|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Download
PDF (184K) Printer
Friendly |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
NUNAVUT WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT BOARDMINUTES: MEETING No. 25
IQALUIT, 14-17 MARCH 2000
Agenda Call to Order and Opening Preliminaries Funding of Research and Study Projects
Financial and Administrative Business Chairperson, Staff and Members’ Reports
Completion of Assignments and Resolutions from Last Meeting
Government of Nunavut Wildlife (DSD)
Miscellaneous Requests for NWMB Funding Contributions
Other Presentations, continued Executive Committee Report and Recommendations Meetings, Workshops and Other Pertinent Events Date and Location of Next Meeting
Tuesday, 14 March 2000
1. Call to Order and Opening Preliminaries
The Chairperson, Ben Kovic, convened the 25 th regular meeting of the NWMB at 1:35 p.m. Ben welcomed the Board Members and all others present, and called on David Alagalak to lead the opening prayer.
Ben noted that the Board faced a heavy agenda. The Members recognized the particular need to ensure adequate treatment of the research and study proposals, as well as to finalize the NWMB workplans.
The Board decided (Resolution 2000- 093) to accept the agenda for Meeting No. 25 as presented, but to change the sequence of the items in order to address at the outset the proposals for funding in support of research and study projects.
12A. Allocation of Nunavut Wildlife Research Trust Funding for 2000/01
Michelle Wheatley noted that a year ago (in March 1999) the Board approved NWRT funding in the amount of $449,000 for projects previously approved for multi-year funding, along with $449,400 for new projects. In addition, carry-overs permitted by the Board from the previous year (1998/99) totalled $43,600, so that NWRT funding commitments for 1999/00 totalled $942,000. Not all of this approved funding was actually used. The total of the estimated expenditures for 1999/00, based on interim financial reports provided by proponents to date, is $700,900.
Michelle explained the filing system that she developed (and applied retroactively) for NWRT research proposals and research projects in order to facilitate tracking. She also reviewed the NWMB process for identifying research priorities to guide agencies in their development of research proposals, as well as the revised (1999) NWMB policy that she followed in evaluating the proposals that were received. The latter included adoption and use of a new scoring sheet.
Michelle referred the Members to the extensive briefing material that she had prepared in respect to this agenda item. She explained that this material included:
Michelle advised the Board that the total funding implication of all the proposals that were at hand, including those that were previously approved in a multi-year funding context, was $774,500. She reminded the Members that the NWR Trustees meeting earlier in the day had allotted $796,000 plus-or-minus 5% of NWRT funding to support research by government agencies in 2000/01.
The Board took note of the interim progress reports and evaluations for the ten projects that were completed as scheduled in 1999/00. Kevin McCormick asked if agencies were reporting research results in a satisfactory and timely manner. Michelle replied that reporting seemed to be generally up to expectations. However she aimed to conduct a systematic follow-up of outputs from all research and study projects that have been funded since the inception of the NWMB.
In respect to the two projects that were undertaken to a minor extent in 1999/00 and that have been suspended by the proponents from further immediate funding consideration, Michelle pointed out that the project pertaining to Inuit knowledge of caribou can be considered to be in abeyance rather than completely withdrawn.
Michelle next drew the attention of the Board specifically to the two projects for which the proponents are seeking to re-structure or re-profile their multi-year funding arrangements:
Wednesday, 15 March 2000
The Chairperson, Ben Kovic, re-convened the meeting at 8:40 a.m. He welcomed Harry Flaherty who joined the meeting at this time.
Ben noted that in its session yesterday afternoon, the Board had not completed its treatment of Agenda item 12A, the allocation of NWRT funding for 2000/01. He accordingly directed the meeting back to that item.
Michelle Wheatley referred the Members once again to the new applications for NWRT funding, along with her (Michelle’s) evaluations of those applications and her recommendations for any conditions that should accompany funding approval, as contained in the briefing binder. She noted that the 15 new project proposals that were submitted embodied funding requests totalling $381,300 for 2000/01.
