NWT ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING ANNUAL RESULTS WORKSHOP 2012/2013 SUMMARY REPORT Workshop held in Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, January 21-23, 2013, in partnership with Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Environment Canada and the Government of the Northwest Territories.

Facilitation and reporting by:

Final edits:

i

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................... i

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... ii

Background ................................................................................................................................................... 1

Presentation Question & Answer Sessions (Days 1, 2 and 3) ....................................................................... 5

PATHWAY Approach Feedback Session (Day 2) .......................................................................................... 16

Panel Discussion (Day 3) ............................................................................................................................. 20

Workshop Evaluation .................................................................................................................................. 28

Appendix A (Final Agenda) .......................................................................................................................... 33

Appendix B (PATHWAY Handout) ............................................................................................................... 45

Appendix C (Attendance List; summary) .................................................................................................... 46

Appendix D (Evaluation Questionnaires; blank) ......................................................................................... 52

ii

Executive Summary

The first collaborative NWT Environmental Monitoring Annual Results Workshop was held in

Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, from January 21-23, 2013. The event was co-hosted by Aboriginal

Affairs and Northern Development Canada’s (AANDC) Cumulative Impact Monitoring Program (CIMP);

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO); Environment Canada(EC); and the Department of Environment and

Natural Resources, Government of the Northwest Territories (ENR GNWT).

The workshop objective was to share recent research and monitoring results, as well as to create

discussion between researchers and decision-makers. The workshop focused on NWT environmental

research and monitoring related to the three priority Valued Components: caribou, fish and water, and

presentations were given primarily by researchers and government/organizational representatives.

There was also a discussion of the upcoming PATHWAY guidance document for research in the North,

and an expert panel discussion linking research and monitoring to decision-making in the NWT.

Attendees included representatives of government organizations, researchers, academics, Aboriginal

organizations, community members, regulatory authorities and non-government groups.

Overall, the workshop was a considered a success. Holding a consolidated workshop – as opposed to

multiple events, each hosted by a different organization – allowed for greater sharing, collaboration and

discussion. The PATHWAY discussion was well received, and participants felt that the panel discussion

helped tie together the links between research and decision-making. However, a number of participants

felt that more time for questions following each presentation would be beneficial, as would clarifying

the linkages between research and decision-making even further. The feedback also suggested that

additional decision-makers should be more involved in the event, and that there should be a stronger

focus on community engagement. Though the workshop was well-received, and clearly indicated how a

collaborative format is beneficial, participants’ suggestions will be incorporated to make the 2013 NWT

Annual Results Workshop an even greater success.

1

Background

From January 21-23, 2013, the federal and territorial government departments responsible for

environmental monitoring and research in the Northwest Territories held the first collaborative

Environmental Monitoring Annual Results Workshop in Yellowknife. The workshop was co-hosted by

Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada’s (AANDC) Cumulative Impact Monitoring Program

(CIMP); Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO); Environment Canada (EC); and the Department of

Environment and Natural Resources, Government of the Northwest Territories (ENR GNWT).

While there has been some departmental/organizational sharing of research results in the past, this was

the first co-sponsored NWT Annual Results Workshop that brought together such a range of

government organizations, researchers, academics, Aboriginal organizations, community members,

regulatory authorities, non-government groups and industry. This level of information-sharing and

discussion made effective use of each organisation’s time and resources. Perhaps more importantly, it

also brought together several organizations from both inside and outside government to network, share

research methodologies and findings, gain perspective on cumulative impacts, and make the

increasingly critical link between research and decision-making. The hope was that researchers and

other interested parties could look beyond their “silos” and approach research from a broader

cumulative-effects standpoint. Furthermore, a single workshop recognized and addressed some

frustrations northern organizations had with balancing multiple meetings, and consolidation among

different parties avoided overloading communities, researchers, and other participants.

Over the course of the three days a number of researchers and departmental/organizational

representatives gave presentations to showcase a diverse array of projects and recent results (see

Appendix A for the final agenda, p.33). The presentations focused on the three priority Valued

Components: caribou, fish and water, and due to the high level of interest the schedule was quite full.

When time permitted, question-and-answer sessions were held after each presentation.

In addition to the 32 presentations, there were two interactive sessions, held on Day 2 and Day 3:

Discussion of the PATHWAY approach: This initiative, funded by AANDC’s Cumulative Impact

Monitoring Program will produce a research guidance document, that describes a step-by-step

method to help communities and their monitoring partners (regulators, academic researchers

and/or government) discuss questions around land, water and resources, and design monitoring

programs that best suit everyone’s needs (see Appendix B for the PATHWAY handout, p. 45). Please

visit the NWT Discovery Portal for a plain language version of the Pathways approach:

http://sdw.enr.gov.nt.ca/nwtdp_upload/CIMP%20Pathway%20booklet.pdf

Panel discussion: Designed as an interactive forum to link research to decision-making. Panel

members included:

Richard Binder – Inuvialuit Game Council

Zabey Nevitt – Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board,

2

Amy Thompson – Gwich’in Renewable Resources Board

Trevor Lantz – University of Victoria

Julian Kanigan – Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, CIMP

Malcolm Robb – Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, Minerals Directorate

There were approximately 100 attendees at the workshop (see Appendix C for attendee list, p.46),

though participation varied across the three days. Participants represented the co-hosting government

departments, as well as Aboriginal governments and other Aboriginal organizations, co-management

boards, researchers and academics, non-government

organizations, not-for-profit groups and industry.

A presentation abstracts volume has been prepared by

CIMP staff, and is available on the NWT Discovery Portal at:

http://sdw.enr.gov.nt.ca/nwtdp_upload/2012_2013_CIMP_RE

SULTS_WORKSHOP_ABSTRACTS.pdf

The presentations given during the workshop can be found

through searching for them on the Discovery Portal (note:

they are provided in .pdf format, not PowerPoint).

Tait Communications was contracted to facilitate the

workshop and to produce a report summarizing the

discussions that took place, as well as any key outcomes.

Attendees were asked to fill out evaluation surveys for

each of the three days to provide input on things such as

the relevance and usefulness of each element of the

workshop. Sample questionnaires developed by Tait

Communications are provided at the end of this report (see

Appendix D, p.52).

Purpose of Workshop

Overall:

• Present results of current NWT environmental monitoring and research related to fish,

water, and caribou

• Link projects to the needs of resource management decision-makers, and incorporate

meaningful community involvement and capacity building

• Provide a forum for discussion between researchers and NWT decision-makers

Julian Kanigan (AANDC, CIMP) and Alan Erlich,

(Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact

Review Board) talking during a break in the

workshop.

3

Directed discussions:

Day 2 (Jan 22nd) included a discussion of the PATHWAY approach, providing a forum to:

• Obtain input from monitoring and research partners on keys to success and challenges in

northern monitoring and research, how to overcome those challenges, and how to improve

northern and community engagement in monitoring and research

• Produce a guidance document to promote better northern monitoring and research

Day 3 (Jan 23rd) included a Panel discussion, providing a forum for:

• Decision-makers to provide input on integrating research into decision-making processes

• Exploration of opportunities for future collaborations that will address research

gaps/priorities

Opening Remarks

Julian Kanigan, Section Head for the Cumulative Impact Monitoring Program (CIMP) at AANDC, spoke on

behalf of the host organizations to open the workshop. He noted that this workshop was being held

because CIMP and the other host organizations had heard from stakeholders that, rather than holding a

number of meetings throughout the territory, a single, consolidated event would be a better option. All

the host organizations agreed this was the best approach, and jointly decided to co-host the workshop.

The objective would be to look at the current results of Northwest Territories environmental research

and monitoring related to fish, water and caribou. Participants of a previous CIMP workshop from last

year had determined that these are the priority Valued Components for decision-makers in the territory.

Furthermore, this current workshop would be a forum for discussion between those who monitor

(researchers) and those who use that information (decision-makers).

Mr. Kanigan then gave a presentation on the current state of cumulative impact monitoring in the

Northwest Territories. The importance of cumulative impact monitoring for resource decision-making

was highlighted during the recent environmental impact review of the potential Gahcho Kué Diamond

Mine. The review also underscored the need for a stronger framework or a coordinated effort for

monitoring and managing cumulative impacts in the NWT.

He noted that, while CIMP can be a central source and repository for cumulative impact monitoring

information, the program cannot act alone. Partnerships at multiple levels, from between programs to

within individual projects, are necessary for success.

4

Mr. Kanigan ended his opening remarks by noting that CIMP is working in a number of key areas in

2012-2013:

Coordination (e.g. conducting a review of regional cumulative effects monitoring frameworks

that could be used to align project-specific monitoring with regional monitoring

Guidance (e.g. using the PATHWAY approach to seek community input, in partnership with the

Aurora Research Institute, to develop guidance on how researchers can better interact with

communities)

Accessibility (e.g. developing the NWT Discovery Portal, an environmental monitoring data

library, in collaboration with the NWT Centre for Geomatics, to bring disparate sources of

environmental data into one accessible location)

Information gaps (e.g. providing targeted funding for priority information gaps that include

baseline data and address cumulative impacts)

Communication (e.g. co-hosting an annual results workshop with monitoring partners,

distributing an abstract volume and directly communicating with decision-makers and

communities)

5

Presentation Question & Answer Sessions (Days 1, 2 and 3)

Over the three days, researchers and departmental/organizational representatives gave a number of

presentations on research/monitoring initiatives in the NWT. While the overall topics were grouped

based on the priority Valued Components caribou, fish and water, the presentations covered a wide

range of issues, and showcased not only northern projects but also a great degree of cooperation

between research organizations and communities in the North, and those in southern Canada.

Where time allowed, question-and-answer sessions were held after each presentation. The following is

a summary of these Q&A sessions.

Julian Kanigan (AANDC, CIMP)

Update on cumulative impact monitoring in the Northwest Territories

Is it possible for the Discovery Portal to link with other sites so that data can be shared without

needing to visit multiple portals/databases?

CIMP is working on a business case to expand the Discovery Portal in an effort to make it a “one-stop

shop” for those looking for information on environmental research and monitoring in the NWT, without

having to know about the region beforehand. This would include access to information from other sites.

There are other companies working on similar projects, so if the Portal expansion goes ahead, CIMP

would try to form partnerships, as opposed to duplicating the work of other organizations.

Nicole McCutchen (GNWT – Environment and Natural Resources)

Boreal caribou monitoring in the Dehcho

When would fires not disturb boreal caribou populations?

Evidence shows that under normal circumstances, the caribou will move out of their normal range

during a fire, and so there will not be much effect on the population. However, other disturbances

(specifically, those caused by human activity) can reduce the space for a herd to move, thus increasing

the effect of fire.

Could the population fluctuations be the result of natural dynamics?

Natural population dynamics have been taken into account. Even when accounting for these, we still see

population fluctuations that have relationships with other factors.

How do seismic line widths relate to their use by wildlife?

The theory is that the narrower the line, the less the impact on wildlife; however, this is hard to test.

Seismic lines are often scattered and it is difficult to monitor their use by big game. We do know that

narrower lines have less of an impact on some birds. Smaller line cuts seem to regenerate faster in

southern Canada, but it’s not yet clear if this is the case in the North (factors like slower regeneration

rates may affect this).

6

Lisa Smith (GNWT – Environment and Natural Resources)

Succession and regeneration response on seismic lines with respect to ecology, disturbance factors and

time

Does your study look at the ecological effect of regeneration on wildlife?

This study is trying to provide a database on forest regeneration in seismic lines. It may be possible to

provide wildlife data to others, but any such data won’t be analysed under this study.

