Northern Contaminants Program - First Nations€¦ · NCP Blueprints - Introduction 6 3 NCP...

Northern Contaminants Program

Call for Proposals2010-2011

Table of Contents 1 Call for Proposals 2010-2011 .................................................................................... 2 2 Proposal Submission Checklist.................................................................................. 5 3 NCP Blueprints .......................................................................................................... 6 4 Blueprint for Human Health – 2010-2011 ............................................................... 12 5 Blueprint for Environmental Monitoring and Research – 2010-2011 ..................... 26 6 Blueprint for Community Based Monitoring and Research .................................... 44 7 Blueprint for Communications, Capacity, and Outreach 2010-2011 ...................... 47 8 National/Regional/International Coordination and Aboriginal Partnerships........... 55

Guidance document 2010-2011 ................................................................................ 55 9 Proposal Format, 2010-2011.................................................................................... 56 10 Criteria for Review of Proposals Submitted to the 2010-2011 Northern

Contaminants Program............................................................................................. 64 11 Timelines for the Northern Contaminants Program Review Process 2010-2011.... 67 Appendix A: Sample proposal........................................................................................... 68 Appendix B: User’s Guide for On-line Submission of Proposals.................................... 85 Appendix C: Northern Contaminants Program Data and Sample Accessibility Agreement

Form......................................................................................................................... 90 Appendix D: Consultation Requirements for Northern Contaminants Program Projects:

Process and Documentation .................................................................................... 92 Appendix E: Guidelines for Responsible Research ......................................................... 99

Call for Proposals 2010-2011 2

1 Call for Proposals 2010-2011 The NCP is now accepting funding proposals for 2010-2011. The deadline for proposal submission is 11:59 PM Eastern Time, February 1st, 2010. The current focus of the Northern Contaminants Program is to address high priority issues in communities where people are being exposed to contaminant levels of concern to health authorities. The NCP is to address these issues through: conducting research and monitoring to enable the provision of sound dietary advice; meeting Canada’s monitoring obligations under international agreements (LRTAP protocols on POPs and Heavy Metals, as well as the Stockholm Convention); and, undertaking education and communications efforts in these high priority areas. Activities to be funded by the NCP fall under five subprograms: human health; environmental monitoring and research; community-based monitoring and research; communications, capacity, and outreach; and national/regional/international coordination and Aboriginal partnerships. The NCP has recently updated the Blueprints, the Program’s long-term strategic plans, for conducting projects under each of these subprograms, taking into account new research results from the past year. Project proponents should consult these Blueprints when preparing their proposals. The NCP supports cross-disciplinary studies that advance general contaminants-related knowledge, including projects that address climate change – contaminant interactions, and encourages researchers to seek opportunities to combine NCP activities with those funded by other programs to explore these cross-disciplinary questions. The NCP also encourages researchers to seek co-funding for capacity building through ArcticNet’s Northern Partnerships Initiative (www.arcticnet.ulaval.ca) and the Nasivvik Centre for Inuit Health and Changing Environments. The Nasivvik Centre at Laval and Trent University is focused on enhancing Inuit and other student and trainee engagement in Inuit environmental health research associated with the topics of food and Inuit health, water and Inuit health or traditional plants and medicines and Inuit health. If you are interested in also applying for a Nasivvik complementary funding grant to increase Inuit student or trainee involvement in your NCP project please see www.nasivvik.ulaval.ca A general and open call for proposals is now being issued for the Human Health, Environmental Monitoring and Research, Community-Based Monitoring and Research, and Communications, Capacity, and Outreach


subprograms in accordance with the priorities identified in the Blueprints. The deadline for proposal submission is 11:59 PM Eastern Time, February 1st, 2010. All proposals for new projects will be subject to an external peer review. Continuing multi-year projects that remain essentially unchanged from the original proposal will not be subject to an external peer review, but will be reviewed by the appropriate technical review team and Regional Contaminants Committee. All project leaders are asked to carefully review the Consultation Requirements for Northern Contaminants Program Projects: Process and Documentation (Appendix D) which specifies requirements for all project proposals. In addition, each human health research project involving people will be required to receive a positive review from at least one recognized ethics review board/committee before being given final approval by the NCP. The 2010-2011 Call for Proposals will continue to use an on-line proposal submission and administration system - the NCP Project Management Application or NCP-PMA. All proposals shall be submitted via this system which can be accessed through the NCP website at: http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ncp/. Detailed instructions on how to use the new system are included in the enclosed information package (Appendix B). Project leaders of all approved projects for 2010-2011 are required to participate in the NCP Results Workshop to be held in fall 2010. Proponents should include a budget item (up to a maximum of $2,500) for costs associated with travel for one individual per project to take part in this workshop. The Northern Contaminants Program has been a leader in advancing the knowledge of chemical contaminants from long-range transport sources in the Canadian Arctic for over 18 years. During that time, northern people have been encouraged to participate in planning research, educating local elders, and providing information back to the Northern communities. These activities have resulted in a considerable development of local expertise and understanding of issues associated with Northern research. The NCP is proud that this capacity, knowledge and best practices has and continues to play a vital role in the research activities associated with International Polar Year 2008-2009.