The Board reviewed the material that was provided in connection with each of the new proposals. The Board approved funding with respect to eight of these new proposals by way of an amalgamated decision (Resolution 2000- 097) as follows:
That the NWMB approve new NWRT funding support in the total amount of $221,000 for 2000/01, subject to routine administrative arrangements, for the following research projects, deemed in general to adequately fit NWRT criteria:
Observations and/or concerns were made/expressed in respect to three of these approved new projects as follows:
Project 5120-00-7, on developing a sampling program for charr at the Pangnirtung fish processing plant: Michelle noted that many of the fisheries to be sampled are of an experimental nature. It has generally been the case that provision of data and samples from such fisheries is an obligation under the experimental licence. Some of the funding requested for this project would be used to process the fish-age samples. DFO has not made clear who normally pays for fish age determinations with respect to experimental fisheries.
Project 5120-00-10, on walrus satellite tagging: Ben Kovic expressed reservations about conducting this work in the High Arctic where expenses are certain to be maximal, especially when information on walrus is mainly needed in Hudson Bay and Foxe Basin. Kevin McCormick suggested that co-operative arrangements with Greenland, including for cost-sharing, was probably a major consideration.
Project 5120-00-12, on walrus stock identification and harvest composition: Michelle Wheatley noted that this project includes a Trichinella -testing component. The NWMB as a matter of mandate has tried to avoid funding research that pertains to parasites and disease. Gordon Koshinsky agreed that other funding sources should be explored for this aspect. However he interpreted the work to be so important that it needed to proceed, even if NWRT funding were necessary to get it underway.
With respect to the seven remaining new project proposals, the Board concluded its deliberations as follows:
The Board took some time to consider the overall scope of the material presented by way of NWRT research proposals. Gordon Koshinsky noted the lack of any new proposals from DSD for 2000/01, and wondered if this signalled any fundamental underlying problems. Michelle suggested that the lack of new proposals did not signify a reduction in research focus or commitment on the part of the emerging Department. DSD probably has enough ongoing projects to fully occupy its research capacity at the present time.
Michelle cited the significant portion (25%) of approved funding that was not utilized in 1999/00 as a possible cause for concern. It signifies a significant commitment of funds to unproductive ends, and as such might warrant development by the Board of a policy to discourage over-budgeting by agencies. Kevin McCormick expressed reluctance to deal with this issue on anything other than a case-by-case basis. He applauded efforts by agencies to economize on their research expenditures.
Michelle noted that both DSD and CWS have adopted centralized procedures for vetting research proposals before they are submitted to the NWMB. "Individual DFO researchers, on the other hand, continue to submit their proposals directly without benefit of any overall review or rationalization. As a result, some DFO proposals invariably lack the support of the Department and/or are not relevant to NWRT funding criteria. This creates unnecessary work for the NWMB.
12B. Allocation of NWMB Study Funding for 2000/01
Michelle Wheatley reminded the Members that the Board annually establishes a budget out of its internal operating funds that is then made available to support research by other-than-government agencies. She referred to the briefing materials she had prepared for the present meeting that pertained to this NWMB program. Michelle explained that the identification numbers assigned to each project or proposal identify (in sequence) the proponent HTO or RWO or community or other organization, the year the proposal was originally put forward, and the number of the project according to when it was received by the NWMB within that year.
Michelle explained that the briefing material was grouped into three categories:
Michelle advised that NWMB Study funding approved last year (for 1999/00) totalled $325,200 for ten new projects and two continuing projects. Funding conditions were met and contribution agreements were signed with respect to six of these projects, for an actual funding commitment of $216,200. Michelle noted that her briefing material contained her evaluations of the projects that received NWMB Studies funding in 1999/00, as well as interim progress reports prepared by the proponents.
Michelle called the attention of the Board to the request from the Gjoa Haven HTO to carry forward the $11,000 approved last year to conduct a one-year tagging and domestic utilization study on Arctic charr in the Chantry Inlet area. Michelle noted that the approval of the Board that was granted last year was conditional upon:
The Board decided (Resolution 2000- 104) to approve the request from the Gjoa Haven HTO to carry forward $11,000 of NWMB Study Funding for Project 5244-99-1 (Arctic charr tagging at Chantrey Inlet), conditional on the proponents meeting the conditions set out by the NWMB in the context of approving this project last year.