Is it possible to assign attribute information to existing data?

It is possible, but it depends on the amount of data collected and the period of time over which it is

gathered. Depending on the information collected, attributes such as age, width and regeneration index

can be assigned.

Will remote sensing be used in this study?

At this point there are no plans to use remote sensing; however, it would allow the study to be applied

over a larger area, so it is not out of the question.

Are there certain techniques for cutting seismic lines that are less impactful than others?

There is currently no clear information on that, but it is clear that re-using lines will slow the rate of

regeneration. It is unclear whether it is better to cause a more permanent impact over a smaller area, or

a less permanent impact over a greater area. The answers to these questions could be very beneficial to

decision-makers.

To what extent is this study using the methodology that has been used in the Yukon for similar work?

This study is using the same contractor that built the methodology for the Yukon study. However, the

Yukon study focused on reclamation, whereas the work in the NWT is focusing on habitat regeneration,

so the methodologies will differ.

Dean Cluff (GNWT – Environment and Natural Resources) Wolf abundance and predation on caribou

Is there evidence that wolves eat fish when there is a lack of caribou?

During the study, wolves were noticed at rapids from time to time, but it wasn’t clear if they were

fishing.

How can this information be useful to decision-makers?

There is still discrepancy between where people claim to

have spotted wolves and where wolf populations were seen

during the study. For example, people have said that there

are large numbers of wolves near Keller Lake, but the study

has shown no evidence of this. It still isn’t clear what this

means, but it appears that wolf populations may temporarily

migrate to follow caribou populations. With more

information, this sort of data could be used to make

“I’m wondering if there

aren’t as many wolves as

we might sometimes think.”

-Dean Cluff, GNWT Environment

and Natural Resources

7

decisions that impact wolf populations.

Wenjun Chen (Natural Resources Canada) Remote sensed summer range Forage anomalies and their cumulative impacts on Bathurst caribou

productivity from 1985-2011

Is it possible to collect data on other vegetation attributes at the same time?

It isn’t clear if it is possible to do this with the equipment being used. This survey is non-destructive, so

researchers do not want to cut down vegetation, for example, to collect more data.

Michael English (Wilfrid Laurier University)

Using passive microwave radiation to quantify the spatial and temporal distribution of snowpack water

equivalent in the northern boreal subarctic/low arctic tundra and implications for caribou

Are the ice lenses within the snow itself?

They form on top of the snow and get buried.

Is it possible to analyze how passive radiation interacts with the snowpack by comparing the ratio of

shorter to longer wavelengths?

The study used two measurements per day, which allowed for comparison between two time periods to

track the changes (e.g. to see if the changes were related to rain or warming). If there is a short-duration

event, however, this still can’t be tracked with the equipment used, so it isn’t yet known what effect this

has.

How does this information pertain to decision-makers?

This study only measures changes in the snowpack, but other researchers (e.g. biologists) can use this

information to further their own studies. People from the research team are currently in discussion with

residents of Wekweeti on the relationship between ice/snow and caribou.

Michael Svoboda (Environment Canada)

Arctic Borderlands Ecological Knowledge Co-op: Contributions to ecological and cumulative impacts

monitoring

How is program funding sustained?

A program was started in Whitehorse in 1996 that had initially set up funding for monitoring in the

North, but that program has since ended. Funding for the Co-op is now agency-driven. These agencies

are looking for annual deliverable results, and so there has been less focus on long-term project funding

as of late. The Co-op is trying to form partnerships with conservation groups from southern Canada and

the US, but any partnerships must keep community interests at heart.

Questions about revisiting/overhauling the database design:

Questions were added to the survey each year until it became a three-hour questionnaire. This has been

pared down in recent years, and the entire database design has been overhauled once. Much of the

work was done through in-kind contributions, so it’s difficult to comment on the cost of that, but a

coordinator was paid $10,000 for her services during the overhaul. It may be difficult to get money from

8

“Because we are a northern

agency, we ultimately have

a responsibility to northern

communities.” -Mike Palmer, AANDC, CIMP

a US foundation for another overhaul. The foundations that the Co-op has been working with are

typically interested in funding specific types of projects, so it’s tough to say if re-designing a community-

based monitoring program would be high on their lists.

Questions related to local/traditional knowledge:

The Co-op is very focused on local/traditional knowledge. It asks people (e.g. hunters) what they see

with regard to the data being monitored, and later brings those people together to discuss and further

analyse the results. The Co-op would like to develop other products to use local/traditional knowledge

for analysis and integration with scientific data.

Ross Tallman/Yamin Janjua (Fisheries and Oceans Canada) Trophic network assessment of Mackenzie Great Lakes using Ecopath modeling: A path to ecosystem

based management approach

No discussion of this presentation.

Kimberly Howland (Fisheries and Oceans Canada) Long term monitoring of Great Bear Lake fisheries and the aquatic ecosystem

Why could the results of this study be so different from the Johnson study?

It’s possible that last year was exceptionally warm, so this could have affected the results. Benthic

communities also seem to develop over a long period of time, so there is evidence that the lake is

changing.

How does this information pertain to decision-makers?

For people who manage fish populations, it can indicate how populations can change.

Mike Palmer/Chief Lloyd Chicot (AANDC, CIMP/Ka’a’gee Tu First Nation)

Investigating the cumulative impacts of environmental change and human activity in the Tathlina

watershed

How thick does the ice get in the lake, and how does this

affect oxygen levels?

By the end of the winter, much of the lake has frozen to the

bottom, so oxygen levels are probably very low. The

Department of Fisheries and Oceans is curious about this and

is in the process of measuring it.

What resolution is expected from sediment core samples

taken?

0.5 to 0.25 cm.

Participant comment: The Aboriginal population in the area is struggling with this lake because of all

the changes it is undergoing.

9

Kim Janzen (Environment Canada)

Community and scientific monitoring of the Great Slave Lake ecosystem

Fort Resolution is concerned about water quality because of the oil sands. Why not measure for

factors related to this?

This study has been a baseline to test how things can be measured. Factors like PAHs, which are

indicators of oil sands impacts, are expensive to measure. However, once there is proof of concept these

things may be added to the study in the future.

Karen Dunmall/Tracey Loewen/Lisa Loseto (Fisheries and Oceans Canada)

Community coastal based monitoring: A regional approach to the Inuvialuit Settlement Region [ISR]

No discussion of this presentation.

Trevor Lantz (University of Victoria)

Tracking and understanding vegetation change in the northern Mackenzie basin

Is user error assumed to be randomly distributed or systemic?

In simulation, it was assumed that different observers would be used, and that user error would be

drawn from a random distribution. Actual estimates were derived from repeat sampling done across the

landscape. In a number of places, multiple observers recorded the same data, and that data was

analysed to get a sense of the error range. There were some assumptions made, but this gives a sense of

the magnitude of the impact.

Does the study take into account the natural ability of some species to propagate?

Yes, but there is still evidence that successional directions are changing at a different rate than they

were 100 years ago.

Paul Adlakha (LOOKNorth)

CIMP Implementation using remote sensing

Participant comment: There seems to be a great opportunity to use traditional knowledge to back up

the remote sensing data.

Things like analysis and design come from people, not remote sensing equipment, and traditional

knowledge can play a big role in these aspects.

Steve Kokelj (AANDC, CIMP)

Creation of a PATHWAY Framework Guidance Document

Discussion was deferred to a dedicated feedback session later in the day. See Pathway Approach

Feedback Session (p. 17).

10

Colin Gallagher (University of Manitoba, Fisheries and Oceans Canada)

Results of multi-year study of movement patterns of Lake Trout in Chitty Lake, NT

Were any trends noticed that may help determine spawning grounds?

The tracking tags used didn’t provide enough information to determine this. However, nets were initially

set at places that are believed to be likely spawning grounds. Also, the timing of trout moving into

shallower water seems to correlate to spawning season.

Neil Mochnacz (Fisheries and Oceans Canada) A watershed-scale sampling protocol for accurate distribution and trend assessments of stream

salmonids in the Northwest Territories

How long does it take to apply this sampling method to each stream?

About half to three-quarters of a day per two-person team, depending on how efficient they are.

Subsequent sampling takes less time, because a team is done once a fish is detected, rather than

sampling an entire 90m section of a stream.

Are there ways to incorporate traditional/local knowledge into a study like this?

When the predictive models are built, the maps are often taken to the communities to find out if the

models correlate with trends seen by locals. During the surveys themselves, researchers can determine

how well these two sets of knowledge match.

Matt Guzzo (University of Manitoba, Fisheries and Oceans Canada)

Habitat use of predatory fish species in a northern boreal lake

How does this information pertain to decision-makers?

Determining information such as fish spawning areas can help organizations such as mining companies

perform environmental assessments. For example, it could help determine where a mine should put its

effluent.

Can you provide information on the acoustic tags used?

They are VEMCO V13P pressure-sensing tags. They can be used on other animals, including mammals,

and can be implanted or attached externally. They cannot be used with radio tags; however,

accelerometer tags are available. Temperatures were inferred based on information from temperature

probes.

In the illustrations there are areas where it almost appears that fish were on shore, but this is just a

mismatch between the estimated home range and actual shoreline. VEMCO does error-correction

before the data is seen, so in the end the equipment is accurate to within a few metres.

11

Jesse Carrie (University of Manitoba)

The influence of climate change on the carbon cycle and its impact on fish in freshwater lakes

How will results be communicated back to communities and other interested parties?

There will be a workshop in Trout Lake later in the summer, so some results will hopefully be

communicated then. Results may also be communicated through the Sahtu Regional Resources Board

Facebook page.

Participant comment: There seems to be an interesting structural geological trend. For possible

information on other sources of mercury, perhaps speak with the geologists at the geological centre

for information relating to bedrock geochemistry and glacial overburden geochemistry.

Roland Hall (University of Waterloo)

Quantifying baseline PAC levels and changes since onset of Alberta oil sands development: A sediment

core study from the Slave River Delta

Why did you decide to sample the types of sites, and during the time of year, that you did?

Most of the sites studied are pulse-flooded basins, with ice-

jams being their most common source of flooding. The way

the rivers flow into these deltas changes over time. The

researchers had thought about testing some lakes in the

Peace-Athabasca Delta, but there were a number of factors

that made this unfeasible. Another researcher had

previously compared lakes in the region between the 1950s

and 1990s also noticed that there was not a large

discrepancy in contamination levels. The levels that she saw

in online (continuously flooded) lakes were similar to those

of pulse-flooded lakes.

Have you taken into account that the severity of flooding

may be very different now than it was decades ago?

While the frequency of flooding is changing for most lakes

studied, the severity of that flooding is unknown. However, because of the sampling method used, the

severity shouldn’t matter to this study.

How does this information pertain to decision-makers?

This study is attempting to establish baseline data, so monitoring programs can be built upon it. As

decision-makers are concerned about contamination from the oil sands, the research team is trying to

communicate findings back to them. It may be some comfort to decision-makers to know that the

evidence isn’t showing the sort of changes due to contamination that were feared.

How does this relate to a recent paper by Kurek et al. that showed that PAHs in lake sediment cores

are rising?

The two studies were done from different distances from the oil sands. Kurek et al. showed that total

PAH levels went up in Lake Namur after the onset of oil sands activity; however, the values rise and fall

“The extent to which the oil

sands are adding

contaminants above

natural processes of

exposure along the river

banks remains a really

difficult problem.”

