The SRRB has required additional time to consider and integrate the additional evidence received from ENR, the Kugluktuk Hunters and Trappers Organisation and Colville into its decisions and final Report. In light of this, the Board has deferred its timeline for an additional three days, to July 28, 2016.

The Board reminds Parties in the hearing that section 13.8.24(b) of the Sahtú Dene and Métis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement (SDMCLCA) provides that, unless the Minister directs otherwise, the SRRB’s Final Report will remain confidential for a period of 60 days, or until September 18, 2016.

Thank you for your patience. If you have any questions, please contact Joe Hanlon at 867-588-4040, or info@srrb.nt.ca.

The following information is provided:

• The data are from aerial surveys of the two herds during calving in early June, 2016.

• Breeding tsı́da (females) of the Bluenose-East ɂekwę́ were grouped in a more compact area on the calving grounds than in 2015. Bedzıo (bulls) were spread out south of Kugluktuk.

• The surveys are taken from airplanes flying routes, or transects, over the herds but are NOT photographic surveys which are more accurate and take more time to analyse. The next photographic survey is scheduled for 2018.

• The tight grouping of the adult ɂekwę́ on the BNE calving grounds makes accurate counting more difficult using this type of survey.

• There were 36 radio-collared tsı́da in the area surveyed, all of which were located (i.e., it is unlikely that any major groups of tsı́da were missed in the survey).

• ENR estimated that there were 18,500 adult (over 1 y old) ɂekwę́ in the BNE at ɂekwę́ nę́go lek’e (the calving grounds). There is no estimate of the number of calves present. Bedzıo were not counted.

• ENR concludes that the BNE is continuing to decline, although not as quickly as in the last 5 years. The Bathurst may have increased by a small amount since the last survey.

• The conclusions from the survey are very tentative, and are only used for rough estimates.

The KHTO submission proposes development of a Community Caribou Management Plan (ICCMP) developed in consultation with the Kitikmeot Inuit Association as a KHTO-controlled alternative to the Total Allowable Harvest (TAH) proposed by the Government of Nunavut (GN), stating that "the KHTO does not believe that a TAH is necessary and should only be used as a last resort." The following tools in the ICCMP are identified, as follows:

1. Setting a limit on KHTO member harvest which is controlled by the KHTO;
2. Mandatory BNECH harvest reporting to the KHTO by members;
3. Establishing a ‘No Caribou Hunting Zone’ to reduce BNECH harvest in an area that has easy access by trails and all-terrain vehicles;
4. The establishment of an KHTO controlled enforcement system regarding BNECH harvest rates and zones, mandatory reporting, and harvest practices;
5. Creation of a program and looking for partners to create a predator management program to reduce predation pressure on the BNECH;
6. Continuing and improving education of KHTO members about caribou, respectful harvest practices, and alternate species to harvest; and
7. Increased effort to increase the fair quota to the KHTO regarding muskox in the Kugluktuk harvest area to relieve harvest pressure on the BNECH.

The submission outlines the basis for the KHTO's view that the GN Department of Environment did not adequately consult with them about their proposal for a TAH. Appended is a signed May 9, 2016 resolution opposing the GN's proposal for a TAH.

New section added: Conservation Approach

• Explains some key Dene harvesting and governance concepts that underlie the plan
• Describes areas in which Dene approach conservation in a different way than other systems of resource management

New section added: Our Plan for Action

• Revised former Workplanning section, moving detailed actions into Appendix D and describing broader conservation goals and strategies by program area in new section of plan body

New program area details added: Ɂededáhk’ǝ́ (Habitat)

• Addressed community interest in having plan include more about ‘big picture’ issues like climate change and habitat protection
• Added specific sites recommended for protection and actions to address climate change

Ɂekwę́ Nátsezé Ɂeɂa moved into relevant action program area from Appendix B

• Information formerly in appendix was revised and added to the relevant program area in the plan

New Appendix A added: Délı̨nę Got'ı̨nę Community Members Participating in Belarewı́le Gots’ę́ Ɂekwę́ Planning Process