Michelle noted that the interim progress report submitted with respect to the project pertaining to community consultations for input to South Baffin caribou management planning (funded last year) contained reference to the project being ongoing, but was not accompanied by an actual application. Eligibility for support from the NWMB Study Fund would seem questionable in any event, since the work is more in the nature of Conservation Education. The Board treated this as a matter of information, with no decision taken.
Turning to the nine new project proposals for 2000/01, Michelle referred the Members to the briefing binder for copies of the applications along with her (Michelle’s) analyses and recommendations. The proposals were evaluated against the same criteria and with reference to the same research priorities as were used to evaluate the NWRT proposals. These new proposals embody funding implications that total $234,000 for 2000/01.
The Board reviewed the materials that were provided in connection with each of the new proposals. The Board’s discussions, concerns and decisions were as follows:
1. Remove chip rock from two streams at/near Clyde River: The proponent, “Qillaq Arctic Charr Enterprises” of Clyde River, proposes to remove sharp-edged chip rock that was originally placed in two streams at/near the community to facilitate crossing by vehicles. The rocks are damaging to charr during migration. The project has no research component as it is written, but it would seem that such a component could easily be incorporated although perhaps at some extra cost. Some Members questioned why a community should obtain funding to correct a problem of their own making.
The Board decided (Resolution 2000- 105) to approve NWMB study funding in the amount of $9,600 for 2000/01 for the removal of chip-rock from stream sections at/near Clyde River, subject to the proponents agreeing and arranging to:
2. Monitor bowhead whales and other ecosystem components at Isabella Bay: The Namautaq HTO at Clyde River HTO proposes to count and photograph bowhead whales using the Isabella Bay area, and also to catalogue other plant and animal life in the Bay. The Board last year denied funding for a proposal that was meant to hire a consultant to write the current proposal. Some Board Members suggested that the proposal did not contain a clear definition of deliverables, but were less concerned about this if the World Wildlife Fund was going to participate.
The Board decided (Resolution 2000- 106) to approve NWMB study funding to the Namautaq HTO in the amount of $30,000 for 2000/01 to assist with the monitoring of bowhead whales and other ecosystem components at Isabella Bay, this pending confirmation of funding from WWF as outlined in the proposal.
3. Conduct a patrol to record wildlife abundance and utilization in Kane Basin: The Iviq HTO at Grise Fiord proposes to mount an expedition in the Alexander Fiord region of Kane Basin in order to document the abundance of wildlife (particularly polar bears) and to look for signs of illegal hunting incursions by Greenlanders. In the past, Greenlanders have been encountered hunting polar bears in this area, and this has impacted on the number of bears available to hunters from Grise Fiord. The patrol will have sovereignty and customs implications, and is being planned in conjunction with the RCMP and other government agencies.
The Board decided (Resolution 2000- 107) to approve NWMB study funding to the Iviq HTO in the amount of $29,500 for 2000/01 to assist with the conduct of a wildlife patrol in Alexander Fiord in order to assess the abundance of wildlife and to seek evidence of incursions by Greenland hunters.
4. Conduct ground-based surveys of caribou, muskox and wolves in High Arctic: The Resolute Bay HTO proposes to conduct ground-based surveys of Peary caribou, muskox and wolves on Bathurst, Cornwallis, western Devon and nearby islands over a 2-year period. The work would complement and verify the results of aerial surveys undertaken by DSD. The HTO believes that aerial survey methods are not well suited to this particular situation, citing the clumped distribution of the animals. The HTO is particularly concerned about trends in numbers of Peary caribou, and wishes to verify any conclusions that may be drawn from aerial surveys before the formal management regimes for any of the three species were to be significantly changed. Data will also be obtained on distribution, foraging habits, recruitment, mortality and snow cover conditions. Samples for genetic, contaminant and feeding analyses will be collected on an opportunistic basis. Michelle noted that the project has been very well planned and the proposal is well written. The HTO would provide most of the basic equipment, but DSD funding and PCSP support would be required along with that from the NWMB.
The Board decided (Resolution 2000- 108) to approve NWMB study funding to the Resolute Bay HTO in the amount of $29,500 for 2000/01 to assist with the conduct of a ground-based survey of Peary caribou, muskoxen and wolves on Bathurst, Cornwallis, western Devon and nearby islands, conditional on the proponents receiving other funding as identified in the proposal.