-Roland Hall,

University of Waterloo

12

in alternating samples. At the lower ranges, the values are less than they were pre-oil sands activity.

There may also be some issues with the sampling methods used.

Do oil sands activities increase contamination downstream?

For years, studies have confirmed downstream pollution from oil sands activities. This study hasn’t

shown a significant change in PAC concentrations in the rivers sampled, but these rivers also have a very

high natural baseline. It is unknown what percentage of contamination is from natural sources and what

percentage is from oil sands mining.

Peter Cott (Fisheries and Oceans Canada)

Sound production by Lota lota

Were any feeding sounds recorded?

It doesn’t appear so. The recorded sounds that can be attributed to burbot appear to only be related to

reproduction.

Was there evidence of burbot making underwater caves/troughs?

There was evidence of this.

Are there recordings of winter road traffic to relate this to interference of burbot reproduction?

Winter construction/transportation sounds were recorded so they could be filtered out in the

underwater recordings. The researchers have a 2.5-month recording of the under-ice soundscape near

an urban centre (Yellowknife) and are working on another paper related to that.

Participant comment: Fort McPherson would be a good place to record. There is a lot of ice fishing

activity in the area, and a lot of information about fish locations.

The researchers are considering something similar to this.

Karen Dunmall (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, University of Manitoba)

Monitoring salmon in the Canadian Arctic to assess and adapt to change

There seem to be quite a few pink salmon near Fort McPherson lately. Where are they coming from

and where do they spawn?

While there are reports of increased pink and chum salmon populations in the Mackenzie River, it still

isn’t clear where these fish are coming from. The researchers have a reward system for providing fish to

help them figure this out.

Xinhua Zhu (Fisheries and Oceans Canada) Understanding adaptive mechanisms of fishery productivity and fish community diversity

corresponding to environmental and cumulative impacts on Great Slave Lake ecosystems

No discussion of this presentation.

13

Jennifer Fresque-Baxter/Michele Culhane (GNWT – Environment and Natural

Resources/AANDC) Water Stewardship Strategy Update

No discussion of this presentation.

Erin Kelly (GNWT – Environment and Natural Resources)

Implementing an NWT approach to collaborative monitoring

Does the vulnerability assessment track how the land is

used in the watershed (e.g. community/industrial

development or traditional use)?

These sorts of things were identified during the “state of

the knowledge” report. Some areas of potential concern

were noticed. There are maps of community and industrial

development areas, but not of traditional land use areas.

However, there is another project in the works that may

help with this.

Who can communities contact to get in on the planning

process?

Anyone at the Department of Environment and Natural

Resources.

Jennifer Fresque-Baxter (GNWT – Environment and Natural Resources)

Cumulative effects monitoring in the Slave River

No discussion of this presentation.

Erin Kelly for Paul Jones (GNWT – Environment and Natural Resources / University of

Saskatchewan)

Fish Health in the Slave River Watershed

What do you mean by 3-ring and 5-ring PAHs?

Each comes from a different source.

Participant comment: People from Aboriginal communities involved in these studies would appreciate

a good contact person and a lead time of at least a week to properly organize partners and other

people to help.

“Most communities that

we've worked with

definitely want to be a part

of what is going to be

looked at, what questions

are going to be answered

and how that's going to

happen.”

-Erin Kelly, GNWT Environment

and Natural Resources

14

Stefan Goodman (GNWT – Environment and Natural Resources)

Furbearer contaminants, population and harvest – Slave River and River Delta

Is there any capacity/interest to expand this study to the Mackenzie Delta, and is there any interest in

otters?

There are no current plans, but, funding permitting, it may be possible to expand the study to the Delta.

Celine Gueguen (Trent University)

Monitoring heavy metals in the Mackenzie River basin

Why compare metal concentrations to drinking water guidelines instead of environmental standards?

Some people are interested in whether or not it is safe to drink out of the river, so drinking water

guidelines were used. However, environmental standards are stricter, so those may be a useful

comparison tool.

Fort McPherson’s water supply is separate from the river. How did questions of drinking water safety

come about, and have the results been reported to the surrounding communities yet?

This is related to drinking water while on the land, as opposed to community water supplies. The results

have not been reported to the communities yet, as this is very new data and it has not yet been fully

analysed. Meetings will be set up in various communities and the results will be released once analysis is

complete.

Can diffusive gradient in thin-film gels (DGTs) be used for other types of tests?

Yes. For example, they have been used on the Athabasca River to test for methyl mercury and other

metals, and can be used in marine environments as well.

Are there cost/logistic benefits to using DGTs as opposed to other methods of testing?

Other collection methods can change the speciation of metals over time, which can change

bioavailability and toxicity. DGTs won’t cause the samples to change, even if there is quite some time

between collection and analysis.

Participant comment: From an Aboriginal point of view, no water quality standards are strict enough,

as they are based on opinions from southern Canada. It is important that water is safe for

consumption by both humans and animals.

Chris Spence (Environment Canada)

Changes to taiga shield water chemistry regimes with enhanced winter streamflow

Were any records from before the 1980s used for this study?

The records used are from 1983 onward. There are records starting from 1972, but the information

presented in those is a little different. However, when looking at trend analysis, the researchers did use

the records as far back as 1972.

15

Joshua Thienpont (Queen’s University)

Landscape flooding in the Mackenzie Bison Sanctuary

The recorded mercury concentrations seem to be very low. Will methyl mercury concentrations also

be measured for comparison?

Methyl mercury concentrations will be measured. Analysis of the core samples has really just begun, and

there are a number of variables to test. It can be difficult to test for methyl mercury, so this may take

some time.

This study looks at the relationship between

lake expansion and mercury concentration. If

the landscape is getting wetter in general,

does it matter if the lake is expanding?

One reason that the lake was tested is

because lake sediments are easy to measure.

However, wetlands and other areas can be

tested as well.

Bison are often lost to anthrax. It is

suspected that anthrax spores may come to

the surface because of fluctuations in water

levels. The Department of Environment and

Natural Resources has a good record of

anthrax outbreaks. Could this be correlated to water level changes?

Yes. These records will be compared to lake and tree records.

Steve Kokelj (AANDC, CIMP)

A watershed approach to monitoring cumulative impacts of landscape change

This study involves digging through the permafrost on a section of the Dempster Highway. Why is it

harder to dig on one side of the highway than the other?

It’s probably related to the vegetation on each side. On one side, the willows are taller. Snow is able to

collect and insulate the permafrost, causing some melting. On the other side, there is more low-shrub

tundra. With less insulation, the permafrost is harder.

Can these landscape disturbances (slumps) be correlated to human activity?

There isn’t enough information to know for sure right now, but it seems like they are a natural

phenomenon. However, it seems like the slumps of today are taking longer to heal than they did in the

past.

Are there any recommendations for decision-makers to help prevent these slumps from happening?

There have been issues with quarries in the past. When quarrying, some ice is removed from the

ground, which then thaws. If too much is removed at once, the large amount of melted water can cause

problems. The best advice, however, would be to look for slump-prone areas and avoid them.

Joshua Thienpont (Queen’s University)

16

PATHWAY Approach Feedback Session (Day 2)

The PATHWAY is a step-by-step process designed to help plan and implement research or monitoring

programs that address issues of importance and concern to northern communities. It is also meant to

more effectively engage northern partners in the research process.

On day two of the workshop, Steve Kokelj gave a presentation outlining the PATHWAY Framework. A

feedback session was held later in the day with two main objectives:

To obtain input from monitoring and research partners on the challenges and the keys to

success in northern monitoring and research, how to overcome these challenges, and how

to improve northern and community engagement in these programs

To use this input to help produce a guidance document promoting better northern

monitoring and research

The workshop participants were initially divided into three groups, with each group given time to discuss

and provide input and recommendations on each of the three major sections of the PATHWAY

Framework (Steps 1-4, Steps 5-6, Steps 7-8; see Appendix B for summary of Steps, p.45). Each of the

three workout groups was facilitated by a member of the PATHWAY team and all feedback was captured

on flipcharts that were provided to the main PATHWAY analyst for further analysis and inclusion in her

work. Feedback from these workouts was not reported back in the plenary format and therefore is not

captured in this report.

Following the breakout groups, a plenary discussion was used to discuss the results.

Five main themes emerged from the conversation:

How the document should be published

How to integrate NWT communities into research and monitoring programs

How to make people aware of PATHWAY resources

How to create interest in the framework

To what degree the document should provide both practical guidance and advice

Publishing

There seemed to be strong support for an online version of the document. Participants noted that a

web-based document could be easier to access and would be easier to distribute to a wider audience.

One person noted that an online version could be enriched with multimedia resources such as images,

animations and videos to bring the document to life and make it more easily understood.

17

Another participant pointed out that the communities of the NWT play a role in these monitoring and

research programs, and that a number of community members – especially elders – may not have

frequent internet access.

The group as a whole agreed that both an online document and a hard copy should be available. Some

noted that the online version could contain more content than the hard copy, as well as supplementary

resources. This would minimize the length of the printed version, but would still provide a wealth of

resources for research partners.

Community Integration

The group seemed to agree that it is

important to provide information for

scientists conducting research or

monitoring in the North for the first time,

and to provide awareness of northern

best practices. NWT communities and

Aboriginal populations often have a

vested interest in environmental

monitoring and research. Participants felt

that a research methodology that involves

and works with the communities would be

beneficial for everyone involved.

It was noted that involving community

members in the planning stages is

important for several reasons. Perhaps most

importantly, it allows researchers to identify the questions and issues that communities have, and to

plan programs around answering these questions. Involving community members in the planning stages

of a project, and using traditional or local knowledge, can provide researchers with valuable information

that might not be otherwise available – saving them time and money. Furthermore, bringing community

members into a research or monitoring program can create interest and a sense of ownership of that

program and eventual research results.

Participants felt that the PATHWAY document should be a “two-way street,” providing information for

researchers on how to speak to communities, but also providing information for communities and

decision-makers on how to get their concerns addressed by researchers. Many felt that the document

should provide ways to make it easier to link scientific and traditional knowledge. One person noted that

the PATHWAY Framework already seems to be about reaching an understanding between traditional

and scientific knowledge. Using plain language and a simple study protocol can help make messages

Participants discuss the PATHWAY framework during an

interactive session

18

clearer for everyone involved. The same person further suggested that it might be useful to do a pilot

with a CIMP-supported project to field-test the PATHWAY document before it is made public.

Creating Awareness

A few participants raised questions about how the PATHWAY document would be circulated. If the

document and related framework are to be a guide for conducting environmental research and

monitoring in the North, then it is not enough to simply distribute the information to a handful of

researchers and research partners already working in the North. The group agreed that the document

should be readily available to researchers in southern Canada so they can educate themselves on the

best practices for northern environmental research. Specific suggestions provided were:

Many graduate students engaged in northern research are supported through the Northern

Scientific Training Program. A professor at each university co-ordinates his or her school’s

applications to the program. Making these people aware of the PATHWAY resources will go a

long way to ensuring that the information is used.

ArcticNet supports a great deal of northern research, so it could help to make them aware.

The CIMP secretariat could send out emails to universities.

The Aurora Research Institute could put a web link in all of the letters that it sends to

researchers coming up north.

Creating Interest

One participant asked if the PATHWAY Framework would be a “requirement” or a “suggestion” for

researchers working in the NWT, noting that people may not take the document seriously if it is simply a

suggestion. This created a discussion on how to create interest so that people will follow the document’s

advice.