Information, Forms and Supporting Documents • NCP Blueprints and Guidance Documents for 2010-2011 (new) • Review Process Timelines (new) • User’s Guide – Instructions for On-line Proposal Submission • Proposal Submission Checklist • Proposal Format (new) • Budget Statement (new) • Data and Sample Accessibility Agreement • Consultation Requirements for NCP Projects • Guidelines for Responsible Research • Proposal Review Criteria

If you have any questions concerning any of the above, please contact any member of the NCP Secretariat: Jason Stow: Environmental Monitoring and Research, Community Based Monitoring and Research, and on-line submission using the PMA [email protected] , (418) 614-2374 Simon Smith: Communication, Capacity, and Outreach; Human Health; and National/Regional/International Coordination and Aboriginal Partnerships [email protected] , (819) 997-9448

Proposal Submission Checklist 5

2 Proposal Submission Checklist � The proposal addresses priority research as identified in the Blueprints for

2010-2011 and falls under the geographic scope of the NCP. � I have read and understand the Guidelines for Responsible Research. The proposal package being submitted to the Northern Contaminants Program Secretariat on or before 11:59 PM Eastern Time, February 1st, 2010 includes: Detailed proposal document to be uploaded using the on-line submission

system:

� Proposal, written in accordance to the 2010-2011 proposal format � Table 1: Detailed budget information � Table 2: Associated costs and other funding sources Fax to NCP Secretariat at (819) 934-8980:

� Signed Data and Sample Accessibility Agreement form In addition, the following must be submitted to the Northern Contaminants

Program Secretariat by March 31st, 2010:

� Signed Approval of Consultation form(s) and/or letters of consent

NCP Blueprints - Introduction 6

3 NCP Blueprints

3.1 Introduction The overall objective of the Northern Contaminants Program is to reduce and where possible eliminate contaminants from the Arctic environment while providing information to Northerners about contaminants in traditional/country foods. The NCP is working towards achieving this objective through world class scientific research and monitoring that is used to influence the development and implementation of global agreements to reduce and/or eliminate the production, use, and release of contaminating substances into the environment. The results of this research also form the basis for assessing human health risks associated with contaminants in traditional/country foods, which is used by national and regional health authorities to develop dietary advice. The Arctic has emerged in recent decades as a global bellwether for Earth’s environment. Though far removed from the industrial centres that generate pollution the Arctic is a receiving environment for a class of pollutants that reach the Arctic by long-range transportation through the atmosphere, oceans and rivers. By virtue of there being very few source of contaminants in the Arctic, their presence is associated almost entirely with global sources outside of the Arctic. Based in large part on early results of the NCP, three international agreements have been implemented to regulate the production use and release of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and heavy metals (lead, cadmium and mercury). These include the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (UN-ECE LRTAP) Protocols on POPs and heavy metals and the global United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Stockholm Convention on POPs. Both of these conventions recognize that the presence of a given chemical in the Arctic environment represents the strongest evidence that the chemical is a POP and subject to long-range transportation. Heavy metals, and particularly mercury, also exhibit the potential to be transported over long distances to be deposited in the Arctic. Currently, there is no global agreement to reduce mercury emissions, however, the United Nations Environment Programme has recently initiated an Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee to develop a legally binding global agreement by 2013. Of particular importance to these international conventions and programs is the consideration of impacts on human health, where once again the Arctic emerges as the region where people are impacted the most from global pollution. These impacts arise from the efficiency with which the Arctic biological systems accumulate and biomagnify contaminants resulting in high