5. Conduct mark-and-recapture studies on Arctic charr at Browne Bay: The Resolute Bay HTO wishes to determine the wintering locations of charr that utilize Browne Bay (on the west coast of nearby Prince of Wales Island) as a summer feeding area. Local people believe that the fish here are of two separate groups: an early-departing group that winters in a local lake, and a late-departing (and superior) group that winters in an unknown location. The HTO proposes to tag fish at Browne Bay and later search for them in potential home streams. The findings will underpin management and protection measures. Michelle noted that the project is well conceived and that the proposal was developed with input from DFO. Besides funding support from the NWMB the project would need funding and other assistance from DFO along with support from DSD.
The Board decided (Resolution 2000- 109) to approve NWMB study funding to the Resolute Bay HTO in the amount of $26,650 for 2000/01 to assist with the conduct of an Arctic charr tagging and tag recovery project, with approval conditional on the proponents receiving additional funding as identified in the proposal.
6. Quantify food available to Hudson Bay eiders foraging in the Belchers in winter: Hudson Bay eiders breeding in the Belcher Islands have suffered serious recent declines and are known to be vulnerable to freezing of leads and polynyas. The Sanikiluaq HTO proposes to measure the density and composition of benthic fauna available for winter foraging by these birds as the final component of a winter ecological studies program. The work would be done in close association with CWS and will provide information needed for the management of this declining population.
The Board decided (Resolution 2000- 110) to approve NWMB study funding to the Sanikiluaq HTO in the amount of $20,000 for 2000/01 to assist with a study of foraging ecology of Hudson Bay eiders wintering at polynyas in the Belcher Islands, with approval conditional on the proponents:
7. Monitor snow and Ross’ geese and their habitat near Arviat: In the past three years the Arviat HTO has participated in a co-operative effort with CWS to jointly monitor goose populations and their habitat. The impetus for this work has been the burgeoning numbers of breeding geese in the area and their probable impact on the habitat. The HTO proposes to continue these efforts this coming summer. Besides the funding request to the NWMB, there are substantial funding implications for the CWS and for the Northern Ecosystems Initiative.
David Alagalak spoke in favour of the proposal but expressed serious reservations about the use of helicopters to herd and coral flightless geese for banding. David expressed the view that this function could and should be accomplished by non-mechanized means.
The Board decided (Resolution 2000- 111) to approve NWMB study funding to the Arviat HTO in the amount of $10,200 for 2000/01 to assist with a project to monitor Snow and Ross’ Geese and their habitat near Arviat, conditional on the proponents:
8. Continue the Greenland halibut surveys in NAFO Sub-Area 0: This is the second year of a planned three-year project, organized by DFO with the encouragement of the Qikiqtaaluk Wildlife Board (QWB) and the NWMB along with Greenland and other interests, to determine the status of the Greenland halibut (turbot) resource in NAFO Sub-Area 0. It is proposed to focus the survey effort in the coming summer on that portion of this Sub-Area designated as NAFO Division 0B. The present application is for $50,000 of NWMB funding to support this second year of the survey. Government agencies are not eligible for NWMB study funding, and the project was funded in the first year through the QWB. DFO is scheduled to contribute over $200,000 to the project this year.
The Board decided (Resolution 2000- 112) to approve NWMB study funding in the amount of $50,000 for 2000/01 to support the ongoing scientific survey of Greenland halibut in NAFO Divisions 0A and 0B, with this approval conditional on the proponents:
9. Document physical anomalies in the skin of beluga whales in Nunavut waters: Dr. David St. Aubin from the Mystic Aquarium in Connecticut, and formerly from the University of Guelph in Ontario, has observed that beluga whales often have marks on their outer skin that cannot readily be attributed to source. Many belugas in eastern Hudson Bay have a very distinctive type of sunken circular skin lesions that might (or might not) be attributable to a virus. He (St. Aubin) will be trying to determine the origin of these marks on beluga whales in Nunavik this summer. Pending funding assistance, he proposes to extend the range of the study into the Nunavut Territory as well as into the western Arctic. This would involve recruiting the services of HTOs to collect and submit samples.