One person stated that the document and associated resources should be marketed as a benefit to

researchers coming to the North. However, this person noted, different people may have differing ideas

of what constitutes a benefit. It may be a good idea to distribute the information in different formats for

different audiences; for example, webinars may be a good way to reach some southern students.

Another person agreed with the webinar idea, noting that not everyone has the same questions or

needs the same answers; it can be good to engage in a live dialogue.

19

Practical Guidance or Advice?

Throughout the discussion it became clear that individual group members envisioned the primary focus

of the document as taking one of two forms: practical guidance for research and monitoring in the

North, or a collection of advice and case studies. However, the group seemed to easily agree that both

sections would contain valuable resources for researchers in the NWT, and should be included.

One participant specifically requested case studies for each of the nine parts of the PATHWAY

Framework, for further information on how to best implement the PATHWAY approach. Other group

members agreed that this seems to be a good idea.

As noted above, while many members of the group thought that case studies and other pieces of less

practical advice were a good idea, they may be best suited to the online version of the document.

Please visit the NWT Discovery Portal for a plain language version of the Pathways approach:

http://sdw.enr.gov.nt.ca/nwtdp_upload/CIMP%20Pathway%20booklet.pdf

20

From left to right: Malcolm Robb, Trevor Lantz, Amy Thompson,

Richard Binder

Panel Discussion (Day 3)

The end of the third day saw a panel discussion intended to give panelists a chance to share their

observations of the workshop outcomes and make linkages between research/monitoring and decision-

making in the NWT. Panel members included:

Richard Binder Inuvialuit Game Council

Zabey Nevitt Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board

Amy Thompson Gwich’in Renewable Resources Board

Trevor Lantz University of Victoria

Julian Kanigan Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, CIMP

Malcolm Robb Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, Minerals

Directorate

The following provides a summary of each panel member’s opening remarks, followed by a summary of

the questions and answers.

Opening Remarks

Richard Binder (Inuvialuit Game Council)

Before the CIMP program was started in 1999, research and monitoring programs were developed

without consultation from Aboriginal communities. Aboriginal groups were only involved once the

programs had been developed. This didn’t work very well for the communities. Under CIMP, however,

Aboriginal groups are involved from the outset.

The Discovery Portal was created as a way to track cumulative impacts and provide information on how

to make responsible decisions. Now there are other sources of information as well, and it’s important to

find a way to manage and combine all of this information so it is easily available and usable.

21

Over the years, the number of research proposals that CIMP manages has grown substantially. However,

it’s not enough to simply do research here. We want to know what a program will do for a community,

and how the team will be involved in that community. When a team is involved in a community, it allows

them to tailor a study to the issues of the area. Communications can’t be separated from capacity

building.

In the same vein, results have to be communicated to the communities in the right way. It isn’t enough

for researchers to meet with only a few Aboriginal people. To get the community involved, the right

people have to be at those meetings so that the information is properly disseminated.

Zabey Nevitt (Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board)

Integrated land and resource management regimes like the co-management boards in the Mackenzie

Valley provide a lot of different processes that are meant to work together. We can’t rely on scientific

research or environmental assessments alone. All of these parts of the regime are needed in the North

to move things forward.

Many of the questions heard at the workshop were from scientists wondering how to get their work to

regulators. The best way is to make information freely available so anyone advocating for a particular

position can take that information and use it in their interactions with decision-makers. These advocates

and interveners need to use this science to support their positions, and it’s the scientist’s job to make

sure that the interveners understand that science.

Scientists sometimes forget to make recommendations in their work. This workshop discussed making

partnerships and sharing results with communities, but there are other steps that can help decision-

makers as well. Scientists should be involved in developing specific recommendations. If regulators are

to make recommendations, they need to access and understand all the relevant information, and

working in an interdisciplinary capacity with scientists can help.

Amy Thompson (Gwich’in Renewable Resources Board)

The Gwich’in Renewable Resources Board (GRRB) has been responsible for managing resources like fish

and wildlife for some time. It has conducted its own research in the past, but over time has shifted its

focus to developing, approving and implementing management plans. It also has a process in place for

identifying research priorities from the communities.

Steve Kokelj’s presentation on the PATHWAY approach was the most noteworthy of the workshop, as it

seems to be a good tool for fostering discussion and cooperation among potential research partners.

Michael Svoboda’s presentation on the Arctic Borderlands Co-op and Mike Palmer’s talk on the Tathlina

watershed were notable in that they were driven by community concerns and can help determine

sustainable quotas. Trevor Lantz’s and Xinhua Zhu’s presentations were very relevant as well.

22

With regard to strengthening the links between research/monitoring and decision-making in the NWT,

it’s important to build trust and respect at the community level. Researchers and planners should work

on community partnerships during the planning stages of a project.

The GRRB has a successful project to share that may provide a useful model. For a number of years the

Board has supported a monitoring program on Rat River, using community monitors to collect biological

information. The program can be considered a success story not only because it is a good source of

information, but also because the GRRB has been working with community resource councils to hire and

involve people from within the communities.

Trevor Lantz (University of Victoria)

After working in the western arctic over the last 10 years and getting to know the people there, Dr.

Lantz has become a big believer in community-based research. He believes it makes research better,

safer and more fun.

However, sometimes researchers, community members and

decision-makers can have very different concerns. To conduct

effective and meaningful research, it’s important to identify

where these concerns overlap, but also where they don’t.

Sometimes the things that communities or decision-makers

need aren’t the things that researchers can provide.

Managing roles, responsibilities and expectations needs to be

a bigger part of the conversation.

Communities and decision-makers must make their research

needs known and the responsibilities must be shared with

researchers. Community members and decision-makers may

not want to engage in every project, but may want to be

much more active in others. And that’s okay.

Julian Kanigan (AANDC, CIMP)

CIMP is guided by a northern working group composed of Aboriginal groups and government

representatives. There are a number of organizations involved in monitoring and research in the NWT,

and it would be great to have them involved with CIMP as well, as partnerships are critical for the

program’s success.

CIMP is trying to use multiple delivery methods for its results. Communicating information back to the

communities and trying to make data more accessible through the Discovery Portal are just a couple of

ways that the program is striving to get its information out to its audiences.

“If we just assume that

finding these areas of

common ground is going to

feed into decision-making

and be a panacea for the

kinds of environmental

information that we need,

then I think we're going to

misstep.”

-Trevor Lantz,

University of Victoria

23

To strengthen the links between research and decision-making, it’s important for decision-makers to

determine their needs and communicate them to researchers. This year, CIMP is asking teams

submitting proposals to make early links with decision-makers. We are also moving to a more results-

based template.

There are a lot of great projects being showcased at the workshop, but they are very disparate. It would

be good if CIMP could pull them together under a stronger framework.

Malcolm Robb (AANDC, Minerals Directorate)

Mr. Robb opened by pointing out that the NT Geoscience Office (which falls within his directorate at

AANDC) has a large amount of data and years of experience learning how to gather, manage and use it.

The office has been working to move that data into an electronic format. This database could be used by

a wide range of decision-makers, and other researchers could learn from this example.

When doing research and reporting results, it is very important to remember that you never know who

will want access to your data, so don’t limit yourself. You also don’t control how those people will

interpret your data once it is out there.

People sometimes make assumptions about the amount of data that is available for the North, when

much of this data may not even exist. Researchers should not be afraid to say that there is no data on a

subject, as this may help decision-makers see the need to start collecting this information.

There is a large scope of research under the CIMP umbrella, and it can be difficult to explain just what

information is available. However, spreading this information to the public can bring partners from very

different, and sometimes unexpected, places.

Q & A Session

Questions for the panel session were generated in three ways: participant’s written submissions, a 30-

minute group workout to brainstorm questions that were then posed by the facilitators and participant

questions posed from the floor during the panel Q & A. Questions and responses from all three sources

are summarized here.

Have you seen good examples of strong links between research and decision-making?

Julian Kanigan/Steve Kokelj: One good example is the DFO water withdrawal protocol. It was based on

developing acceptable water withdrawal limits for ice road construction, and to develop a protocol for

land and water boards. Because of research, the limit was increased from 5% of the total volume of

under-ice water to 10%.

Steve Kokelj had previously worked on a sump monitoring protocol. When the researchers worked

closely with the NWT water board, the project worked well, and the team was very aware of the

24

regulatory process. However, as that link was weakened, the researchers were less aware of the

research that needed to be done.

What are the best ways to communicate research results so that non-scientists can understand?

Amy Thompson: One way is to build those partnerships with communities and decision-makers that

have been mentioned throughout the workshop. Each community has its own preferred means of

communication (radio, meetings, etc.), but groups such as resource boards can help explain how to best

communicate to each community.

Malcolm Robb: A few years ago, the geoscience office had a community mapping program. The program

used high school students from the communities to help generate that map. Researchers also asked

people if there were any features in their areas that they were curious about. When the program was

complete, the team flew the high school students to Yellowknife to help design and present a poster.

This was a good way to get the communities involved and to help them understand.

Is there a way to give researchers access to best-practice information so they can prepare for a visit to

a community?

Julian Kanigan: Hopefully that information will come out of the PATHWAY interviews.

Julian Kanigan/Trevor Lantz: Community members who are involved with research along the way are

more likely to understand the results. The process is a big part of the communication.

How are standardized protocols being developed and how do they affect cumulative impact studies?

Julian Kanigan: Standardized protocols are being addressed in a few different ways. When it comes to

water research, for example, the standard we’re moving toward is to make people aware of how the

data was collected. This doesn’t require any changes to how data is actually collected.

The next level would involve a scenario where everyone is collecting the same sort of standardized data.

However, this would depend on the purpose of the study. Cost would also have to be taken into

account. This sort of standardized data couldn’t be directly compared to older studies, but that older

data could still be useful.

Capacity-building can be very different from community to community. What’s the best way to

approach including capacity-building in research? How can capacity building be sustained and create a

foundation of knowledge in a community?

Richard Binder: It’s a good idea to train several people in a community. Where continuity is important, it

can be good to use the same person for a multi-year project, but generally when more people are

trained there are more options available to researchers, and communities feel a greater sense of

inclusion. It also helps to ensure that people are available to help with research or monitoring projects,

as trained individuals tend to get hired by other organizations.

25

How are western science and traditional knowledge considered in decision-making, and are there any

best practices for how they can be integrated, as they may not always align?

Zabey Nevitt: It’s an ongoing “adventure” to find a better

way to do this. Trying to integrate the two is not only a legal

requirement but also a part of the process that makes

decisions valuable. Lately, some companies have used

traditional knowledge early in the process-development

stage.

Sometimes these things work well together and sometimes

they don’t. It is important to bring sources of traditional

knowledge to decision-makers, but we also have to know

what the expectations are when it comes to what is to be

done with that information.

Amy Thompson: The Rat River monitoring program is a good

example of how traditional knowledge and science can work

well together. In the early 1990s there were community

concerns over declining char populations in the river. The

Gwich’in and Inuvialuit formed a working group to make decisions on how the population should be

managed. The communities provide information to DFO, but there is also scientific sampling being done

in the river. This information is analyzed and presented to the working group, the government and other

interested groups, and is used to make decisions.

When there is no overlap between scientific and community interests, what’s the best way to explain

this to communities, or to work with them despite the lack of overlap?

Trevor Lantz: Ideally, a project would contain a number of different threads with varying degrees of

interest to the different partners involved. Projects that involve multiple knowledge systems will never

have perfect overlap, but this can push research in directions that had not previously been considered.

However, if a researcher is not interested in any of the things that are interesting to a community,

cooperation can be difficult.

