WMS

Unvalidated Human Development Footprint Areas (North) (2)

This feature layer represents the polygon objects captured as additional disturbances from SPOT imagery not tied to existing permits in the Sahtu and Inuvik Administrative Regions, including the Gwich'in and Inuvialuit Settlement Regions, by Caslys Consulting Ltd. in March 2015.This was part of the Human Disturbance Mapping project for the GNWT, where a series of spatial datasets were created with the key objective to create an accurate and up-to-date human disturbance footprint that can be used to help make future land and water management decisions. These datasets were created based on existing baseline GIS data, aerial and satellite imagery, as well as permit records from registries with associated online archives. Modelling and other landscape GIS analyses that use this information may benefit from combining all point, line and polygon datasets into a single disturbance footprint that best represents the sum of all input files. It is recommended that this process be completed by first applying GIS buffer functions to point and line feature classes. This provides the advantages of having a more true representation of disturbance footprint with the ability to calculate spatially explicit functions, such as determining the area of the total disturbance. Using the ‘PointArea_Ha’ (Permit_Data_Points) and ‘LinearWidth_m’ (Permit_Data_Lines) fields respectively, users can calculate the buffer distance for each record in the point and line feature class files. The values in these fields do not represent the buffer distance itself, but can be used to calculate an appropriate buffer distance that can be added to an additional buffer-distance-field.Along with the deliverables of this project, several other GIS map layers should be used to create a comprehensive representation of the human disturbance footprint. Primarily, roads that have been previously mapped, have not been re-capture under the scope of this project. Therefore, any modelling that is developed to map the human disturbance footprint, should include other map layers managed by GNWTCG. Refer to Section 3.1 in the Human Disturbance Mapping Report (Caslys, 2015) for a list of recommended map layers to be included in this process.

Unvalidated Human Development Footprint Lines (North) (4)

This feature layer represents the line objects captured as additional disturbances from SPOT imagery not tied to existing permits in the Sahtu and Inuvik Administrative Regions, including the Gwich'in and Inuvialuit Settlement Regions, by Caslys Consulting Ltd. in March 2015.This was part of the Human Disturbance Mapping project for the GNWT, where a series of spatial datasets were created with the key objective to create an accurate and up-to-date human disturbance footprint that can be used to help make future land and water management decisions. These datasets were created based on existing baseline GIS data, aerial and satellite imagery, as well as permit records from registries with associated online archives. Modelling and other landscape GIS analyses that use this information may benefit from combining all point, line and polygon datasets into a single disturbance footprint that best represents the sum of all input files. It is recommended that this process be completed by first applying GIS buffer functions to point and line feature classes. This provides the advantages of having a more true representation of disturbance footprint with the ability to calculate spatially explicit functions, such as determining the area of the total disturbance. Using the ‘PointArea_Ha’ (Permit_Data_Points) and ‘LinearWidth_m’ (Permit_Data_Lines) fields respectively, users can calculate the buffer distance for each record in the point and line feature class files. The values in these fields do not represent the buffer distance itself, but can be used to calculate an appropriate buffer distance that can be added to an additional buffer-distance-field.Along with the deliverables of this project, several other GIS map layers should be used to create a comprehensive representation of the human disturbance footprint. Primarily, roads that have been previously mapped, have not been re-capture under the scope of this project. Therefore, any modelling that is developed to map the human disturbance footprint, should include other map layers managed by GNWTCG. Refer to Section 3.1 in the Human Disturbance Mapping Report (Caslys, 2015) for a list of recommended map layers to be included in this process.

North and South Slave Human Development Footprint Areas (7)

This represents the polygon objects captured by Caslys Consulting for the Human Disturbances Dataset in the Bathurst Caribou Range, North Slave, South Slave regions, February 2015 ** second version

Gwichin Human Development Footprint Areas (9)

This feature layer represents the polygon objects captured as part of the Human Disturbances Dataset for a portion of the Inuvik Administrative Region using information from the Gwich'in Land and Water Board registry by Caslys Consulting Ltd. in March 2015.This was part of the Human Disturbance Mapping project for the GNWT, where a series of spatial datasets were created with the key objective to create an accurate and up-to-date human disturbance footprint that can be used to help make future land and water management decisions. These datasets were created based on existing baseline GIS data, aerial and satellite imagery, as well as permit records from registries with associated online archives. Modelling and other landscape GIS analyses that use this information may benefit from combining all point, line and polygon datasets into a single disturbance footprint that best represents the sum of all input files. It is recommended that this process be completed by first applying GIS buffer functions to point and line feature classes. This provides the advantages of having a more true representation of disturbance footprint with the ability to calculate spatially explicit functions, such as determining the area of the total disturbance. Using the ‘PointArea_Ha’ (Permit_Data_Points) and ‘LinearWidth_m’ (Permit_Data_Lines) fields respectively, users can calculate the buffer distance for each record in the point and line feature class files. The values in these fields do not represent the buffer distance itself, but can be used to calculate an appropriate buffer distance that can be added to an additional buffer-distance-field.Using the date fields and seasonal date fields, the user may develop queries that will allow human disturbance information to be displayed for a specific time period. Refer to Section 3.2 in the Human Disturbance Mapping Report (Caslys, 2015) which lists the fields that can be used to accomplish date-specific queries, as well as the Technical Guide - Selection by Date (Caslys, 2015) which outlines the query syntax. Along with the deliverables of this project, several other GIS map layers should be used to create a comprehensive representation of the human disturbance footprint. Primarily, roads that have been previously mapped, have not been re-capture under the scope of this project. Therefore, any modelling that is developed to map the human disturbance footprint, should include other map layers managed by GNWTCG. Refer to Section 3.1 in the Human Disturbance Mapping Report (Caslys, 2015) for a list of recommended map layers to be included in this process.