The Board decided (Resolution 2000- 113) not to approve NWMB study funding to Dr. David St. Aubin to document skin condition of beluga whales in Nunavut waters, but to invite the proponent to undertake consultations with Nunavut communities to determine if this is a matter of local or regional interest or concern.
In concluding this agenda item Michelle Wheatley advised that the Board had approved Wildlife Study funding for 2000/01 in the total amount of $216,450. Based on past experience, not all of the proponents will meet their funding conditions so that the actual funding requirement will almost certainly be less. However the Board has budgeted only $120,000 for this purpose. Michelle suggested that the Board might want to consider moving the Davis Strait turbot survey project from the Wildlife Studies Fund to the Nunavut Wildlife Research Trust in order to alleviate this funding squeeze. The Board agreed to take this suggestion under advisement.
The Chairperson, Ben Kovic, moved the meeting back to its ordinary agenda.
3. Minutes: Review and Approval 3.A Regular Meeting 24, Sanikiluaq
The Minutes for Regular Meeting No. 24, held at Sanikiluaq on 23 - 25 November 1999, were adopted as presented. (Resolution 2000- 114)
3.B Conference Calls 46 and 47
The Minutes for Conference Call No. 46 conducted on 17 January 2000, and for Conference Call No. 47 conducted on 28 February 2000 were adopted as presented. (Resolution 2000- 115)
4. Financial and Administrative Business
Ben Kovic reminded the Members that a major item of business for this Meeting was to finalize the NWMB Workplan for the remainder of the first contract period, and more specifically for the three years 01 April 2000 through 31 March 2003. This Workplan is meant to satisfy the request from the Implementation Panel for a planning and budgetary submission from the NWMB by the end of March, as well as providing a budget plan for submission to DIAND for 2000/01. Ben noted that the Board provided guidance for the development of the Workplan during its Strategic Planning Workshop last November. Based on the deliberations of the Workshop, Michael d'Eça and Gordon Tomlinson have drafted the documents that have been tabled for the Board’s consideration at this meeting.
Michael led the Board through a review of the material that he had prepared for this exercise. Gordon Tomlinson led a similar review of the administrative and budgetary material. Upon completion of these reviews, Michael asked for reaction and suggestions from the Members.
Some Members were of the opinion that the Workplan should contain more detail about the NWMB’s achievements since its inception. A compromise solution was chosen: to elaborate on one or two “sample” items, to be clearly identified as such. Kevin McCormick suggested that it would be appropriate to incorporate more explicit reference to the workload implications for the NWMB that could be expected to stem from initiatives that were going to originate externally. He predicted that the new legislation being developed for species-at-risk will create significant immediate workload pertaining to species designations. Kevin also predicted that the Board can soon expect to have for consideration and approval as many as ten management plans for new Wildlife Management Areas. Harry Flaherty suggested that one or more of the NWMB annual reports be attached to the documents.
The Board decided (Resolution 2000- 116) to approve the NWMB Workplan documents as outlined, but instructed the drafters to take account of the Board’s observations when finalizing the material for presentation to NIP and DIAND.
4.B Financial Variance Report to 29 February 2000
Gordon Tomlinson led the Board through the interim financial variance report as at the end of February. With only one month of the fiscal year still remaining, a year-end under-expenditure of $182,000 is projected.
The Board decided (Resolution 2000- 117) to accept the interim financial variance report as presented.
4.C New Funding Arrangement with DIAND
Michael d'Eça observed that this file has been active since 1997. He referred the Board to his briefing note of March 3, which documents the developments that have taken place since November. This has been a period of intense negotiations. The effort has been on behalf of all the IPGs under the NLCA, and the result is not particular to the NWMB. Michael outlined the key items of those negotiations.
The matter is now very close to being settled. Michael referred to the latest version of the template DIAND/IPG Funding Agreement attached to the briefing note. In summary:
These are very significant improvements. They were achieved by taking on some new reporting requirements. Although onerous, these requirements are not beyond what a responsible agency should be ready and able to provide. In summary:
Ben Kovic thanked Michael for his work on this matter. Board Members were unanimous in declaring it to be a job well done. They stated the expectation that this new funding agreement will inevitably be adopted by land claims organizations across the country.