levels of dietary exposure for upper trophic level wildlife and people that rely on them for subsistence. The NCP plays a very important role in generating scientific information about contaminants in the Arctic that is critical to the further development, i.e. addition of new substances to the Stockholm and LRTAP Conventions, and the implementation of these international agreements, particularly for the purpose of assessing their effectiveness. NCP (and AMAP at the Circumpolar level) continue to influence the work under these two international conventions specifically related to effectiveness evaluation and the addition of new chemicals for control. In May 2009, COP-4 of the Stockholm Convention approved the first evaluation report which included Arctic baseline data under the Global Monitoring Plan. NCP (and AMAP) was specifically mentioned in the evaluation report as an important long-term monitoring program providing significant Arctic trend data for POPs. Arctic data and information will also be critical to the UNEP negotiating process for developing a global agreement on mercury and to help develop associated long-term global monitoring and research programmes. Understanding contaminant pathways and processes in the Arctic, and the effects that contaminants may have on wildlife and humans who live there is very much linked to an understanding of how the whole Arctic system works. This means that the NCP and its researchers must develop links between their fields of contaminants research and other fields of arctic science. This multidisciplinary approach must include natural and social sciences as well as local observation and traditional knowledge. NCP scientists are encouraged to develop these links in their projects. Questions related to climate change and the influence it may have on contaminant pathways, processes and effects are being addressed by the NCP, however, this can only be done in cooperation with other programs that address climate change related issues. Similarly there are benefits to coordinating NCP activities related to human health and education and communications with related programs dealing with climate change impacts and adaptation with Arctic communities (e.g. Health Canada’s Climate Change and Health Adaptation for Inuit Communities Program). A prime example of this type of cooperation is the Inuit Health Survey which combines resources from the NCP, ArcticNet, International Polar Year, Canadian Institute of Health Research, and others to address a multitude of questions related to the health of Inuit. At a program level, the NCP has been cultivating links with other science programs like ArcticNet and International Polar Year to promote coordination and cooperation in Canadian Arctic science. The NCP played an important role in the development of these other two programs, particularly in the area of Aboriginal involvement, management structure, scientific and social/cultural


review. The NCP is also working hard in the Northern Affairs Organization to develop a strong Arctic science plan as part of the Northern Strategy and development of the Canadian High Arctic Research Station (HARS) For example, the NCP’s blueprint process and management framework have been adopted into the HARS draft science plans. Internationally, the NCP, on behalf of Canada, plays a leadership role in the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program, which coordinates Arctic science activities in cooperation with other working groups under the Arctic Council. The current AMAP Chair is also the current chair of the NCP Management Committee which will ensure further collaboration between the two initiatives. The NCP is also playing an important role in coordinating Canada’s involvement in new Arctic science initiatives such as the development of a Sustained Arctic Observing Network (SAON) as a legacy to International Polar Year. The NCP has also encouraged Northern Aboriginal organizations to actively participate in these arctic science initiatives and has helped build capacity in these organizations so that they have a direct impact on development of national and international arctic science and environmental policy. A good example of capacity building and recognition of the important contributions of northern Aboriginal organizations was INAC/NCP’s support for an ICC representative to join the Canadian delegation at COP-4 of the Stockholm Convention in May 2009. As a result, Canada received accolades from other countries, as well as from many Non-governmental Environmental and Aboriginal organizations. The NCP meets the challenges of monitoring and research related to Arctic contaminants through five subprograms: 1. Human Health 2. Environmental Monitoring and Research 3. Community Based Monitoring and Research 4. Communications, Capacity, and Outreach 5. National/Regional/International Coordination and Aboriginal

Partnerships These subprograms are designed to be complementary and therefore projects that link two or more subprograms together are encouraged. For example, dietary exposure assessments carried out under the Human Health program can make use of samples and data being generated by the Environmental Monitoring and Research subprogram; Environmental Monitoring and Research projects can benefit from local knowledge gathered through Communications, Capacity, and Outreach activities, which in turn can employ researchers from the Environmental Monitoring and Research subprogram to help better communicate their scientific results. Finally a new Blueprint is being introduced for 2010-2011 to support Community Based Monitoring and Research. 2010-2011 will be a developmental year for this new subprogram


whereby the NCP is soliciting proposals to conduct a pilot-project specifically aimed at addressing the issue of ecosystem change and the influence on contaminants. This will be a community lead pilot-project that draws on the expertise of researchers in the Environmental Monitoring and Research subprogram. The five subprograms are guided by a series of strategic long-term plans called blueprints that are reviewed and updated annually, taking into consideration research results from the past year. In 2009 the Blueprints underwent a major review that assessed the cumulative progress made since 2004, the last time such a compressive review was undertaken. These reviews involved panels of external and internal experts (including some international experts) which provided recommendations for improvement to the Blueprints and which subsequently resulted in some significant changes. The blueprints remain living documents and will evolve as some research questions are answered and new issues or research questions come forward. Project proponents must consult the Blueprints when preparing their proposals and ensure that they meet the key priorities as outlined in the Blueprints. During the proposal review process, reviewers will use the blueprints to assess the relevance of a given proposal to the NCP. Scientific proposals for continuing projects from previous years are reviewed by a technical review team, and are assessed for their social/cultural context and adhesion to the Guidelines for Responsible Research by the appropriate territorial/regional contaminants committee. Funding of these continuing projects is also contingent on their success to date. Proposals for new Human Health, Environmental Monitoring and Research, and Community Based Monitoring and Research projects are reviewed and assessed according to the same process but in addition are evaluated by external peer reviewers. Proposals for the Communications, Capacity, and Outreach subprogram are reviewed and assessed by an independent review team and by the appropriate territorial/regional contaminants committee. Final decisions on approval of all proposals are made by the NCP Management Committee. All NCP-funded projects must conform to the NCP policies outlined below. The NCP requires that all funded projects be carried out in partnership with northerners. Scientists are encouraged to work with community leaders, elders, hunters and other knowledgeable individuals to incorporate traditional knowledge into the study design and conduct. Community input in the research is important, as are sensitive and sound researcher-community relations; all should be clearly demonstrated in your proposal. The territorial/regional contaminants committees play a particularly important role in