North and South Slave Human Development Footprint Lines (11)

This represents the line objects captured by Caslys Consulting for the Human Disturbances Dataset in the Bathurst Caribou Range, North Slave, South Slave regions, February 2015 ** second version

Gwichin Human Development Footprint Lines (13)

This feature layer represents the line objects captured as part of the Human Disturbances Dataset for a portion of the Inuvik Administrative Region using information from the Gwich'in Land and Water Board registry by Caslys Consulting Ltd. in March 2015.This was part of the Human Disturbance Mapping project for the GNWT, where a series of spatial datasets were created with the key objective to create an accurate and up-to-date human disturbance footprint that can be used to help make future land and water management decisions. These datasets were created based on existing baseline GIS data, aerial and satellite imagery, as well as permit records from registries with associated online archives. Modelling and other landscape GIS analyses that use this information may benefit from combining all point, line and polygon datasets into a single disturbance footprint that best represents the sum of all input files. It is recommended that this process be completed by first applying GIS buffer functions to point and line feature classes. This provides the advantages of having a more true representation of disturbance footprint with the ability to calculate spatially explicit functions, such as determining the area of the total disturbance. Using the ‘PointArea_Ha’ (Permit_Data_Points) and ‘LinearWidth_m’ (Permit_Data_Lines) fields respectively, users can calculate the buffer distance for each record in the point and line feature class files. The values in these fields do not represent the buffer distance itself, but can be used to calculate an appropriate buffer distance that can be added to an additional buffer-distance-field.Using the date fields and seasonal date fields, the user may develop queries that will allow human disturbance information to be displayed for a specific time period. Refer to Section 3.2 in the Human Disturbance Mapping Report (Caslys, 2015) which lists the fields that can be used to accomplish date-specific queries, as well as the Technical Guide - Selection by Date (Caslys, 2015) which outlines the query syntax. Along with the deliverables of this project, several other GIS map layers should be used to create a comprehensive representation of the human disturbance footprint. Primarily, roads that have been previously mapped, have not been re-capture under the scope of this project. Therefore, any modelling that is developed to map the human disturbance footprint, should include other map layers managed by GNWTCG. Refer to Section 3.1 in the Human Disturbance Mapping Report (Caslys, 2015) for a list of recommended map layers to be included in this process.

North and South Slave Human Development Footprint Points (15)

This represents the point objects captured by Caslys Consulting for the Human Disturbances Dataset in the Bathurst Caribou Range, North Slave, South Slave regions, February 2015 ** second version

Gwichin Human Development Footprint Points (17)

This feature layer represents the point objects captured as part of the Human Disturbances Dataset for a portion of the Inuvik Administrative Region using information from the Gwich'in Land and Water Board registry by Caslys Consulting Ltd. in March 2015.This was part of the Human Disturbance Mapping project for the GNWT, where a series of spatial datasets were created with the key objective to create an accurate and up-to-date human disturbance footprint that can be used to help make future land and water management decisions. These datasets were created based on existing baseline GIS data, aerial and satellite imagery, as well as permit records from registries with associated online archives. Modelling and other landscape GIS analyses that use this information may benefit from combining all point, line and polygon datasets into a single disturbance footprint that best represents the sum of all input files. It is recommended that this process be completed by first applying GIS buffer functions to point and line feature classes. This provides the advantages of having a more true representation of disturbance footprint with the ability to calculate spatially explicit functions, such as determining the area of the total disturbance. Using the ‘PointArea_Ha’ (Permit_Data_Points) and ‘LinearWidth_m’ (Permit_Data_Lines) fields respectively, users can calculate the buffer distance for each record in the point and line feature class files. The values in these fields do not represent the buffer distance itself, but can be used to calculate an appropriate buffer distance that can be added to an additional buffer-distance-field.Using the date fields and seasonal date fields, the user may develop queries that will allow human disturbance information to be displayed for a specific time period. Refer to Section 3.2 in the Human Disturbance Mapping Report (Caslys, 2015) which lists the fields that can be used to accomplish date-specific queries, as well as the Technical Guide - Selection by Date (Caslys, 2015) which outlines the query syntax. Along with the deliverables of this project, several other GIS map layers should be used to create a comprehensive representation of the human disturbance footprint. Primarily, roads that have been previously mapped, have not been re-capture under the scope of this project. Therefore, any modelling that is developed to map the human disturbance footprint, should include other map layers managed by GNWTCG. Refer to Section 3.1 in the Human Disturbance Mapping Report (Caslys, 2015) for a list of recommended map layers to be included in this process.

Air quality (0-10m scale) (20)

Nagwichoonjik National Historic Site (24)

Heritage ValueNagwichoonjik (Mackenzie River) was designated a national historic site of Canada because:- it is prominent as a cultural landscape within the Gwichya Gwich’in traditional territory;- it is culturally, socially and spiritually significant to the people; - the history of life on the land and along the river is remembered through names that are given to a great number of places on the land and along the river.The heritage value of Nagwichoonjik (Mackenzie River) is reflected in the cultural landscape along the river that reflects the river’s role as a principal repository of the stories (oral histories) that suffuse with meaning the history of the landscape as the Gwichya Gwich’in know it. The traditional lifestyle of the Gwichya Gwich’in has been shaped by their close connection with the land and the river, and many points along the river play an essential role in the transmission and survival of Gwich’in culture. Nagwichoonjik represents the complex sets of relationships between the Gwich’in people, their traditional lands and their past, before and after the arrival of the European explorers.Sources: Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada Minutes, June 1997; Commemorative Integrity Statement.Character-Defining ElementsKey elements that contribute to the heritage character of the site include:- the Mackenzie River and the land along its banks between Thunder River and Point Separation in its location and as a dramatic river valley consisting of a wide waterway, beaches, high cliffs in some places and gentle slopes in others, cut with many creeks, and displaying human impacts from pre-contact to modern times;- archaeological evidence of Gwich’in use, including camps, settlements, fisheries, quarries, connecting trails and trail heads, burial places, ritual and sacred places;- the health and wholeness of the riparian ecosystem (its water quality, quantity, rates of flow, sandbars and siltation, fish quality, the health of species such as inconnu and moose;- the undisturbed land and unimpeded views of the river and along the valley from the river; - sacred sites along the river (currently being identified by the Gwich’in Cultural Institute);- ritual sites along the river (currently being identified by the Gwich’in Cultural Institute);- Gwich’in knowledge of traditional place names along the river.Historic Sites and Monuments Act, 1997/06/05from: http://www.historicplaces.ca/en/rep-reg/place-lieu.aspx?id=9161Nagwichoonjik is managed by the Gwich’in Tribal Council, a First Nations governing body established pursuant to the Gwich’in Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement (1992), working in co-operation with Gwich’in organizations like the Gwichya Gwich’in Council of Tsiigehtchic and Gwich’in Social and Cultural Institute along with various government agencies including Parks Canada. Parks Canada has worked closely with these Gwich’in organizations in developing a Commemorative Integrity Statement for the Nagwichoonjik National Historic Site of Canada. This important document identifies what is meant by commemorative integrity at this site and forms the basis for future planning, management and operation of the Nagwichoonjik National Historic Site of Canada. (http://www.pc.gc.ca/APPS/CP-NR/release_e.asp?bgid=618&andor1=bg)The Nagwichoonjik National Historic Site was designated in 1997 as an Aboriginal Cultural Landscape. It includes a 175 km stretch of the Mackenzie River from Vihtr'ii Tshik (Thunder River) to Srehtadhadlâîî (Point Separation), making it the largest National Historic Sitein Canada. The boundaries of the site reach 5 km inland from the river to ensure that all the major archaeological and cultural sites affiliated with it are included (The Canadian Encyclopedia, http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0010484)