What are the main channels of environmental science information that you see decision-makers

using?

Malcolm Robb: When it comes to environmental data, AANDC tends to function as a team. Occasionally

they will get specific questions from inspectors or boards.

Julian Kanigan: The Discovery Portal is a good resource for finding monitoring or research results, but

there is still a gap for raw data. CIMP is trying to work toward a one-stop-shop where people can go for

all related data.

“Incorporating TK and

science into decision-

making is not only a

requirement … but it's a

part of the process up here

in the North that we must

do to make these decisions

be of any value.”

-Zabey Nevitt, Mackenzie Valley

Land and Water Board

26

The onus seems to be on researchers to submit information to places like CIMP, communities are

limited in their abilities to take raw data and turn it into usable information, and there can be

disagreements over how data is interpreted. Considering all of this, how do we make the system

work?

Zabey Nevitt: The system isn’t broken, but it also isn’t finished. There are still a lot of parts that are

missing, but this doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try to make decisions based on the evidence that we

have. We should find ways to channel the proper people and resources into the needed areas to make

the system complete and make good decisions.

There can be different ways to approach research in different regions. Can you offer any advice on

how to understand this and be sensitive to it?

Zabey Nevitt: Each community and region has

people who have been working there for a long

time with both aboriginal groups and government.

These people know who to talk to and are more

than willing to share that information.

Richard Binder: Each community in the Inuvialuit

Settlement Region has a community conservation

plan, and these are a wealth of information.

Has doing work in different regions changed how

you approach projects?

Trevor Lantz: There’s still a lot of learning that goes

into finding out what organizations like co-

management boards do.

When partnerships are formed between these

different groups, is the researcher primarily

responsible for the project, or is that responsibility

shared?

Julian Kanigan/Trevor Lantz: Everyone has a role to

play, and all of the partners must take ownership of

a project. Some of the more successful projects

have been team-driven. Part of the reason for

determining the overlap of interests is to find out where the responsibilities lie.

Amy Thompson (Gwich’in Renewable Resources Board)

27

Participant comment: Researchers, community members and decision-makers can have a range of

academic abilities, so it’s important to communicate in language that everyone can understand.

nwtresearch.com has a number of resources like plain-language guides, as well as other tools and

information.

Closing Remarks

Each panelist was given the opportunity to provide closing comments, summarized below.

Richard Binder: no closing comment

Zabey Nevitt: We have to remember that each kind of research will exist for a different reason. Some

projects may be good for the regulatory process, while others may not have much relevance today, but

may make great science in 100 years. Both types have merit.

Amy Thompson: There has been a lot of discussion about developing contacts in the community. It is

appreciated when researchers contact co-management boards in an effort to make those contacts. The

boards are in the communities and know who to speak to. It’s nice to see some results coming back, and

hopefully the PATHWAY document will showcase some success stories.

Julian Kanigan: CIMP may ask a lot of its partners, but, hopefully, people are getting something positive

out of the program.

Trevor Lantz: no closing comment

Malcolm Robb: Based on the history of the Geoscience office, it may be difficult to keep up the

momentum of research and monitoring. Sometimes it takes a great deal of effort to maintain the

support for researchers.

28

Workshop Evaluation

Throughout the three days, workshop attendees were asked to complete evaluation surveys in order to

gauge the usefulness and relevance of the workshop content and format. The survey used a five-point

scale for most questions, with 1 representing the lowest rating and 5 the highest rating.

Roughly one-third of participants submitted surveys each day. There were 41 responses on Day 1, 36 on

Day 2, and 28 on Day 3. The survey was designed to get feedback from as many participants /

organizations as possible, and to identify opportunities to improve future workshops. It should be noted

that he results are not statistically representative (e.g. respondents self-selected into the survey, and

the responses may not accurately represent the proportions of represented groups).

The following summary of is an overview of the notable results from the survey, including examples of

some representative comments. The questionnaires (blank) used each day are provided in Appendix D.

Workshop Usefulness

On Day 3, participants were asked to rate the usefulness of the workshop overall, and 88% of

respondents rated the entire event as a four or higher. While only 17 people answered this question,

this figure appears to be supported by ratings of the individual days. When asked if they thought the

results presented were useful to them on Day 1, 74% of respondents rated the day as a four or higher.

For Day 2, 67% rated four or higher, and for Day 3, 83% rated four or higher.

Sample comments:

“Only time for one question; no real discussion. This forum is not designed for community reps.

However, it is difficult for researchers to translate their work from the language of science/research

to plain language. This is scientists talking to scientists, so it's hard to come away with a good

understanding of the projects.”

“It is very useful to know all the studies going on in the NWT, and showing the stats is awesome. It

relates to the questions that Aboriginals have on the land changing in their community. All different

kinds of “on the land” study was great to see.”

29

Standout Presentations

Participants were asked to rate the

relevance of each presentation as it

pertained to them. The following are

presentations that stood out as the most

relevant to the group as a whole.

Day 1

Mike Palmer and Chief Lloyd Chicot

(Investigating cumulative impacts - Tathlina

Lake watershed) – 85% rated four or higher.

Trevor Lantz (Multi-scale assessment of

cumulative impacts in Northern Mackenzie

Basin) – 83% rated four or higher.

Day 2

The PATHWAYS presentation ranked high for understanding (87% rated four or higher) and relevance

(83% rated four or higher). The group also found the follow-up discussion to be quite relevant (71%

ranked four or higher).

Day 3

Water-related presentations tended to be very relevant to the group as a whole. For all but one, at least

70% of respondents rated them at a four or higher.

Steve Kokelj (Watershed approach to monitoring cumulative impacts of landscape change) – 100% rated

four or higher.

Sample comment:

“Pathway discussions were excellent. Great opportunity to openly share ideas and suggestions.

Enjoyed this part of the workshop very much. Good luck with the doc!”

Balance between Presentations and Discussion

The vast majority of respondents felt that there was a good balance between presentation and

discussion time (a total of 83% over all three days). On Day 1, however, 26% of respondents indicated

that there was not enough time given to discussion. Day 3 garnered the highest rating, with 91% of

respondents feeling that there was a good balance between the two.

Sample comment:

“Good balance between presentation and discussion time, but often rushed.”

Workshop participants listen during a presentation Q&A session.

30

Meeting the Workshop Objectives

For each day, attendees were asked to rate how well they felt the workshop was meeting its objectives.

Objective: Present the results of current NWT environmental monitoring and research related to

caribou, fish and water

Respondents felt that this objective was well-met on each of the three days.

Day 1: 76% responded with a four or higher

Day 2: 82% responded with a four or higher

Day 3: 60% responded with a four or higher

Objective: Showcase projects that address cumulative impacts, address resource management

decision-makers’ needs and incorporate meaningful community involvement and capacity-building

Days 1 and 2 saw mixed reactions. While the majority of respondents thought that the workshop was

meeting its objectives, the percentages were fairly low. There was a noticeable change on Day 3, with

the vast majority believing that the objective had been met.

Day 1: 57% responded with a four or higher

Day 2: 67% responded with a four or higher

Day 3: 80% responded with a four or higher

Objective: Provide a forum for discussion between researchers and NWT decision-makers

Respondents seemed to feel that this objective was not well-met on the first day, but that a better job

was done as the workshop went on.

Day 1: 59% responded with a three or lower

Day 2: 67% responded with a four or higher

Day 3: 70% responded with a four or higher

Sample comment:

“Link to decision making could be stronger (e.g. is it relevant for an RRB? a LWB? a community

person?) Be specific, if it's possible (the presentations were still good and some links were

made).”

Panel Discussion

The panel discussion rated very high in its relevance to the overall workshop objectives (90% rated it as

a four or higher), but not all participants saw it as relevant to their own interests and needs (70%

responded with a four or higher).

31

While respondents felt that the panel members were good at addressing the audience’s questions (75%

responded with a four or higher), a large percentage felt that the discussion could have been more

effective in making the link between research and decision-making (50% rated this as a three, or

“somewhat effective”).

Posters

While the vast majority of respondents felt that the posters were relevant to the workshop (85% rated

this four or above), 58% felt that they could have been better incorporated. The few comments given on

the posters indicate that it may help to have some time specifically allotted for poster presentations.

Sample comment:

“Might have been better to put time on the agenda where the authors go by their posters to

answer questions.”

Overall Observations and Recommendations

The facilitation seemed to be well-received, particularly on Days 2 and 3 when the sessions were more

interactive. Among other things, facilitation helps keep the agenda on track while giving the organizers

and partners the ability to pay attention to the presentations and to network.

A number of comments suggest that it may be a good idea to give more guidance and support to

presenters to help them give more effective presentations with accessible language and visuals.

The survey data and comments indicate that it may be worth exploring how to ensure that there is a

stronger presence and engagement of decision-makers over the course of the three days, and how to

engage community members more effectively. There also seems to be an interest in a clearer link being

made between research and decision-making.

There were some requests to make more time for Q&A and discussion following each presentation, as

well as time for poster presenters to take questions and engage in discussion of their work.

32

In Conclusion

Overall, participant feedback (both anecdotal and from the formal evaluations) indicated that the

workshop and the presentations were well-received, though improvements have been suggested and

noted. Given that this was the first year that a collaborative format was attempted, and the diverse

nature of the participants and their needs, the workshop can be considered a success.

The key to a successful workshop is advanced planning. Another event is already scheduled for

December 10-12, 2013 at the Explorer Hotel in Yellowknife, and lessons learned from the first workshop

will be used to make the next event a greater success. Elements viewed as beneficial (e.g. a discussion

panel and third-party facilitation) will be incorporated again, while other elements (e.g. more time for

questions and answers) will be improved upon. Organizers have opportunities to enhance the workshop,

for example allowing for greater opportunities discussion by having more space and by modifying the

seating arrangements, and by providing a dedicated room for poster presentations and break-out

sessions. The attendee list will also be reviewed, and an even more inclusive audience will be pursued.

The organizers would like to collectively thank everyone who took the opportunity to attend the workshop, and look forward to seeing a diverse array of participants again at the second NWT Environmental Monitoring Annual Results Workshop in Yellowknife, December 2013.

33

Appendix A (Final Agenda)

NWT Environmental Monitoring Annual Results Workshop Revised Final Agenda

January 21-23rd, 2013, Yellowknife, Tree of Peace Friendship Centre,

main boardroom (main floor), 5011 51st Street

Early registration 15:00-17:00; 19:00-21:00, Sunday Jan. 20th; Registration 07:30-08:30, Monday, Jan. 21st

Purpose of Workshop:

Overall:

Present results of current NWT environmental monitoring and research related to fish, water, and caribou

Showcase projects that address cumulative impacts, address resource management decision-makers’ needs, and incorporate meaningful community involvement and capacity building

Provide a forum for discussion between researchers and NWT decision-makers Directed discussions: Day 2 (Jan 22nd) will have a discussion of the Pathway approach, providing a forum to:

Obtain input from monitoring and research partners on keys to success and challenges in northern monitoring and research, how to overcome challenges, and how to improve northern and community engagement in monitoring and research

Organize the diversity of input using the Pathway to produce a guidance document promoting better northern monitoring and research

Note: The PATHWAY is a step-by-step method designed to help communities and their

monitoring partners design and implement a monitoring / research program that best suits their collective needs

Day 3 (Jan 23rd) will have a Panel discussion, providing a forum for:

Decision-makers to provide input on integrating research into decision-making processes

Exploration of opportunities for future collaborations that will address research gaps / priorities

An abstracts volume will be distributed post-workshop, which will also include summaries of the Pathways and Panel discussions.