The Board decided (Resolution 2000- 118) to approve the template for a new Funding Agreement with DIAND as presented and as pertinent to the NWMB, subject to the resolution of final details by NWMB Legal Counsel and DIAND officials, this for implementation in respect to 2000/01.
5. Chairperson, Staff and Members’ Reports
Ben Kovic referred the Members to the briefing binder for lists of trips and meetings that he completed (since the last Meeting) and planned (through to May) on behalf of the Board. A highlight for the period was a recent trip to Portland to meet with the National Animal Alliance and other groups working to challenge the US Marine Mammal Protection Act. The immediate aim is to develop momentum for addressing Senate hearings in May. In speaking to the gathering Ben stressed the need to “speak from the heart” on what is a highly emotional issue.
5.B Executive Director’s Report
Jim Noble referred the Members to the summary of his recently completed and future planned activities contained in the briefing material. A highlight for the recent period has been working with the Nunavut Fisheries Working Group. Jim reported that he has been convening regular staff meetings, has wound down the Nunavut Wildlife Management Advisory Board, and met (along with the other IPGs) with the Nunavut Implementation Panel. Closing out the accounts of the NWMAB yielded about $20,000 for credit to the NWMB.
5.C Director of Wildlife Management Report
Michelle Wheatley referred the Members to her activity report in the briefing binder. She pointed out that in response to a suggestion from the last meeting she had highlighted (in bold) those items that were also on the current agenda. This should save time by deferring discussion on those items that are to be treated in due course. As is routinely the case, Michelle reported a very busy schedule, dominated in this period by the need to evaluate progress reports and funding proposals in respect to NWRT and NWMB study funding.
5.D Director of Finance and Administration Report
Gordon Tomlinson referred the Members to his activity report in the briefing binder. Considerable attention was devoted in the period to preparing the budget for 2000/01 and assisting with the preparation of a 3-year workplan for the NIP.
Michael d'Eça referred the Members to his activity report for the period November 9 to March 2. Michael noted that considerable effort was devoted in this period to the development of comprehensive briefing notes and papers including with respect to:
Other major workload items in this period included preparation for and facilitation of the NWMB Strategic Planning Workshop in November, and drafting of an NWMB workplan for the period April 2000 through March 2003.
5.F Fisheries Advisor’s Report
Michelle Wheatley referred the Members to Ray Andrews’ activity report for the period from mid November through February. Ray reported that this was one of his busiest periods with the Board since the beginning of his association. Also during this period he began a formal advisory association with DSD with respect to its overlapping interest (with the NWMB) in commercial fishery development. The biggest single source of increased activity stemmed from Ray’s appointment to the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council as an ex-officio member representing the Nunavut Government. Other activities during the period pertained to NAFO, the Nunavut Fisheries Working Group, Canada-Greenland Bilaterals, and the FPAFC.
5.G Members’ Reports and Concerns
Makabe Nartok tabled a letter written by David Igutsaq of Taloyoak requesting an easing of restrictions on muskox harvesting in that area since muskox are observed to be increasing and posing a competitive threat to the preferred caribou species.
6. Completion of Assignments and Resolutions from Last Meeting
Jim Noble referred the Members to the Task List, with status notations, arising from the previous NWMB meeting. Jim pointed out that Gordon Koshinsky had adjusted the format of the Task List from previous versions, breaking it into six categories:
Jim invited comments on this revised Task List format. Michelle Wheatley acknowledged that there was merit in categorizing the tasks according to some measure of priorities. She observed however that any system of categories that is devised will invariably be subjective. She also cautioned against interpreting any such task list as an indicator of workloads, since there are a great number of day-to-day tasks that do not derive specifically from Board meetings. Michelle also offered a number of more detailed suggestions if something like the revised Task List format is to be continued:
Jim noted that the vast majority of the identified tasks arising from the last meeting were once again completed or are well underway. A few items generated some discussion, namely:
Ben Kovic stressed that any item in the Task Lists that has not been designated as “Completed” should be considered as the subject for serious continuing attention unless there has been a definite indication to the contrary, even if the item was not specifically discussed or re-iterated at this time.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