Dehcho LUP Protected Via Dehcho ILW (29)

This is the result of an overlay of the boundary of the Dehcho First Nation Interim Land Withdrawal as per OIC 2011 - 1273 with the 2006 version of the Dehcho Proposed Land Use Plan to identify areas that have interim protection as a result of the Dehcho ILW.

Parks Canada Proposal (32)

Boundaries of protected area proposalswhich may or may not have interim surface and subsurface land withdrawal. These include A. National Park proposals - Thaidene Nene 1970/1997 land withdrawal , which is an indeterminate surface and subsurface land withdrawal. Please check metadata to identify which data has interim land withdrawal. A National Park proposals - Thaidene Nene 2007 land withdrawal - Nááts’ihch’oh National Park proposalB. National Wildlife Area proposals - Edéhzhíe - Ts'ude niline Tu'eyeta (Ramparts River and Wetlands) - Sambaa K'e (Trout Lake) - Ka'a'gee Tu (Kakisa) - Kwets'oòtl'àà (North Arm of Great Slave lake) C. Critical Wildlife Area proposals- Buffalo Lake, River and Trails D. Territorial Park proposals (cultural conservation area) - Lue Túé Sulái (the Five Fish Lakes) All of the above proposed National Wildlife Areas, Critical Wildlife Areas and Territorial Parks are Northwest Territories Protected Areas Strategy (NWT-PAS) Candidate Protected Areas with Interim Protection at Step 5 of the 8-step NWT-PAS process. Candidate Protected Areas with Interim Protection have an agency identified to sponsor the area (Environment Canada - Canadian Wildlife Service for National Wildlife Area proposals, Government of the NWT - Environment and Natural Resources (ENR) for Critical Wildlife Area proposals, Industry, Tourism and Investment (ITI) for Territorial Park proposals). They have been withdrawn from new surface and/or sub-surface interests for a limited time (usually 5 years). This helps ensure that the natural and cultural values of the area are not compromised during the planning process. During interim withdrawals cultural, ecological and economic assessments are completed, and final recommendations are made. Existing third party interests are respected. Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Proposal was originally put forward as NWT-PAS proposal and is now in Step 6-7 of the 8-step NWT PAS process. Negotiating parties will make final determination on boundaries, appropriate legislation and management to lead to final designation. If necessary, interim withdrawal continues until final designation. Existing third party interests are respected, with application of Third Party Compensation guidelines if necessary. All other National Park proposals were advanced through Parks Canada's process, without direct NWT-PAS involvement.

NWT- PAS AOI Protected Via Dehcho ILW (35)

This is the result of an overlay of the boundary of the Dehcho First Nation Interim Land Withdrawal as per OIC 2011 - 1273 with the February 2012 version of the NWT-PAS Areas of Interest data to identify areas that have interim protection as a result of the Dehcho ILW.

Territorial Park > 10000 ha (38)

Boundaries of NWT Territorial Parks that are > 10,000 hectares (ha). This includes - Hidden Lake Territorial Park (Natural Enviroment Park) and - Gwich'in Territorial Park (Recreation Park)

Conservation Area Via Land Claim Agreement (40)

Boundaries of areas protected through settled Land Claim Agreements in the Northwest Territories. Areas have surface and/or subsurface land withdrawal. Areas include: Ezôdzìtì - Area protected through Tlicho Final Agreement; Kelly Lake - Area protected through Sahtu Dene and Metis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement; Canol Heritage Trail - Area protected through Sahtu Dene and Metis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement.

CANOL Heritage Trail (42)

Polyline route delineating approximate route of Canol Trail and old Pipeline.CANOL Trail is recognized as a heritage hiking trail, but is not presently designated as a Territorial Park within the Northwest Territories. The Doi T’oh Territorial Park and Canol Heritage Trail is being established pursuant to the June 1994 Sahtu Dene and Metis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement (Chapter 17) signed by the Sahtu Tribal Council, the Government of Canada, and the Government of the Northwest Territories. As well, an October 1994 Canol Trail Memorandum of Agreement signed by the Tulita District Land Corporation Ltd. and the Government of the Northwest Territories gives further clarification to the Park establishment process.The Comprehensive Agreement also provided a description of the lands that were to be included in the park and these lands were reserved by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (file number 96 D/13-1-2).From Section 17, Sahtu Dene and Metis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement:17.1.1: In this chapter, "territorial park" means an area dedicated as a recreation park under 3(1)(a) and (b) of the Territorial Parks Act, R.S.N.W.T. 1988, c. T-4, and any other territorial park outside local government boundaries the area of which exceeds 130 hectares.17.3.1 (a) Within three months of the date of settlement legislation, the Government of the Northwest Territories shall submit to Canada a proposal for the creation of a territorial park (or parks) within the lands described in schedule XXI, appendix E, including a request for a reserve of such lands.17.3.1 (e) Subject to existing rights, titles or interests in the lands in (a) existing at the date of settlement legislation, Canada shall not, prior to a decision with respect to the application in (c), dispose of any interest in such lands or authorize any activity in such lands where the disposition of that interest orthe authorization of that activity would be inconsistent with the establishment of a territorial park. To the extent that legislation permits subsurface exploration and development within territorial parks, thisprovision shall not prevent government from authorizing subsurface exploration and development in the lands in (a).The above agreements state that a Park management plan will be developed by a planning committee and submitted to the Minister of Industry, Tourism and Investment.A Management Plan was finalized in and approved by the Minister of ITI 2007. It can be found here:http://www.iti.gov.nt.ca/publications/2007/tourismparks/2007%2001%20Jan%2022%20%20Doi%20T'oh%20Park%20Management%20PlanGOOD2.pdfThe Management Plan has recommended a number of minor adjustments to the land designations contained in the Comprehensive Agreement that have arisen from the analysis and preparation of theproposed park developments. These adjustments are intended to unify park management activities along the entire park corridor and to ensure a parkland base for proposed services and facility developments in key activity areas. Recreational activity should, for the most part, be contained within parklands for ease of administration.Such changes will require a process of legal definition, however the nature of theadjustments are such that changes will not be complex. (Section 4.2) The current boundaries are described in the Sahtu Dene and Metis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement

Gwich'in Approved Land Use Plan (46)

This in NOT the complete approved (2003) Gwich'in Land Use Plan Zones. It includes only the Gwich'in Conservation Areas, Heritage Conservation Areas and the Special Management Areas.This plan expired in 2008 and is in the process of being revised. The 2010 plan revision zones can be found:sd.DBO.PLCGLWB_DRF_Gwich'inLandUsePlan2010More details about the plan can be found here:http://www.gwichinplanning.nt.ca/landUsePlan.htmlThe following are the land use plannigng Zones:Gwich'in Conservation and Heritage Conservation Zones: where uses related to oil and gas development, mineral and aggregate extraction, transportation, waste disposal, communication, power development and commercial renewable resource activities are not permitted (approximately 10% of the Settlement Area) Gwich'in Special Management Zones: where all land uses are possible as long as conditions outlined in the Land Use Plan are met and approvals through the regulatory system are obtained. The Land Use Plan conditions are designed to protect valued resources identified by communities or other organizations during the planning process (approximately 33% of the Settlement Area) Gwich'in General Use Zones:where all land uses are possible with the necessary approvals from the current regulatory system. The Land Use Plan imposes no conditions for proposed uses and activities in these areas (approximately 57% of the Settlement Area). These zones are not present in this datasetAttributes are:Area_Name Name of the zoneResources Important resourcesCode unknownType_Code type of zone (ie GHCA, SMA, GCA)Order unknownName Gwich'in NameArea_Types Full description of the Zone type (ie Heritage Conservation Area)Area_km2 Area in square kilometersPerim_km Perimter in kilomoters

Conservation Area Via Land Claim Agreement (49)

Boundaries of areas protected through settled Land Claim Agreements in the Northwest Territories. Areas have surface and/or subsurface land withdrawal. Areas include: Ezôdzìtì - Area protected through Tlicho Final Agreement; Kelly Lake - Area protected through Sahtu Dene and Metis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement; Canol Heritage Trail - Area protected through Sahtu Dene and Metis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement.

Thelon Wildlife Sanctuary (51)

Boundary of entire Thelon Wildlife Sanctuary (Nortwest Territories and Nunavut) The Thelon Wildlife Sanctuary has surface and subsurface land withdrawal. This boundary was digitized from 1;250,000 map sheets as part of the digital GNWT Wildlife Management Unit boundary project carried out in 1995 by a contractor.The Sanctuary is currently a 52,000 square kilometre area centred on the Thelon River Basin with a western boundary approximately 250 km from the Dene community of Lutsel K’e and an eastern boundary 200 km west of the nearest Nunavut community, Baker Lake. Currently, the land is withdrawn from disposition under the Federal Territorial Lands Act, meaning that no surface or subsurface interests and developments can be established in this area. Upper portions of the Thelon River were designated as a Canadian Heritage River in 1990 for the area’s natural and cultural integrity and recreational values.The Nunavut/Northwest Territories boundary runs through the Sanctuary creating Nunavut and Northwest Territories portions. The Lutsel K'e Dene are part of Akaitcho Treaty 8 Tribal Council who are negotiating an Akaitcho Agreement dealing with lands, resources and governance with Canada and the GNWT. The Akaitcho Treaty 8 Tribal Council signed a Framework Agreement in July 2000 and an Interim Measures Agreement in June 2001. The Management Plan for the Thelon Game Sanctuary is a long-range plan intended to define the values to be protected in the Sanctuary and to provide the foundation upon which the structures and processes needed to protect these values can be established. (Thelon Game Sanctuary Management Plan)The Government of Nunavut presented the plan to the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, and subsequently to the Minister of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, who approved the plan in August 2005. Though the Sanctuary straddles the Nunavut/NWT boundary, the Government of the Northwest Territories has decided not to become a signatory to the plan based on interventions by the Métis Tribal Council, but intends to abide by the spirit and intent of the plan and has encouraged implementation of the plan. (Nunavut Parks)1927 The Sanctuary was originally established by an Order In Council under the Federal Northwest Game Act (1920). Under this Act the focus in the Thelon was wildlife protection, achieved through the prohibition of hunting and trapping by both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people. 1930 A new Order in Council under the Federal Territorial Lands Act was proclaimed to expand the protection measures within the Sanctuary, due to increased prospecting activity in the region. The new Order In Council effectively withdrew the lands of the Sanctuary from any surface or subsurface disposition (i.e. no prospecting or mining activity was permitted). 1948 Responsibility for wildlife management was transferred from the Federal Government to the Territorial Government. 1949 A Game Ordinance was passed by the new Territorial Government, which, in an attached schedule, included the contemporary boundaries of the Sanctuary. In addition to prohibiting hunting and trapping in the Sanctuary by any person, the Game Ordinance stipulated that “no person shall enter the Thelon Game Sanctuary unless he first obtained a license to do so,” and it was not customary to grant licenses for any entry. At this time, the Sanctuary still remained “withdrawn from disposition” (i.e. from other land uses) under the Federal Territorial Lands Act. 1956 Since the creation of the Sanctuary, there had been pressure from the mining sector to allow prospecting, particularly in the southwest portion of the area. This pressure came to fruition in 1956. The Territorial Government changed the Sanctuary boundaries in response to this pressure by revising the Game Ordinance. The boundary changes involved deleting land from the southwest portion of the Sanctuary and adding areas to the north and southeast. 1972 In spite of the boundary changes made in 1956, no change to the Federal Territorial Lands Act occurred until 1972, when the same lands which were redefined as being included in the Sanctuary in 1956, were correspondingly “withdrawn from disposition”. 1978 The NWT Game Ordinance was replaced by ‘An Ordinance Respecting Wildlife’. While continuing the restrictions on hunting and ‘acquiring wildlife, nests or eggs within a sanctuary’, the requirement for a license to enter the area was deleted from the statute. This reflected a new and more conciliatory approach to public recreational use of the Sanctuary. Currently, the Sanctuary is designated under the Northwest Territories Wildlife Act and the Nunavut Wildlife Act (New names for the previous, identical provisions of the NWT Game Ordinance) as a ‘wildlife sanctuary’. Provisions of these Acts attempt to fully protect all forms of wildlife within the Sanctuary from hunting and trapping. However, the harvesting rights of Inuit are set out in the NLCA. The lands comprising the Sanctuary also continue to be withdrawn under the Federal Territorial Lands Act, and are consequently unavailable for any form of exploration, development or disposition. (Thelon Game Sanctuary Management Plan)The Thelon Game Sanctuary Management Plan can be found here:http://www.reviewboard.ca/upload/project_document/EA0607-003_Thelon%20Game%20Sanctuary%20Management%20Plan_1159544997.pdfInformation about the Nunavut portion of the Thelon can be found here:http://www.nunavutparks.com/english/parks-special-places/thelon-wildlife-sanctuary/overview.aspx