34

Instructions for Presenters:

Presentation Guidelines:

Presentations are a maximum 15min, followed by 5min of questions (total 20min / presenter); please respect time restrictions and the needs of other presenters. Submission of presentations (via memory sticks) will be required at registration.

Presentations must include:

Current results (2011/12, and/ or preliminary 2012/13)

How the work addresses cumulative impacts in the NWT

Specifics on how the results have/will be used in decision-making; and how the results are provided to decision-makers and the public

Specifics on the project approach to community involvement and capacity building

Next steps for research

Abstract Guidelines:

Abstracts must be submitted prior to the results workshop by January 7th 2013 (please

submit via email to NWT CIMP at: cimp@aandc.gc.ca). An abstracts volume will be developed post-workshop, which will also contain summaries of Pathways and Panel discussions.

The format for abstracts is the same as requested at the NWT Geoscience forum:

http://www.nwtgeoscience.ca/forum/pdf/Abstract%20Example.pdf

Poster Guidelines:

Authors are reminded that an abstract is required for a poster presentation (see abstract

guidelines above).

Poster content should follow presentation guidelines (see presentation guidelines above)

Poster size should not exceed 47” high and 85” across.

35

Jan. 20th Early registration 1500-1700;

1900-2100 Sunday, Tree of Peace – please bring your presentations

##########################################################

Jan 21st Day 1: Setting the Stage; Caribou / Ecosystem / Community-based Research

0730-0830 Registration

0830-0845 Welcome / Introduction / house-keeping

0845-0910 Cumulative impact monitoring in the NWT (co-host summary)

0920-1015 Presentations (boreal caribou and habitat)

Slot 1: 0920-0940 McCutchen, Nicole Boreal caribou monitoring in the Dehcho

Slot 2: 0940-1000 Smith, Lisa Succession and regeneration response on seismic lines with respect to ecology, disturbance factors and time

1015-1030 Break

1030-1145 Presentations (barren-ground caribou and habitat)

Slot 3: 1030-1050 Cluff, Dean (McCutchen, Nicole) Wolf predation on Bathurst caribou

Slot 4: 1050-1110 Chen, Wenjun Remotely Sensed Summer Range Forage Anomalies and Their Impacts on Bathurst Caribou Productivity During 1985 and 2011

Slot 5: 1110-1130 English, Michael Snowpack accumulation: Influence on caribou distribution, surface water chemistry and lake productivity

1145-1300 Lunch (not provided)

1300-1445 Presentations (ecosystem and community-based research)

Slot 6: 1300-1320 Svoboda, Michael Arctic Borderlands Co-op: Community based ecological and cumulative impacts and monitoring program

Slot 7: 1320-1340 Tallman, Ross Trophic network assessment of Mackenzie Great Lakes using Ecopath modeling: A path to ecosystem based management approach

36

Jan. 21st Day 1, continued

Slot 8: 1340-1400 Howland, Kimberly Understanding shallow-water Sahba (Lake Trout) morphotypes through traditional knowledge and science: Dialogue toward new knowledge?

Slot 9: 1400-1420 Palmer, Mike / Chicot, Chief Lloyd Investigating cumulative impacts of environmental change and human development in the Tathlina watershed

Slot 10: 1420-1440 Giroux, Elizabeth / Janzen, Kim (Evans, Marlene) Community and scientific monitoring of the Great Slave Lake ecosystem

1445-1500 Break

1500-1630 Presentations (community-based monitoring in the ISR)

Slot 11: 1500-1520 Dunmall, Karen (Loewen, Tracey / Loseto, Lisa) Community coastal based monitoring: A regional approach for the ISR

Slot 12: 1520-1540 Lantz, Trevor A multi-scale assessment of cumulative impacts in the Northern Mackenzie basin

1600-1630 End of day summary

###########################################################

Jan. 22nd Day 2: Fish / Water Research 0800-0830 Registration

0830-0840 Introduction to the day

0840-0900 CIMP implementation using remote sensing (Adlakha, Paul)

0900-0920 Pathway Approach – an introduction Kokelj, Steve

0920-1015 Presentations (fish ecology)

Slot 1: 0920-0940 Gallagher, Colin Results of a multi-year study of movement patterns of Lake Trout in Chitty Lake, NT

Slot 2: 0940-1000 Mochnacz, Neil A watershed-scale sampling protocol to detect stream salmonids in the Northwest Territories

37

Jan. 22nd Day 2, continued

1015-1030 Break

1030-1145 Presentations (fish ecology)

Slot 4: 1030-1050 Guzzo, Matt Habitat use of predatory fish species in a northern boreal lake

Slot 5: 1050-1110 Carrie, Jesse The influence of climate change on the carbon cycle and its impact on fish in freshwater lakes

Slot 6: 1110-1130 Wolfe, Brent / Hall, Roland Quantifying baseline PAH levels and changes since onset of Alberta oil sands development: A sediment core study from the Slave River Delta

1145-1300 Lunch (Not provided)

1300-1430 Presentations (fish ecology; cumulative impacts and fish)

Slot 7: 1300-1320 Cott, Peter Sound production by burbot (Lota lota)

Slot 8: 1320-1340 Dunmall, Karen Monitoring Pacific salmon to understand cumulative impacts of climate change in the Arctic

Slot 9: 1340-1400 Zhu, Xinhua Understanding adaptive mechanisms of fishery production and community diversity corresponding to environmental and cumulative impacts in Great Slave Lake systems

1400-1415 Break

1415-1600 Pathway Approach - feedback session Kokelj, Steve

1600-1630 End of day summary

###########################################################

Jan. 23rd Day 3: Water Research

0830-0840 Introduction to the day

0840-1015 WSS (Water Stewardship Strategy) Presentations

Slot 1: 0840-0900 Fresque-Baxter, Jennifer / Culhane, Michele Implementation of the Water Strategy

38

Jan. 23rd Day 3, continued Slot 2: 0900-0920 Kelly, Erin

Implementing an NWT approach to collaborative monitoring that addresses the needs of water partners, including community concerns and cumulative impacts

Slot 3: 0920-0940 Fresque-Baxter, Jennifer Cumulative effects monitoring in the Slave River

Slot 4: 0940-1000 Kelly, Erin (Jones, Paul) Health Status and Biomarker Responses in Fish from the

Athabasca and Slave Rivers in Relation to Potential Exposure to

Contaminants from Oilsands operations

1015-1030 Break

1030-1130 Presentations (fish harvest and water quality)

Slot 5: 1030-1050 Kelly, Erin (Goodman, Stefan) Furbearer contaminants, population and harvest on the Slave River and Slave River Delta: historical and current conditions

Slot 6: 1050-1110 Gueguen, Celine Monitoring heavy metals in the Mackenzie River watershed, NWT

1130-1300 Lunch (not provided)

1300-1415 Presentations (water and cumulative impacts)

Slot 7: 1300-1320 Spence, Chris Changing hydrology in the Taiga Shield: Geochemical and resource management implication

Slot 8: 1320-1340 Thienpont, Joshua Landscape Flooding in the Mackenzie Bison Sanctuary

Slot 9: 1340-1400 Kokelj, Steve A watershed approach to monitoring cumulative impacts of landscape change

1415-1430 Break

1430-1630 Panel Discussion –linking research to decision-making Panel members include: Richard Binder Inuvialuit Game Council Zabey Nevett Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board, Amy Thompson Gwich’in Renewable Resources Board, Trevor Lantz University of Victoria, Julian Kanigan Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CIMP Malcolm Robb Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada,

Minerals Directorate,

39

Jan. 23rd Day 3, continued 1630-1700 Workshop wrap-up; closing remarks

###########################################################

Poster presentations (Jan. 21st -23rd): Research-specific:

Sympatric polymorphism in Lake Trout: the coexistence of multiple shallow-water morphotypes in Great Bear Lake.

L. Chavarie, K. Howland, W. Tonn, and C. Gallagher

Understanding shallow-water Sahba (Lake Trout) morphotypes through traditional knowledge and science: Dialogue toward new knowledge?

L. Chavarie, K. Howland, D. Simmons, and W. Tonn

Depth and habitat related variation among cisco populations in Great Bear Lake.

K. Howland, C. Gallagher, D. Boguski, J. Reist, L. Chavarie and S. Wiley

Mapping landscape-scale disturbances in the Northern Mackenzie Basin, NWT using a 25-year Satellite Image Archive

R.H. Fraser, A. Deschamps, I. Olthof, S. Kokelj, D. Lacelle, T. Lantz, A. Brooker, N. Mochnacz, and S. Schwarz

Evaluating Fish Habitat Compensation at Diavik Diamond Mines, NWT.

G. Courtice, C. Cahill, A. Erwin, K. Howland, M. Hulsman, B. Lunn, W. Tonn, and D. Zhu

Program related:

Arctic Borderlands Ecological Knowledge Co-op: Developing rapid reporting tools from local knowledge.

Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program: Monitoring Arctic life to improve decision making

45

Appendix B (PATHWAY Handout)

PATHWAY TO BETTER MONITORING IN CANADA’S NORTH A step-by-step guide to designing northern monitoring programs Monitoring: Checking the Land’s Pulse You are walking up a riverside trail that your grandfather used to take you on and are surprised to see that half of it has caved into the water. You are catching lots of fish that have open sores and wonder if upstream pollution might be the cause. What’s going on? Monitoring projects are a powerful tool to learn about changes in the land’s health, what might cause them, and how we should respond to those changes. The PATHWAY guide describes a step-by-step method to help communities and their monitoring partners (regulators, academic researchers, and/or government) discuss such questions and design a program that best suits your needs. This is a summary of the guide, which has much more detailed information. Currently, we are obtaining input for developing a “how-to” guidance document for future users of the PATHWAY. We’re speaking with northerners, scientists and other monitoring partners to identify how to conduct successful monitoring projects and how to improve northern and community engagement in monitoring and research. Step 1. DEFINE A PURPOSE Why are we monitoring? The first and most important step in the Pathway is to clearly define your purpose for monitoring. Close collaboration among the right mix of partners is critical at this early stage. Step 2. IDENTIFY KEY CONNECTIONS How do things connect and what should we track? A clear purpose to your monitoring program will help you identify exactly what you should track. Bring knowledgeable community members and other research partners together to identify factors to be monitored. Step 3. REVIEW CURRENT INFORMATION What is already known? Review traditional and scientific knowledge about the issue you want to monitor to identify similar studies and sources, and methodology. Many partners will likely have something to contribute. Step 4. ASK THE RIGHT QUESTIONS What needs to be answered? Define specific research questions that will guide the collection and analysis of information, getting input from decision-makers and communities to increase the usefulness of the results. Step 5. MAKE A PLAN How will we find answers? Find ways to answer the questions posed in step 4 by creating a detailed plan that spells out how, where, when, and by whom information will be collected, stored, analyzed and reported. Your planning team should include scientific and community field staff who understand the local challenges and realities. Step 6. COLLECT INFORMATION How do we gather the observations or data? Data collection is costly and therefore must be clearly defined, well understood, and carried out by a well-trained team. Collaborators may include researchers, technicians, traditional knowledge holders and community members. Step 7. ANALYZE INFORMATION How can we turn observations into useful knowledge? Analysis reveals useful information from the observations (or data) collected. Statistical tests, for example, help researchers reveal changes and trends which might otherwise remain hidden. Step 8. REPORT FINDINGS How should we tell our story? The “story” revealed by monitoring should be told in the right way to the right people. Know your target audience. Decide on what key messages you want to tell them. Most importantly, report on how your results shed light on better ways to manage the land, using various formats from technical journals to posters and websites. Step 9. ADAPT TO CHANGES Any changes? Should we adjust our monitoring program? Things change: original monitoring partners, team leaders, funding levels, community values, or government priorities. You may decide to continue as-is, adjust, or halt your monitoring program to stay relevant and effective. Contact us: We are currently seeking input on the PATHWAY. If you would like to provide input, have questions or concerns about this publication, or would like to receive a full copy of the PATHWAY document, you can contact: Steven V. Kokelj, Environmental Scientist, Cumulative Impact Monitoring Program, NWT Geoscience Office, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada

Email: Steve.Kokelj@inac.gc.ca; Phone: (867) 669-2886

46

Appendix C (Attendance List; summary)

Name Affiliation Email

Adlakha, Paul LookNorth / C-Core (consultants) paul.adlakha@c-core.ca

Andrew, Leon Sahtu Secretariat Inc lamountaindene@theedge.ca

Baltzer, Jennifer University, Wilfrid Laurier jbaltzer@wlu.ca

Benson, Kristi Consultant -Pathway approach kristiannebenson@hotmail.com

Bigelow, Donna Environment Canada Donna.Bigelow@ec.gc.ca

Binder, Richard Inuvialuit Game Council binder@jointsec.nt.ca

Binion, Eric North Slave Metis Alliance reganalyst@nsma.net

Bohnet, Seth RioTinto seth.bohnet@riotinto.com

Boxwell, Janet Gwich’in Renewable Resources Board jboxwell@grrb.nt.ca

Boyd, Adrian Nunavut Planning Commission aboyd@nunavut.ca

Cahill, Chris University, Alberta / DFO clcahill@ualberta.ca

Callaghan, Kirsten Gwich’in Renewable Resources Board kcallaghan@grrb.nt.ca

Campbell, Josh CKLB Radio campbell.cklb@gmail.com

Carrie, Jesse University of Manitoba jesse.carrie@gmail.com

Carriere, Suzanne GNWT Suzanne_Carriere@gov.nt.ca

Carter, Blair University, Waterloo blcarter@uwaterloo.ca

Carthew, Katarina GNWT Katarina_Carthew@gov.nt.ca

Chen, Wenjun NRCan - Canadian Centre for Remote Sensing

wenjun.chen@nrcan.gc.ca

Chicot, Lloyd Ka'a'gee Tu First Nation kaageetuchief@gmail.com

Chin, Krista AANDC Krista.Chin@aandc.gc.ca

Clark, Karin Wek’èezhìi Renewable Resources Board kclark@wrrb.ca

47

Cliffe-Phillips, Mark Wek’èezhìi Land and Water Board mark_cp@wlwb.ca

Cluff, Dean GNWT - ENR Dean_Cluff@gov.nt.ca

Cott, Pete DFO Pete.Cott@dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Coulton, Dan Golder (consultants) Daniel_Coulton@golder.com

Courtice, Greg University , Alberta / DFO courtice@ualberta.ca

Culhane, Michele AANDC Michele.Culhane@aandc.gc.ca

Cull, Kevin Tait Communications (facilitation support)

kevin@taitcc.com

Delorme, Jonathon NWT Metis Nation frmc@northwestel.net

Dods, Patti AANDC Patti.Dods@aandc.gc.ca

DuBois, Carolyn Gordon Foundation Carolyn@gordonfn.org

Dunmall, Karen DFO Karen.Dunmall@dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Ehrlich, Alan Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board

aehrlich@mveirb.nt.ca

Elasser, Sarah Wek’èezhìi Land and Water Board selsasser@wlwb.ca

English, Michael University, Wilfrid Laurier menglish@wlu.ca

Epp, Helmut LookNorth / C-Core (consultants) hepp@theedge.ca

Esagok, Doug Inuvialuit Settlement Region OHTC2010@hotmail.com

Fatt, Ron Lutsel'Ke Dene First Nation lkdfnlands@gmail.com

Fenwick, Mark Environmental Monitoring Advisory Board

emab1@northwestel.net

Fequet, Ryan Wek’èezhìi Land and Water Board rfequet@wlwb.ca

Firth, Christine Tetlit Gwich'in RRC tgrrcouncil@hotmail.com

Fresque-Baxter, Jennifer GNWT Jennifer_Fresque-Baxter@gov.nt.ca

Gallagher, Colin DFO Colin.Gallagher@dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Garner , Kerri Tlicho Government kerrigarner@tlicho.com

48

Gilday, Cindy Sahtu Secretariat Inc cindygilday@hotmail.com

Giroux, Elizabeth Ft. Resolution elizabethgiroux@live.ca

Goodman, Stefan GNWT Stefan_Goodman@gov.nt.ca

Groenewegen, Kathleen GNWT - Forestry Kathleen_Groenewegen@gov.nt.ca

Gueguen, Celine University, Trent celinegueguen@trentu.ca

Guzzo, Matt DFO mattguzzo12@gmail.com

Hall, Roland University, Waterloo rihall@uwaterloo.ca

Hamre, Karen Protected Areas Strategy PASManagingDirector@northwestel.net

Hanna, Bruce DFO Bruce.Hanna@dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Harlander, Helga Gwich’in Land and Water Board H_Harlander@glwb.com

Heron, Chris Aboriginal Aquatic Resource and Oceans Management / NWTMN

aarom.nwtmn@northwestel.net

Heron, Tim NWT Metis Nation (NWTMN) rcc.nwtmn@northwestel.net

Howland, Kimberly DFO Kimberly.Howland@dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Janjua, Muhammad DFO Muhammad.Janjua@dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Janzen, Kim Environment Canada Kim.Janzen@EC.GC.CA

Jenkins, Robert AANDC Robert.Jenkins@aandc-aadnc.gc.ca

Jumbo, Ruby Dehcho manager@sambaake.org

Kandola, Kami GNWT - Health and Social Services Kami_Kandola@gov.nt.ca

Kanigan, Julian AANDC Julian.Kanigan@aandc.gc.ca

Kay, Darylyn Tetlit Gwich'in RRC tgrrcouncil@hotmail.com

Kelly, Erin GNWT – ENR Erin_Kelly@gov.nt.ca

Kinsman, Greg DFO Greg.Kinsman@dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Kokelj, Shawne AANDC Shawne.Kokelj@aandc.gc.ca

49

Kokelj, Steve AANDC Steve.Kokelj@aandc.gc.ca

Laidlaw, Shawn Ka'a'gee Tu First Nation ktfnenvironmental@gmail.com

Lantz, Trevor University, Victoria tlantz@uvic.ca

Leonard, Deanna DFO Deanna.Leonard@dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Levasseur, Annie AANDC Annie.Levasseur@aandc-aadnc.gc.ca

Livingstone, David Chair, ENR-WLU Science Committee livingstone21@hotmail.com

Low, George Dehcho First Nations geobarbgeo@hotmail.com

Low, Mike Dehcho First Nations jmichaellow@gmail.com

Maier, Kris Gwich’in Renewable Resources Board kmaier@grrb.nt.ca

Mandeville, Lee Dene Nation lmandeville@denenation.com

Marchildon, Claire AANDC Claire.Marchildon@aandc.gc.ca

Marie, Victor Salt River First Nation ea@srfn195.com

McCutchen, Nicole GNWT - ENR Nicole_Mccutchen@gov.nt.ca

McMullen, Jane GNWT Jane_McMullen@gov.nt.ca

McNeill, Jason GNWT -ENR Jason_McNeill@gov.nt.ca

McPherson, Morag DFO Morag.McPherson@dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Michel, Jonathon Aurora Research Institute jmichel@auroracollege.nt.ca

Mochnacz, Neil DFO Neil.Mochnacz@dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Morgan, Shauna Pembina Institute (consultant) shaunam@pembina.org

Nevitt, Zabey Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board zabey@mvlwb.com

O'Reilly, Kevin Independent Environmental Monitoring Agency

monitor1@yk.com

Palmer, Mike AANDC Michael.Palmer@aandc.gc.ca

Pink, Melissa Rescan mpink@rescan.com

50

Polfus, Jean Sahtu Renewable Resources Board jeanpolfus@gmail.com

Poulin, Roxane Tait Communications (facilitator) roxane@taitcc.com

Racher, Kathy Wek’èezhìi Land and Water Board racherk@wlwb.ca

Robb, Malcolm AANDC Malcolm.Robb@aandc.gc.ca

Rosolen, Sarah Aurora Research Institute srosolen@auroracollege.nt.ca

Schwarz, Steve GNWT Steve_Schwarz@gov.nt.ca

Seabrook, Meredith AANDC Meredith.Seabrook@aandc.gc.ca

Shield, Helga Imperial Oil Resources helga.m.shield@esso.ca

Sieben, Brian GNWT - Climate Change brian_sieben@gov.nt.ca

Simba, Melaine Ka'a'gee Tu First Nation simba_melaine@hotmail.com

Slack, Todd Yellowknives Dene First Nation tslack@ykdene.com

Smith, Lisa GNWT - Forestry Lisa_Smith@gov.nt.ca

Snortland Pellissey, Jody Wek’èezhìi Renewable Resources Board

jsnortland@wrrb.ca

Spence, Chris Environment Canada chris.spence@ec.gc.ca

Stow, Jason AANDC-NCP Jason.Stow@aandc.gc.ca

Svoboda, Michael Arctic Borderlands Ecological Knowledge Co-op

michael.svoboda@ec.gc.ca

Tallman, Ross DFO ross.tallman@dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Thienpont, Joshua University , Carleton joshua.thienpont@queensu.ca

Thompson, Amy Gwich’in Renewable Resources Board AThompson@grrb.nt.ca

Tollis, Mike Lutsel' Ke Dene First Nation lkdfnlands@gmail.com

Toogood, Simon Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board

stoogood@reviewboard.ca

Tracz, Boyan AANDC Boyan.Tracz@aandc.gc.ca

Tsetso, Dahti Dehcho First Nations dahti_tsetso@dehcho.org

51

Unka, Tom NWT Metis Nation tom_unka_17@hotmail.com

Walbourne, Rick DFO Rick.Walbourne@dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Wasiuta, Mark GNWT - Health and Social Services Mark_Wasiuta@gov.nt.ca

Wells, Dave RioTinto david.wells@riotinto.com

Wenman, Christine University, Wilfrid Laurier chris@nwtwlu.com

Wesche, Sonia University, Ottawa swesche@uottawa.ca

Wheler, Brett Wek’èezhìi Land and Water Board brett@wlwb.ca

White, David Snap Lake Environmental Monitoring Agency

dwhite@slema.ca

Wolfe, Brent University, Wilfred Laurier bwolfe@wlu.ca

Zhong Liu Snap Lake Environmental Monitoring Agency

zliu@slema.ca

Zhu, Xinhua DFO Xinhua.Zhu@dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Zoe-Chocolate, Camilia Dene Nation czoechocolate@denenation.com

Zytaruk, Brian Fisheries Joint Management Committee / AMEC

brian.zytaruk@amec.com

52

Please identify what type of organization you represent:

Federal/territorial government Aboriginal government/ organization Co-management Board

Researcher/Academic NGO/Not-for-profit Industry Other (specify):_________________________

Appendix D (Evaluation Questionnaires; blank)

NWT Environmental Monitoring Annual Results Workshop

Participant Evaluation Tool – Day 1 (Monday, Jan. 21)

The sponsoring departments are interested in participant feedback on the format and content of this

workshop. After each presentation and activity, you will be asked to take a moment to provide your

feedback in real time as the workshop unfolds. At the end of the day each day, please place your

evaluation sheet in the box provided.

