, the Erie Street Fisherman’s Wharf, the Causeway to Ship Point and the Wharf Street Docks. Working closely with local government agencies and First Nations, the GVHA defines its role as an advocate for the harbour to ensure the harbour’s continued function as a marine transportation centre, a working commercial harbour and a major tourist node. The GVHA is governed by a Board of Directors comprised of the Authority’s member agencies and organizations, including: the Esquimalt Nation, Songhees Nation, Provincial Capital Commission, City of Victoria, Township of Esquimalt, the Victoria/Esquimalt Harbour Society, Tourism Victoria, the Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce, and the Capital Regional district.

    48  

Powers and Initiatives The GVHA is responsible for the long-term planning and management of the four primary harbour facilities it operates, including setting users fees/rates and enforcing harbour regulations. The GVHA is currently undertaking a comprehensive master planning exercise for its Ogden Point facilities, including the establishment of land/water use “zones”. The GVHA also enforces harbour-specific float home standards established by Transport Canada (2001) , which includes standards for construction, fire prevention, waste disposal, plumbing, electrical, buoyancy criteria and moorage, among other technical requirements. Yarmouth Harbour Commission Isle of Wight, United Kingdom Contextual Similarities to Yellowknife Bay: Mixed Use – Recreation and Commercial Activity Sensitive Natural Heritage Features (Western Yar Estuary) Overview of Management Framework The Yarmouth Harbour Commission is an incorporated non-profit entity responsible for the management of the Yarmouth Harbour, a major commercial and recreational harbour located in the Isle of Wight, UK. Much like traditional Harbour/Port Authorities in Canada, the Yarmouth Harbour Commission is led by a Chief Executive/Harbour Master who oversees a group of appointed Harbour Commissioners. The seven Commissions represent the key interests in the Harbour’s long-term planning and management, including legal, commercial management, coastal environment, community relations, financial management, general management, health and safety, and recreational facilities). The Commission is supported by an Advisory Committee that includes local Council members, representation from local business associations, environmental groups and local boating associations. Powers and Initiatives The Yarmouth Harbour Commission is responsible for the management and operation of all of the Harbour’s marine facilities and services. The Commission operates in accordance with long-term strategic planning document, which sets out the Commissions overall mission and objectives. The Commission is also closely involved in local environmental monitoring and research, working

    49  

collaboratively with local environmental groups to develop and implement environmental management plans and practices. Additionally, the Commission is responsible for establishing and collecting user fees for moorage, parking and boat launching.

5.8  Key  Directions   In thinking about the appropriate management framework to guide planning and development decisions and oversee regulatory and enforcement issues with respect to Yellowknife Harbour, a number of issues need to be considered, including, but not limited to:

• the defined mandate/Terms of Reference for the management authority or structure;

• the cost and complexity of implementation; • the cost and complexity of administration; and • compatibility within the existing regulatory context.

The City must also be cognizant of the powers/authorities of any newly established regulating body and recognize that without – and even with – clear terms and delineation of powers, there is a real potential for conflict and disagreement between the City’s interests and the harbour authority’s interest. The establishment of such a body also lends itself to the risk of simply adding additional jurisdictional red tape to the already complex governance issues encumbering regulation of Yellowknife Bay. Furthermore, given the Federal Government’s focus on core-fishing harbours and its active divesture of “non-core” harbours, a traditional third party Harbour Authority, may not be the preferred administrative structure for the Yellowknife context. Conversely, as recently seen in the termination of the Kenora Port Authority by its City Council, even municipally-led harbour authorities are open to significant risks as administrative changes occur. Notwithstanding that, based on preliminary consultations with the City, Territorial and Federal Departments and local stakeholders, the maintenance of a high degree of municipal oversight in a future harbour authority appears to be a preferred approach over the establishment of a completely independent third-part harbour authority. Similarly, the concept of adopting a Memorandum of Understanding between the various agencies and interests in the Harbour, with the specific inclusion of the YKDFN, has also garnered considerable interest in consultations to date. The implementation of a Memorandum of Understanding or agreement could potentially be done in conjunction with the establishment of a City-led harbour authority, and perhaps even designate the expressed powers of such an authority. Regardless of the approach – which will be explored in further detail in the subsequent phases of this project – the following have been identified as key areas of responsibility that should come under the future harbour authority’s mandate:

1. The establishment of land and water use guidelines and regulations, including water lot controls and zoning;

    50  

2. Permitting and licensing, including the potential implementation of building and design standards for float homes and development along the water’s edge;

3. Revenue and funding mechanisms, including the ability to levy user fees and/or taxes;

4. Defining service obligations and potential liabilities; 5. The initiation of partnerships and agreements between land owners (public

and private) related to land/water use, access to the shoreline and future planning and development initiatives related to harbour facilities; and,

6. Lake and lakebed environmental planning, research and monitoring, including initiatives for wetland and shoreline restoration.