National Park or Park Reserve (53)

Boundaries of National Parks and National Park Reserves in the NWT. All boundaries were provided by David Murray, Senior Planner, New Northern Parks, Park Establishment Branch, National Parks Directorate, Parks Canada, Gatineau, Quebec.Parks Canada data is also part of the CARTS (Conservation Areas Reporting Tracking System) database maintained by CCEA. It can also be found as part of the Canada Lands Survey Register (CLSR) data. Parks Canada is responsible to the people and Parliament of Canada for administering a world-renowned system of national parks, national historic sites and national marine conservation areas. Canada‟s national parks are established to protect, for all time, special places representative of Canada‟s natural regions, and to connect Canadians with the enduring natural and cultural legacy of these places. The Parks Canada Agency Act (1998), Canada National Parks Act (2000) and Parks Canada Guiding Principles and Operational Policies (1994) set the context for this responsibility.Wood Buffalo National Park was established in 1922 to protect the free-roaming bison herds of the area. In 1926 it was expanded to include the Peace – Athabasca Delta area. Today, the park supports and protects many unique natural and cultural resources, from diverse ecosystems and rare species to the traditional activities of Aboriginal residents. In 1983, Wood Buffalo National Park became the eighth site in Canada to be granted World Heritage status by UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization).For more information about Wood Buffalo National Park:http://www.pc.gc.ca/pn-np/nt/woodbuffalo/index.aspxNahanni was set aside by Order-in-Council as a National Park Reserve in 1972, and was gazetted as a national park reserve in an amendment to the National Parks Act in 1976. The park will remain in "reserve" status pending settlement of outstanding Aboriginal land claims in the region. Nahanni was designated as an UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1978. The South Nahanni River achieved Canadian Heritage River Status in 1987. In 2009, the Nahanni National Park Reserve was expanded to include the remainder of the South Nahanni River within the Dehcho Interim Measures Agreement Area.For more information about the Nahanni National Park Reserve:http://www.pc.gc.ca/pn-np/nt/nahanni/index.aspxAulavik was established in 1992 through the Inuvialuit Final Agreement (1984) and the Western Arctic (Inuvialuit) Claim Settlement Act (1984) (Figure 1). The park is cooperatively managed by Parks Canada and Inuvialuit as per the Inuvialuit Final Agreement and An Agreement for the Establishment of a National Park on Banks Island (1992).For more information about Aulavik National Park:http://www.pc.gc.ca/pn-np/nt/aulavik/index.aspxTuktut Nogait was proposed as a National park in 1988 to protect the calving grounds of the Bluenose caribou herd. In 1996, the Government of Canada, the Government of the Northwest Territories, the Inuvialuit Game Council, the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, the Paulatuk Community Corporation, and the Paulatuk Hunters and Trappers Committee signed the Tuktut Nogait Agreement (Parks Canada, 1996). In December 1998, Parliament established the Park in legislation. In 2011, the Sahtu portion of Tuktut Nogait was formally added to the Park. There has been land reserved in Nunavut to expand the Park so that it is fully representative of the Tundra Hills National Region.For more information about Tuktut Nogait National Park:http://www.pc.gc.ca/pn-np/nt/tuktutnogait/index.aspx

Water Only Area (56)

Parks Canada or NWT-PAS Proposal (58)

Permanent Surface/Subsurface Protection (60)

Mackenzie Bison Sanctuary (65)

The data was originally drafted onto hard-copy 1:250,000 NTS map sheets and then was digitized by Mutli-imaging into Autocad drawing files in 1995. All original digital data was received 13th of November, 1995 in Autocad DXF files. The data was converted to ARC/INFO coverage format.All theme layers were digitized by map sheet. They were separated into the individual theme layers and merged together. Some data was missing so non-linear data was digitized from the hard copy maps into the Roots digitizing system and then converted to ARC/INFO coverages. If the data were straight lines, lat/long coordinates were used to create a line file. All missing data was then merged with the original coverages. All polygons were closed and centroids added and then cleaned to establish topology.Changes have been made to individual layers as the Regulations have changed. The name has changed to reflect the year of the changes. The individual theme layer metadata will record any updates. THe have been no updates to the Mackenzie Bison Sanctuary since the Regulations have been passed.The data was initially created as coverages and had limited distribution. In June 2001, it was decided that most users of this data did not need to know the origin of the line work. It was only required in case the location of a line is ever questioned so a secondary set of coverages were created in which the lines were simplified. This makes the data easier to use. E00 and shapefiles have been created using the 'simplified data' and all will have a simlar naming structure. ie original file BDRLIC96distribution BRDRL96DE00 file BRDRL96Dshapefile BRDRL96DBecause one of the original reasons that the digital layers were created was to support the Wildlife Act and Regulations, and as the linework used to outline each polygon was either digitized, or came from other sources and at varying times it was decided that a record was needed of the origin of each line segment that formed the boundary of each polygon.To record the information about each line segment, two attributes, SOURCE and DATE were added to each layer linework attributes.The first attribute, SOURCE is the source of the linework. Each value in the attribute field is described as followsNTS250 Data were mapped and then digitized from 1:250,000 NTS sheets. The original data was digitized by John Alexander of Multi-imaging, the DATE 11/13/95 was attached to all John Alexander's work as this was when it was received by NWTC RS, any missing data was digitized by Gerren Saskiw.LEGIS Lat/Longs from the legislation, ARC GENERATE was used to create coverages (XLINE*), which were projected to the Lambert projection and then the lines extracted and added to the appropriate coverages1:4MILLION An approximate boundary between Greenland and Canada derived from a 1:4 million scale map of Canada (polar bear and wildlife management units only) 12 mi buff Canada has a 12 mile territorial sea boundary which was generated using the ARC BUFFER command and land boundaries from the NSDB hydrography layer (barren-ground caribo and wildlife management units only)SMOOTH The boundaries of the Canada-Greenland border and the 12 mile sea boundary did require some manual 'smoothing' to reflect the actual respective boundary line (ie. eliminating bays and adjusting the boundary between Ellesmere Island and Greenland (spliting the distance)FMSMITH Changes to the Forest Management Zones layer that have been created by Forest Management in Fort Smith.The second attribute, DATE is the approximate date the data was received and entered into the databaseNOTE: These linework attributes are not included in the distribution version. If there is a need to know the source of the original linework, contact the NWTCG to obtain a copy of the original file.The following attributes may be present in each attribute file. Each attributes is prefaced with 'xx' which is a two character abbreviation of the layer name:xxAREA is the minimum attribute which is the management area identifierxNAME is the name of an areaxxSTATUS is the status of the area ie National Park or National Park Preserve

