3.11 Values-based Reclamation

Not all activities require reclamation. Some activities may be low impact, like hiking and berry picking, or even provide benefits, such as spreading berry seeds. Other activities, such as building infrastructure or mineral development, can contribute to socio-economic values or community well-being (for example, contributions to the local economy or road access to communities), but have other long-lasting effects that are not desirable.

Within the context of this Plan, another reason to complete reclamation is the understanding that reclaimed land can be subtracted from the development footprint. To be successful in reclamation, we must acknowledge that reclamation is not the return of an ecosystem to its original state because:

1. It is impossible to completely remove all landscape change; we cannot go backwards.
2. Defining “original state” is complex (pre-human contact, pre-Beringia, pre-climate change?) and necessarily arbitrary.

Reclamation is the act of intentionally influencing ecosystem development after disturbance and thus requires a clear vision of what we are trying to achieve. For small, low-intensity disturbances like a hand-cut trail, reclamation to the pre-disturbance ecosystem may be possible through actions such as felling a few trees across the trail to make it impassable and allowing the forest to regrow. For larger disturbances that involve the removal of vegetation and disruption of soils, the ecosystem is transformed, which in turn transforms social and cultural connections to the place. Larger reclamation efforts are then required.

Opportunistic plant species will establish over time without reclamation; however, ecological, social, and cultural connections to places are dependent on which species establish and in what abundance. Examples include a caribou’s dependence on a forest with abundant lichens, and berry pickers’ (human and non-human) requirement for berry patches. Reclamation provides the opportunity to encourage ecosystem development towards specific values, such as caribou or berries.

While some plants like willows may grow more quickly than others, in general, northern ecosystems are slow to form after disturbance. It can take decades or longer for ecosystems to support the desired ecological, social, and cultural values. Adaptive management will be required over time, as ecosystem development is complex and can be unpredictable. Reclamation must be approached with humility and a commitment to continuous learning.

A one-size-fits-all approach to reclamation is likely to be unsuccessful because the land is a patchwork of ecosystems, animal populations, and topographies. Values-based reclamation offers the potential for nuanced outcomes, tailored to the unique characteristics of each LMU as indicated by the LMU priority values.

Reclamation is grounded in the Plan’s values to:

• Provide direction about what system or species is the focus of localized reclamation efforts.
• Identify what reclamation outcomes look like for each LMU.
• Provide certainty to industry and the public about what values must be considered in reclamation planning in each LMU.
• Provide reclamation-specific timelines, which are independent of governments, convenience, or operators.

5-Step Values-Based Reclamation Framework

The 5-step framework (adapted from the International Principles and Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration) is a flexible and transparent tool to assess the progress and quality of reclamation efforts for each value in the Region. Each level represents a step along a restoration trajectory, from basic stabilization to full ecological and cultural functionality (Figure 9). This system allows for nuanced evaluation by recognizing partial progress while still aiming for long-term, values-based reclamation.

In values-based reclamation, it is essential that reclamation efforts focus on the priority values identified for each LMU. This ensures that reclamation outcomes align with the Plan’s broad goals (Section 2.1). Reclaiming land to support a non-priority value may still offer benefits, but it does not directly contribute to the Plan’s vision and goals. As a result, such efforts will receive lower recognition within the step system. Focusing on priority values helps avoid a one-size-fits-all approach and supports more meaningful, place-based recovery that reflects the unique characteristics of each LMU.

The values-based reclamation framework plays a critical role in determining how much land can be returned to the available development “quantum” within each LMU (Table 7). Reclamation efforts that have reached Step 5, indicating full ecological function and cultural acceptability, can be fully subtracted from the total disturbance footprint. However, land that reaches a lower step contributes only partially to the quantum, reflecting incremental progress toward restoration.

This tiered approach incentivizes high-quality, values-based reclamation while recognizing and rewarding meaningful progress. It also ensures that only land meeting the highest restoration standards is counted as fully reclaimed, helping maintain ecological integrity and cultural relevance across the Region. Only land credited through this framework can be subtracted from the LMU’s development footprint. This ensures that new development is tied to meaningful reclamation progress and supports long-term ecological and cultural integrity.

The credit allocated for Step 1 is 10%. This has been intentionally set higher than zero to incentivize action and to acknowledge that once operators cease operations, wildlife will begin moving through the land with greater frequency, though not as often as they would for higher steps. Throughout the lifetime of a permit, it is possible to achieve up to Step 3; however, this is not guaranteed. To progress from Step 3 to Steps 4 and 5, ongoing stewardship and management are required by the Parties. Reaching Steps 4 or 5 is a matter of time after reaching Step 3 rather than effort, as it reflects the time required for the ecosystem to recover naturally.

Responsibility and Assessment

Sites are assessed first at year one, and then at intervals of 5, 10, 25, 50, and 100 years, to evaluate the current level of reclamation and adjust the credited area if needed. Additional assessments may occur subject to joint approval of the Parties. These long timeframes are intentionally designed to support multi-generational planning, recognizing that meaningful ecological recovery and cultural renewal often happen over decades, rather than the life of a permit.

A centralized reclamation ledger tracks cumulative credits and changes over time, providing transparency and continuity across generations of land users and decision-makers. Reclamation progress will need to be assessed transparently and held to publicly available standards. All steps for each Plan value should be determined by the Parties. An example of what this might include is shown in Table 8; the Parties should continue working on this and include the most accurate standards.

Despite best efforts, reclamation outcomes are not always fully within a proponent’s control. For example, a site may be ecologically restored, but if surrounding mines remain active, caribou may not return to the area, raising questions about how success should be measured. This highlights the importance of distinguishing between operator responsibility and land manager responsibility.

Proponents are accountable for achieving reclamation as a baseline standard by making the area suitable for the intended value. Decision-makers are subsequently responsible for facilitating broader ecological recovery, such as ensuring that caribou populations are healthy and able to reoccupy restored habitats, which corresponds to states of recovery and restoration.

Assessment of up to Step 3 should be carried out by Land Guardians, Natural Resource Officers, or other delegated authority, who are already embedded in the landscape and familiar with local conditions. For higher-level evaluations, Steps 4 and 5, enforcement agents or other designated bodies, as directed by the Parties, are responsible for verifying broader ecological and cultural outcomes.

To streamline implementation and avoid creating new oversight bodies, the Government of Yukon should incorporate this framework directly into its permitting process. By doing so, the five-year assessments can be completed as part of existing regulatory reviews, thereby reducing administrative burden while ensuring that reclamation progress is transparently tracked and aligned with long-term regional values. In order to incentivize reclamation, the Parties should establish performance-based incentives in which operators demonstrating strong reclamation performance receive administrative efficiencies while higher-risk operators face enhanced oversight. Potential incentives may include faster permitting timelines for operators with strong reclamation performance, probationary periods for new operators, and increased bonding requirements for operators with poor reclamation histories.

Back to Cumulative Effects Framework