1. How useful were the opening remarks by the host organizations?

1 2 3 4 5 Not useful Somewhat useful Very useful

2. Please rate each of the presentations using the scale provided based on its relevance to you as a

participant in this workshop.

Presentation 1: Nicole McCutchen (Boreal caribou monitoring in the Dehcho)

1 2 3 4 5 Not relevant Somewhat relevant Highly relevant

Presentation 2: Lisa Smith (Succession and regeneration response on seismic lines)

1 2 3 4 5 Not relevant Somewhat relevant Highly relevant

Presentation 3: Dean Cluff/Nicole McCutchen (Wolf predation on Bathurst Caribou)

1 2 3 4 5 Not relevant Somewhat relevant Highly relevant

Presentation 4: Wenjun Chen (Remote sensed summer range anomalies and their impacts)

1 2 3 4 5 Not relevant Somewhat relevant Highly relevant

Presentation 5: Michael English (Snowpack accumulation: Influence on caribou, surface water

chemistry)

1 2 3 4 5 Not relevant Somewhat relevant Highly relevant

Presentation 6: Michael Svoboda (Arctic Borderlands Co-op)

53

1 2 3 4 5 Not relevant Somewhat relevant Highly relevant

Presentation 7: Ross Tallman (Trophic network assessment of Mackenzie Great Lakes)

1 2 3 4 5 Not relevant Somewhat relevant Highly relevant

Presentation 8: Kimberly Howland (Long term monitoring of Great Bear Lake fisheries)

1 2 3 4 5 Not relevant Somewhat relevant Highly relevant

Presentation 9: Mike Palmer/Chief Lloyd Chicot (Investigating cumulative impacts - Tathlina Lake

watershed)

1 2 3 4 5 Not relevant Somewhat relevant Highly relevant

Presentation 10: Elizabeth Giroux/Kim Janzen (Monitoring - Great Slave Lake ecosystem)

1 2 3 4 5 Not relevant Somewhat relevant Highly relevant

Presentation 11: Karen Dunmall/Tracey Loewen/Lisa Loseto (Community coastal based

monitoring)

1 2 3 4 5 Not relevant Somewhat relevant Highly relevant

Presentation 12: Trevor Lantz (Multi-scale assessment of cumulative impacts in Northern

Mackenzie Basin)

1 2 3 4 5 Not relevant Somewhat relevant Highly relevant

3. Were the results presented today useful to you?

1 2 3 4 5 Not useful Somewhat useful Very useful

4. How did you find the balance between presentations and time for questions and discussion

today?

Too much presentation time Good balance Too much discussion time

5. Please rate the quality of the meeting facilitation today.

1 2 3 4 5 Poor quality Adequate quality Excellent quality

6. Please rate how well the workshop fulfilled its objectives today:

Present results of current NWT environmental monitoring and research related to caribou

1 2 3 4 5 Did not meet Partially met Fully met

54

Showcase projects that address cumulative impacts, address resource management decision-

makers’ needs and incorporate meaningful community involvement and capacity building

1 2 3 4 5 Did not meet Partially met Fully met

Provide a forum for discussion between researchers and NWT decision-makers

1 2 3 4 5 Did not meet Partially met Fully met

We welcome any additional comments or suggestions:

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

Thank you for your input!

55

Please identify what type of organization you represent:

Federal/territorial government Aboriginal government/ organization Co-management Board

Researcher/Academic NGO/Not-for-profit Industry Other (specify):_________________________

NWT Environmental Monitoring Annual Results Workshop

Participant Evaluation Tool – Day 2 (Tuesday, Jan. 22)

The sponsoring departments are interested in participant feedback on the format and content of this

workshop. After each presentation and activity, you will be asked to take a moment to provide your

feedback in real time as the workshop unfolds. At the end of the day each day, please place your

evaluation sheet in the box provided.

7. Please rate each of the presentations using the scale provided based on its relevance to you as a

participant in this workshop.

Presentation by Paul Adlakha - CIMP implementation using remote sensing

1 2 3 4 5 Not relevant Somewhat relevant Highly relevant

Presentation 1: Colin Gallagher (Results of multi-year study of Lake Trout in Chitty Lake)

1 2 3 4 5 Not relevant Somewhat relevant Highly relevant

Presentation 2: Neil Mochnacz (Watershed-scale sampling protocol for salmonids in the NWT)

1 2 3 4 5 Not relevant Somewhat relevant Highly relevant

Presentation 3: Matt Guzzo (Habitat use of predatory fish species in northern boreal lake)

1 2 3 4 5 Not relevant Somewhat relevant Highly relevant

Presentation 4: Jesse Carrie (Influence of climate change on carbon cycle and impact on fish)

1 2 3 4 5 Not relevant Somewhat relevant Highly relevant

Presentation 5: Brent Wolfe/Roland Hall (Baseline PAH levels and changes since oil sands

development)

1 2 3 4 5 Not relevant Somewhat relevant Highly relevant

Presentation 6: Peter Cott (Sound production by burbot)

1 2 3 4 5 Not relevant Somewhat relevant Highly relevant

56

Presentation 7: Karen Dunmall (Monitoring Pacific Salmon to understand climate change impacts

in North)

1 2 3 4 5 Not relevant Somewhat relevant Highly relevant

Presentation 8: Xinhua Zhu (Adaptive mechanisms of fishery production and diversity – Great

Slave Lake)

1 2 3 4 5 Not relevant Somewhat relevant Highly relevant

8. Were the research results presented today useful to you?

1 2 3 4 5 Not useful Somewhat useful Very useful

9. Please rate the Pathway Approach presentation and feedback session using the scales provided.

How well do feel you understand the purpose and intent of the Pathway Approach?

1 2 3 4 5 Limited understanding Modest Understanding Strong understanding

How relevant did you find the Pathway Approach discussion to the workshop objectives?

1 2 3 4 5 Not relevant Somewhat relevant Highly relevant

How relevant did you find the discussion on the Pathway Approach to your own

interests/needs?

1 2 3 4 5 Not relevant Somewhat relevant Highly relevant

10. How did you find the balance between presentations and time for questions and discussion

today?

Too much presentation time Good balance Too much discussion time

11. Please rate the quality of the meeting facilitation today.

1 2 3 4 5 Poor quality Adequate quality Excellent quality

12. Please rate how well the workshop fulfilled its objectives today.

Present results of current NWT environmental monitoring and research related to caribou

1 2 3 4 5 Did not meet Partially met Fully met

Showcase projects that address cumulative impacts, address resource management decision-

makers’ needs and incorporate meaningful community involvement and capacity building

1 2 3 4 5

57

Did not meet Partially met Fully met

Provide a forum for discussion between researchers and NWT decision-makers

1 2 3 4 5 Did not meet Partially met Fully met

We welcome any additional comments or suggestions:

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

Thank you for your input!

58

Please identify what type of organization you represent:

Federal/territorial government Aboriginal government/ organization Co-management Board

Researcher/Academic NGO/Not-for-profit Industry Other (specify):_________________________

NWT Environmental Monitoring Annual Results Workshop

Participant Evaluation Tool – Day 3 (Tuesday, Jan. 23)

The sponsoring departments are interested in participant feedback on the format and content of this

workshop. After each presentation and activity, you will be asked to take a moment to provide your

feedback in real time as the workshop unfolds. At the end of the day each day, please place your

evaluation sheet in the box provided.

13. Please rate each of the presentations using the scale provided based on its relevance to you as a

participant in this workshop.

Presentation 1: Jennifer Fresque-Baxter (Water Stewardship Strategy Update)

1 2 3 4 5 Not relevant Somewhat relevant Highly relevant

Presentation 2: Erin Kelly (Implementing an NWT approach to collaborative monitoring)

1 2 3 4 5 Not relevant Somewhat relevant Highly relevant

Presentation 3: Jennifer Fresque-Baxter (Cumulative effects monitoring in the Slave River)

1 2 3 4 5 Not relevant Somewhat relevant Highly relevant

Presentation 4: Erin Kelly/Paul Jones (Fish Health in the Slave River Watershed)

1 2 3 4 5 Not relevant Somewhat relevant Highly relevant

Presentation 5: Erin Kelly (Furbearer contaminants, population and harvest – Slave River and River

Delta)

1 2 3 4 5 Not relevant Somewhat relevant Highly relevant

Presentation 6: Celine Gueguen (Monitoring heavy metals in the Mackenzie River Watershed)

1 2 3 4 5 Not relevant Somewhat relevant Highly relevant

Presentation 7: Chris Spence (Changing hydrology in the Taiga Shield)

1 2 3 4 5 Not relevant Somewhat relevant Highly relevant

59

Presentation 8: Joshua Thienpont (Landscape flooding in the Mackenzie Bison Sanctuary)

1 2 3 4 5 Not relevant Somewhat relevant Highly relevant

Presentation 9: Steve Kokelj (Watershed approach to monitoring cumulative impacts of landscape

change)

1 2 3 4 5 Not relevant Somewhat relevant Highly relevant

14. Were the research results presented today useful to you?

1 2 3 4 5 Not useful Somewhat useful Very useful

15. Please rate the Panel Discussion using the scales provided.

How effective was the panel at helping to link research and decision-making?

1 2 3 4 5 Not effective Somewhat effective Very effective

How effectively did the panelists address the questions posed by participants?

1 2 3 4 5 Not effectively Somewhat effectively Very effectively

How relevant did you find the panel discussion to the overall workshop objectives?

1 2 3 4 5 Not relevant Somewhat relevant Highly relevant

How relevant was the panel discussion to your own interests and needs?

1 2 3 4 5 Not relevant Somewhat relevant Highly relevant

16. Please rate the poster presentations in the workshop using the scales provided.

How relevant were the poster presentations to the workshop overall?

1 2 3 4 5 Not relevant Somewhat relevant Highly relevant

How well were the poster presentations incorporated into the workshop?

1 2 3 4 5 Not well Moderately well Very well

We welcome any specific comments about the poster presentations.

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

60

_____________________________________________________________________________

17. How did you find the balance between presentations and time for questions and discussion

today?

Too much presentation time Good balance Too much discussion time

18. Please rate the quality of the meeting facilitation today.

1 2 3 4 5 Poor quality Adequate quality Excellent quality

19. Please rate how well the workshop fulfilled its objectives today.

Present results of current NWT environmental monitoring and research related to caribou

1 2 3 4 5 Did not meet Partially met Fully met

Showcase projects that address cumulative impacts, address resource management decision-

makers’ needs and incorporate meaningful community involvement and capacity building

1 2 3 4 5 Did not meet Partially met Fully met

Provide a forum for discussion between researchers and NWT decision-makers

1 2 3 4 5 Did not meet Partially met Fully met

20. Please indicate your overall evaluation of the value of this three-day workshop to you.

1 2 3 4 5 No value Some value High value

Please indicate what elements of the workshop you found most useful and any key learnings or

insights you have gained through the workshop.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

____

_____________________________________________________________________________________

____

_____________________________________________________________________________________

____

_____________________________________________________________________________________

____

61

_____________________________________________________________________________________

____

We welcome any additional comments or suggestions.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

____

_____________________________________________________________________________________

____

_____________________________________________________________________________________

____

_____________________________________________________________________________________

____

_____________________________________________________________________________________

____

Thank you for your input!