Dehcho Draft Land Use Plan (68)

The Dehcho Land Use Planning Zones were created by the Dehcho Land Use Planning Commission. Details on the zones, and access to the Land Use Plan, maps, and shapefiles are available on the websitehttp://www.dehcholands.orgThis is a 2006 draft version of the Land Use Planning Zones developed as part of the land use planning process. Data was provided by the DLUPC to the NWTCG for its use. It is believed that there have been updates to these zones but this is the latest version that have bene publishedThe Plan contains five zone types:Conservation Zones are areas having significant ecological and cultural values. They are meant to provide flexible protection to lands of important cultural or ecological value. Only tourism is permitted in Conservation Zones, subject to the Plan’s Conformity Requirements. Two of the zones prohibit tourism as well. There are 18 Conservation Zones covering 38.1% of the Plan Area. The Mackenzie Valley Special Infrastructure Corridor provides a passage through four Conservation Zones.Protected Areas Strategy Zone is a separate designation for Candidate Protected Areas with Interim Protection. At the moment, only Edéhzhíe (Zone 1) has this designation, covering 12.0% of the Plan Area. Edéhzhíe has been withdrawn from disposition through the Protected Areas Strategy (PAS) process. Once established as a protected area, it will be managed under the legislation and authority of the sponsoring agency and an applicable Management Plan. In the interim, it is subject to the Plan. The Protected Areas Strategy Zone designation provides the same level of protection as a Conservation Zone.Special Management Zones are areas where there is significant potential for both conservation and resource development together. Special Management Zones were established to promote certain types of land use or protect values while allowing some forms of land use to proceed. To achieve these goals, each Special Management Zone prohibits at least one of the five land use types addressed, while permitting others, subject to the Plan’s other Conformity Requirements. There are 14 Special Management Zones covering 24.4% of the Plan Area.General Use Zones permit all land uses, subject to the Plan’s Conformity requirements. General Use Zones cover 25.5% of the Plan Area. They are not numbered.Special Infrastructure Corridors delineate two study corridors for proposed pipeline projects. The construction and operation of a pipeline is permitted within these corridors, subject to the Plan’s Conformity Requirements, even where the corridors cross Zones where oil and gas operations are not permitted otherwise. All zone requirements and restrictions continue to apply in the corridors except where and to the extent that the Plan states an exception.Attribute Fields:Zone: Zone NumberZoneName: Zone Name UsedStatus: Type of Land Use ZonePAS = Protected Area Strategy ZoneCONS = ConservationSPM = Special ManagementSIC = Special Infrastructure CorridorGEN = General UseCOMM = Community BoundaryAgri: Yes or No Value, whether specific land use (Agriculture) is permittedForestry: Yes or No Value, whether specific land use (Forestry) is permittedMining: Yes or No Value, whether specific land use (Mining) is permittedOilGas: Yes or No Value, whether specific land use (Oil and Gas) is permittedTourism: Yes or No Value, whether specific land use (Tourism) is permittedArea_m2: Area in metres (areas calculated using Lambert Conformal Conic projection with CM=122°W,Standard parallels 60°N and 65°N)

Parks Canada or NWT - PAS Proposal (71)

Boundaries of protected area proposalswhich may or may not have interim surface and subsurface land withdrawal. These include A. National Park proposals - Thaidene Nene 1970/1997 land withdrawal , which is an indeterminate surface and subsurface land withdrawal. Please check metadata to identify which data has interim land withdrawal. A National Park proposals - Thaidene Nene 2007 land withdrawal - Nááts’ihch’oh National Park proposalB. National Wildlife Area proposals - Edéhzhíe - Ts'ude niline Tu'eyeta (Ramparts River and Wetlands) - Sambaa K'e (Trout Lake) - Ka'a'gee Tu (Kakisa) - Kwets'oòtl'àà (North Arm of Great Slave lake) C. Critical Wildlife Area proposals- Buffalo Lake, River and Trails D. Territorial Park proposals (cultural conservation area) - Lue Túé Sulái (the Five Fish Lakes) All of the above proposed National Wildlife Areas, Critical Wildlife Areas and Territorial Parks are Northwest Territories Protected Areas Strategy (NWT-PAS) Candidate Protected Areas with Interim Protection at Step 5 of the 8-step NWT-PAS process. Candidate Protected Areas with Interim Protection have an agency identified to sponsor the area (Environment Canada - Canadian Wildlife Service for National Wildlife Area proposals, Government of the NWT - Environment and Natural Resources (ENR) for Critical Wildlife Area proposals, Industry, Tourism and Investment (ITI) for Territorial Park proposals). They have been withdrawn from new surface and/or sub-surface interests for a limited time (usually 5 years). This helps ensure that the natural and cultural values of the area are not compromised during the planning process. During interim withdrawals cultural, ecological and economic assessments are completed, and final recommendations are made. Existing third party interests are respected. Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Proposal was originally put forward as NWT-PAS proposal and is now in Step 6-7 of the 8-step NWT PAS process. Negotiating parties will make final determination on boundaries, appropriate legislation and management to lead to final designation. If necessary, interim withdrawal continues until final designation. Existing third party interests are respected, with application of Third Party Compensation guidelines if necessary. All other National Park proposals were advanced through Parks Canada's process, without direct NWT-PAS involvement.