• List of community members involved in Working Group meetings to date

New Appendix C added: RRC Responsibilities Under the Land Claim

• Contains relevant clauses from the Sahtú Dene and Métis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement (1993) pertaining to Renewable Resource Council responsibilities for wildlife and wildlife habitat

Délı̨nę Ɂekwę́ Code (former Appendix C) revised and moved to Appendix E

• Refined ideas around who the Harvest Code applies to and how it impacts Sahtú participants and people from other communities

Removed Appendix D: Practicing Our Ɂekwę́ Nátsezé Ɂeɂa

• Former appendix detailing Working Group responses to ENR questions about how the Harvest Policy would work in practice removed

More Dene language and concepts incorporated throughout plan

• Did additional language work to better understand Dene ecological concepts
• Added many Dene words and phrases to better reflect Dene perspective

Administrative/Other

• Updated working group members with additional names since latest meetings
• Updated process sections to include hearings and recent meetings.

• An outline of the relevant Ɂehdzo Got'ı̨nę Gots'ę́ Nákedı (Sahtú Renewable Resources Board) mandate per the Sahtú Dene and Métis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement, including the statement of principles, objectives and provisions related to limitation of the harvest.
• The Need for Conservation: Status of the Bluenose-East herd.
• Main Elements of the Bluenose-East Management Proposal, including: Hunter Harvest; Predator Management; and Monitoring.
• What we heard during the public hearing, including: importance of maintaining caribou harvest for Aboriginal cultures; leadership in caribou conservation from Délįne; caribou collars; predator management; development and maintaining healthy habitat; co‐management through community outreach, education and involvement; Sahtú Needs Level.
• Schedule A: Submission to the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board.

• Key considerations in relation to the management proposal submitted by NWT Environment and Natural Resources as well as the final submissions by Colville and the Tulı́t'a and Fort Good Hope RRCs.
• A summary listing of key revisions in Version 2 of the Belarewíle Gots'ę́ Ɂekwę́ proposal (posted to this registry as a separate document).
• Appendices consisting of a compilation of written documents submitted to the Ɂehdzo Got'ı̨nę Gots'ę́ Nákedı and Wek'èezhı̀ı Renewable Resources Board as part of their Bluenose East hearing proceedings.

• Introduction
• Colville's interest
• The requirements of the SDMCLCA have not been met
  
  • Conservation issue not established (1st requirement of 13.5.2)
  • Not established that Total Allowable Harvest (TAH) is required for conservation (2nd requirement of 13.5.2)
  • The proposed TAH goes further than required (3rd requirement of 13.5.2)
• Conclusion - Colville recommendations
• Exhibit "A" - April 30, 2015 letter, Colville to ENR
• Technical summary of the key concerns, regarding the proposed management plan for the Bluenose-East caribou herd - Norman Barichello
  • We are concerned about the lack of co-management.
  • Deployment of radio-collars should be prohibited. 
  • Currently management actions are based almost entirely on a population census that is of questionable accuracy, and is undertaken at a time when caribou should be left alone.
  • The observed changes in the number of caribou in the Bluenose East population has prompted a “caribou conservation crisis”, despite wide-spread acknowledgement (likely consensus) that barren ground caribou cycle in numbers over a 30-50 year period.
  • There are many factors believed to be at play in the climate-caribou cycle to explain observed cyclic pattern, yet there is minimal effort to monitor these potential factors, or include them in analytical projections of herd trend.
  • The decline in caribou has coincided with northern development (diamonds, oil and gas, mineral exploration), yet meager effort is made to manage adverse impacts associated with
    development.
  • Harvest is singled out despite any compelling evidence that harvest caused the decline or will influence its recovery.
  • Significant impacts to the Dene way of life.
  • The determination of harvest is badly flawed.
  • ENR’s population projections are very simplistic and unrealistic.
  • ENR’s promotion of bull-only harvest is also far too simplistic and ignores what is likely a far
    more complex relationship between sex ratio and caribou productivity and survival.
  • Recommendations to the Sahtu Renewable Resources Board.

• The status of the BNE herd
• The use of collars
• Bull-only harvest or selective harvest
• Predator control
• Cumulative effects
• Climate change

The questions addressed are as follows:

1. There was evidence at the SRRB and WRRB hearings about how different user groups from the Tłı̨chǫ, Nunavut and Sahtú all use the Bluenose East herd. You have had time to think about the questions raised by Colville Lake in the March 1-3 hearings, and the evidence from the regions in the April 6-8 hearings in Behchokǫ̀. Do you have more thoughts about how you see the plan interacting with plans developed for other user groups, such as the Tłı̨chǫ and other Sahtu communities?

2. This question is about how you see the Plan and Code relating to enforcement under the Wildlife Act, if people do not follow the harvesting thresholds you have set out.

   Délı̨nę’s Code proposes an alternative community-based enforcement process for dealing with people who do not follow the caribou harvesting code. That process, as we understand it, starts with the person's family speaking directly to the person who is not abiding by the Code, then moves to a Sentencing Circle process and then, if it is not resolved, referral of the matter to GNWT for enforcement under the Wildlife Act. Enforcement is an area outside the SRRB's jurisdiction but the ability of Délı̨nę to demonstrate that the Code will be effective is an important consideration in understanding the conservation implications of the Plan and Code. The Board is aware that there are mechanisms under the Wildlife Act that allow for alternative enforcement programs. For instance, the Wildlife Act allows alternative enforcement measures can be used to deal with offences under the Wildlife Act if certain conditions are met. One of those conditions, for example, is that an alternative enforcement program would have to be authorized by the Minister of Justice.

   Do you see the entire three-step Délı̨nę Code enforcement program being an alternative under the existing Wildlife Act, or do you see the Délı̨nę enforcement program as a process completely outside the Wildlife Act that is recognized by the Wildlife Act as an alternative only at the third and last step in the proposed process?

   Would Délı̨nę be willing to work with the GNWT to develop an alternative enforcement measures program authorized by the GNWT Minister of Justice?

• Feedback on the Délı̨nę Belarewı́le Gots'ę́ Ɂekwę́ caribou conservation plan.
• Ɂekwę́ monitoring approaches
• The Tulı́t'a RRC's wish to develop a caribou plan for their own community.

1. Is Délı̨nę asking to establish a Total Allowable Harvest (TAH) for Délı̨nę as a whole that reflects what is written in the Code?
2. With respect to s. 7 of the Délı̨nę plan which refers to harvesting 150 Bluenose-East and [50] Bluenose-West – is Délı̨nę asking the Board to make a locally applicable harvest for Délı̨nę or a locally applicable TAH of those numbers of caribou within the Délı̨nę district as a whole?
3. If Délı̨nę is requesting a TAH established through the community of Délı̨nę or within the Délı̨nę district, is Délı̨nę requesting that the harvest can only be carried out within the Délı̨nę district; must that quota of caribou only be harvested in the Délı̨nę district or does it travel with the Délı̨nę participant to other areas of the Sahtú?
4. Regarding other Sahtú beneficiaries – is Délı̨nę requesting the Board to limit the rights of Sahtú participants to harvest any caribou in addition to the 150 BNE and 50 BNW caribou in the Délı̨nę district?
5. Is Délı̨nę requesting the Board to limit the exercise of rights on the part of Délı̨nę participants to harvest BNE and BNW only in the Délı̨nę district?

• Provide information about how Deline defines the area of "the locations where Deline has traditionally harvested in the Bluenose West area" as referenced on page 30 of the Deline Plan.

The Délı̨nę Ɂehdzo Got’ı̨nę responds that due to revisions made in the plan clarifying that it applies to the Bluenose East and Bluenose West Areas within the Délı̨nę District, the question is no longer applicable.

• Responses to undertakings and SRRB questions by April 30
• Final submission by May 20 (the deadline for Parties that are not proponents is May 6).