Sahtu Approved Land Use Plan (74)

Draft 3 of the Sahtu Land Use Plan was released on July 12, 2010. Land Use Zones were finalized in September 2011 and provided to the NWTCG at that time.This data is available for GNWT use only, however data is available on the Sahtu Land Use Planning Board websiteMore information on the Sahtu Land Use Plan can be found:http://www.sahtulanduseplan.org/website/web-content/index.htmlThe following Zones have bene identified in the Land Use Plan:General Use Zones (GUZs) Most types of land use are allowed except bulk water removal (taking very large quantities of water to use somewhere else).Approximately 31% of the area. These are the main areas for development.Special Management Zones (SMZs) Most types of land use are allowed except bulk water removal. In these areas, communities want to protect water, wildlife, and cultural values but still want development. Approximately 42% of the area. Special rules exist to make sure that development does not hurt those values.Conservation Zones (CZs) These are very important areas for communities. The following types of development are not allowed: mining, oil and gas,forestry,power development, quarrying (taking sand, rock and gravel) and bulk water removal. Approximately 4% of the areaProposed Conservation Initiatives (PCIs) These are areas that communities are working with the NWT Protected Areas Strategy or Government to protect permanently. The Plan protects them like Conservation Zones (no development allowed) until they are completed. Approximately 20% of the area.The following major attributes are foundZone Type CZ, GUZ, PCI, SMZ, N_PARK, COMMName Name of the Zone

Pingo Canadian Landmark (77)

A digital representation of the Pingo Canadian Landmark boundary.

Thelon Wildlife Sanctuary (79)

Boundary of entire Thelon Wildlife Sanctuary (Nortwest Territories and Nunavut) The Thelon Wildlife Sanctuary has surface and subsurface land withdrawal. This boundary was digitized from 1;250,000 map sheets as part of the digital GNWT Wildlife Management Unit boundary project carried out in 1995 by a contractor.The Sanctuary is currently a 52,000 square kilometre area centred on the Thelon River Basin with a western boundary approximately 250 km from the Dene community of Lutsel K’e and an eastern boundary 200 km west of the nearest Nunavut community, Baker Lake. Currently, the land is withdrawn from disposition under the Federal Territorial Lands Act, meaning that no surface or subsurface interests and developments can be established in this area. Upper portions of the Thelon River were designated as a Canadian Heritage River in 1990 for the area’s natural and cultural integrity and recreational values.The Nunavut/Northwest Territories boundary runs through the Sanctuary creating Nunavut and Northwest Territories portions. The Lutsel K'e Dene are part of Akaitcho Treaty 8 Tribal Council who are negotiating an Akaitcho Agreement dealing with lands, resources and governance with Canada and the GNWT. The Akaitcho Treaty 8 Tribal Council signed a Framework Agreement in July 2000 and an Interim Measures Agreement in June 2001. The Management Plan for the Thelon Game Sanctuary is a long-range plan intended to define the values to be protected in the Sanctuary and to provide the foundation upon which the structures and processes needed to protect these values can be established. (Thelon Game Sanctuary Management Plan)The Government of Nunavut presented the plan to the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, and subsequently to the Minister of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, who approved the plan in August 2005. Though the Sanctuary straddles the Nunavut/NWT boundary, the Government of the Northwest Territories has decided not to become a signatory to the plan based on interventions by the Métis Tribal Council, but intends to abide by the spirit and intent of the plan and has encouraged implementation of the plan. (Nunavut Parks)1927 The Sanctuary was originally established by an Order In Council under the Federal Northwest Game Act (1920). Under this Act the focus in the Thelon was wildlife protection, achieved through the prohibition of hunting and trapping by both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people. 1930 A new Order in Council under the Federal Territorial Lands Act was proclaimed to expand the protection measures within the Sanctuary, due to increased prospecting activity in the region. The new Order In Council effectively withdrew the lands of the Sanctuary from any surface or subsurface disposition (i.e. no prospecting or mining activity was permitted). 1948 Responsibility for wildlife management was transferred from the Federal Government to the Territorial Government. 1949 A Game Ordinance was passed by the new Territorial Government, which, in an attached schedule, included the contemporary boundaries of the Sanctuary. In addition to prohibiting hunting and trapping in the Sanctuary by any person, the Game Ordinance stipulated that “no person shall enter the Thelon Game Sanctuary unless he first obtained a license to do so,” and it was not customary to grant licenses for any entry. At this time, the Sanctuary still remained “withdrawn from disposition” (i.e. from other land uses) under the Federal Territorial Lands Act. 1956 Since the creation of the Sanctuary, there had been pressure from the mining sector to allow prospecting, particularly in the southwest portion of the area. This pressure came to fruition in 1956. The Territorial Government changed the Sanctuary boundaries in response to this pressure by revising the Game Ordinance. The boundary changes involved deleting land from the southwest portion of the Sanctuary and adding areas to the north and southeast. 1972 In spite of the boundary changes made in 1956, no change to the Federal Territorial Lands Act occurred until 1972, when the same lands which were redefined as being included in the Sanctuary in 1956, were correspondingly “withdrawn from disposition”. 1978 The NWT Game Ordinance was replaced by ‘An Ordinance Respecting Wildlife’. While continuing the restrictions on hunting and ‘acquiring wildlife, nests or eggs within a sanctuary’, the requirement for a license to enter the area was deleted from the statute. This reflected a new and more conciliatory approach to public recreational use of the Sanctuary. Currently, the Sanctuary is designated under the Northwest Territories Wildlife Act and the Nunavut Wildlife Act (New names for the previous, identical provisions of the NWT Game Ordinance) as a ‘wildlife sanctuary’. Provisions of these Acts attempt to fully protect all forms of wildlife within the Sanctuary from hunting and trapping. However, the harvesting rights of Inuit are set out in the NLCA. The lands comprising the Sanctuary also continue to be withdrawn under the Federal Territorial Lands Act, and are consequently unavailable for any form of exploration, development or disposition. (Thelon Game Sanctuary Management Plan)The Thelon Game Sanctuary Management Plan can be found here:http://www.reviewboard.ca/upload/project_document/EA0607-003_Thelon%20Game%20Sanctuary%20Management%20Plan_1159544997.pdfInformation about the Nunavut portion of the Thelon can be found here:http://www.nunavutparks.com/english/parks-special-places/thelon-wildlife-sanctuary/overview.aspx

Territorial Park > 10000 ha (81)

Boundaries of NWT Territorial Parks that are > 10,000 hectares (ha). This includes - Hidden Lake Territorial Park (Natural Enviroment Park) and - Gwich'in Territorial Park (Recreation Park)

Territorial Park (83)

In December 2011, the NWTCG used the National Road Network, Version 2, Edition 7 data, MACA ATLAS parcel data (February 2011) and Canada Land Survey Register (CLSR) to:1. Definitively locate most Territorial Parks as a point feature.. Happy Valley Recreation Park, McNallie Creek Wayside Park, and Salt Mountain Wayside Park locations may need further confirmation.2. Identify those for which there were digital survey plans.In May 2012, the point location of the Hay Rvier Territorial Park was corrected.NWTCG will be working with Parks and Tourism to compile digital boundaries for NWT Territorial Parks.The following Territorial Parks have digital boundaries (surveyed parcels or unsurveyed parcels):MACA ATLAS:Dory Point Wayside Park, Fort Providence Recreation Park, Fort Simpson Recreation Park, Fort Smith Mission Historic Park,Fort Smith/Queen Eliabeth Recreation Park, Fred Henne Recreation Park, Fred Henne Wayside Park - not in regs but on Commissioner's Land, Hay River Recreational Park, Jak Recreation Park, Kakisa River Wayside Park, Lady Evelyn Falls Natural Environment Park, Liard River Ferry Crossing - not in the regs but reserved for Parks, Little Buffalo Crossing Recreation Park, McKinnon Wayside Park, Nitainlaii Recreation Park, Prelude Lake Recreation Park, Reid Lake Recreation Lake, Yellowknife River Wayside parkCLSR:60th Parellel Recreation Park, Blackstone Recreation Park, Boundary Creek Wayside Park, Little Buffalo Falls Recreation Park, Madeline Lake Wayside Park, Pontoon Lake Wayside ParkThe following Territorial Parks have been legally described and the digital polygon boundaries are considered to be accurate:Hidden Lake Natural Environment ParkThe following Territorial Parks have digital boundaries that may need to be confirmed with a more detailed investigation:Gwich'in Recreation Park - legally described, digital boundaries need to be confirmedHay River Recreation Park - legally described but Survey Plans may have changed since Regs createdMcNallie Creek Wayside Park not enough information to confirm actual locationCameron Falls Wayside Park not in the regs, within Hidden Lake NEPPaniksak Wayside Park legal decription includes references to Survey Plans and monuments so should be straightforward to createPowder Point Wayside Park legal description adequate to create digital boundarySalt Mountain not enough detail to confirm location but located at approximate km 234Sambaa Deh Falls Recreation Park will need surveyor to locate actual boundariesTwin Falls Natural Environment Park much of it is found with CLSR but will need a surveyor to completeHappy Valley Recreation Park Description Regs do not match current Parcels in the MACA ATLAS and will require further investigationNorth Arm Recreation Park Creation of Behchoko, Plan in description may have been modified to Plan 89549, Lot 404Tetlit Gwinjik Day Use Area not in the Regulations, only in the brochure

National Park (85)

Boundaries of National Parks and National Park Reserves in the NWT. All boundaries were provided by David Murray, Senior Planner, New Northern Parks, Park Establishment Branch, National Parks Directorate, Parks Canada, Gatineau, Quebec.Parks Canada data is also part of the CARTS (Conservation Areas Reporting Tracking System) database maintained by CCEA. It can also be found as part of the Canada Lands Survey Register (CLSR) data. Parks Canada is responsible to the people and Parliament of Canada for administering a world-renowned system of national parks, national historic sites and national marine conservation areas. Canada‟s national parks are established to protect, for all time, special places representative of Canada‟s natural regions, and to connect Canadians with the enduring natural and cultural legacy of these places. The Parks Canada Agency Act (1998), Canada National Parks Act (2000) and Parks Canada Guiding Principles and Operational Policies (1994) set the context for this responsibility.Wood Buffalo National Park was established in 1922 to protect the free-roaming bison herds of the area. In 1926 it was expanded to include the Peace – Athabasca Delta area. Today, the park supports and protects many unique natural and cultural resources, from diverse ecosystems and rare species to the traditional activities of Aboriginal residents. In 1983, Wood Buffalo National Park became the eighth site in Canada to be granted World Heritage status by UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization).For more information about Wood Buffalo National Park:http://www.pc.gc.ca/pn-np/nt/woodbuffalo/index.aspxNahanni was set aside by Order-in-Council as a National Park Reserve in 1972, and was gazetted as a national park reserve in an amendment to the National Parks Act in 1976. The park will remain in "reserve" status pending settlement of outstanding Aboriginal land claims in the region. Nahanni was designated as an UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1978. The South Nahanni River achieved Canadian Heritage River Status in 1987. In 2009, the Nahanni National Park Reserve was expanded to include the remainder of the South Nahanni River within the Dehcho Interim Measures Agreement Area.For more information about the Nahanni National Park Reserve:http://www.pc.gc.ca/pn-np/nt/nahanni/index.aspxAulavik was established in 1992 through the Inuvialuit Final Agreement (1984) and the Western Arctic (Inuvialuit) Claim Settlement Act (1984) (Figure 1). The park is cooperatively managed by Parks Canada and Inuvialuit as per the Inuvialuit Final Agreement and An Agreement for the Establishment of a National Park on Banks Island (1992).For more information about Aulavik National Park:http://www.pc.gc.ca/pn-np/nt/aulavik/index.aspxTuktut Nogait was proposed as a National park in 1988 to protect the calving grounds of the Bluenose caribou herd. In 1996, the Government of Canada, the Government of the Northwest Territories, the Inuvialuit Game Council, the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, the Paulatuk Community Corporation, and the Paulatuk Hunters and Trappers Committee signed the Tuktut Nogait Agreement (Parks Canada, 1996). In December 1998, Parliament established the Park in legislation. In 2011, the Sahtu portion of Tuktut Nogait was formally added to the Park. There has been land reserved in Nunavut to expand the Park so that it is fully representative of the Tundra Hills National Region.For more information about Tuktut Nogait National Park:http://www.pc.gc.ca/pn-np/nt/tuktutnogait/index.aspx

Conservation Management Consideration (88)

Established Protection (90)