this respect and should be involved in whatever steps you take to work with the communities. Project proponents must demonstrate appropriate consultation in writing as outlined in the NCP guidelines on Revised Consultation Requirements for Northern Contaminants Program Projects: Process and Documentation, and as directed by Regional Contaminants Committees (RCCs). As part of the proposal review process, RCCs conduct a socio-cultural review of all proposals with recommendations for improvement, as needed, provided to proponents as well as the NCP Management Committee to be taken into consideration when making final funding decisions. Funding recipients are responsible for providing a plain language summary of their project results to ensure that their research results can be communicated to northerners in a manner that is understandable and useful. Funding recipients are also responsible for submitting yearly project synopses to the NCP secretariat and presenting results of their projects at the annual results workshop. The next NCP Results Workshop will be held in late September or early October 2010. The location exact date of the workshop will be announced early by spring of 2010. Proponents need to adhere closely to the NCP proposal format, time lines and be responsive to the review criteria to ensure that their proposals receive the best possible assessment. Proponents of research projects will be expected to publish their results in the peer-reviewed literature in a timely manner. The integrity and long-term stability of sample archive and data management is very important to the success of NCP research. It is therefore necessary for each proponent to describe their plans in these respects. Each proponent is also required to complete and sign the NCP Sample and Data Accessibility Form. A quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) program has been established to assess the performance of all laboratories carrying out contaminant analyses under the NCP and to ensure inter-comparability of data. The QA program is also designed to meet the diverse quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) needs of the researchers and analysts by providing them with appropriate diagnostic tools for their analyses, and by offering guidance and support toward corrective measures if needed. Details of the NCP QA/QC program can be obtained from the annual synopsis report. To ensure the continued success of the QA program, all laboratories that perform analyses for NCP research are expected to participate. The geographic focus of the Northern Contaminants Program includes the Yukon, Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Nunavik and Nunatsiavut. Proposals


for work to be conducted outside these regions will be considered on a case by case basis according to their relevance to the Blueprints.

Blueprints – Human Health 2010-2011 12

4 Blueprint for Human Health – 2010-2011

4.1 Introduction

4.1.1 Purpose of the Blueprint This blueprint outlines the research issues and questions to be addressed by the NCP human health subprogram in order for Northerners to assess, understand and manage better the health risks in northern Canada related to the long-range transport of contaminants and their presence in people and in traditional/country foods. The blueprint identifies priorities and activities in the areas of Human Biomonitoring, Health Effects, and Benefit/Risk Evaluation. The total funding available for Human Health projects in the 2010-2011 fiscal year is $1.68M. Deadline for proposals is 11:59 PM ET, February 1st, 2010.

4.1.2 Expectations of Proponents Each research project involving humans will be required to go through at least one recognized ethics review board/committee and must have a clear communications plan before being given final approval. Many of the topics described in this blueprint are amenable to being funded from other Canadian and international sources, due to their size and applicability outside of the North. Other funding sources, such as the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), Genome Canada, ArcticNet, and International Polar Year (IPY), the territories should be explored for complementary funding, where appropriate. Previously, project proponents have applied to the NCP for funding of the contaminants portion of larger Northern health research projects and additional consideration during the selection and evaluation process will be given to those projects that have secured multiple sources of funding. The larger health context, as well as the limited capacity of health professionals and community members in the North to participate in a growing number of research projects, means that it is becoming increasingly appropriate to include contaminants projects as elements of a broader health research study instead of developing standalone contaminants projects. Researchers are encouraged to bear this in mind. NCP funding would, of course, be limited to the appropriate Arctic contaminants element of any larger health study. Because the Arctic accumulates contaminants primarily from long-range transport, Arctic contaminant research data on new chemicals is regarded as critical evidence when assessing the need to add new substances to the Stockholm and LRTAP Conventions.


Any human health work with “new” contaminants (i.e. octabromodiphenyl ether (c-OctaBDE), pentachlorobenzene (PeCB), short chain chlorinated paraffins (SCCPs), and endosulfan) should take into account work conducted or planned under the Environmental Monitoring subprogram, as well as those chemicals being assessed under the UNEP Stockholm Convention - POP Review Committee and the UNECE LRTAP Convention Taskforce on POPs. Recent assessments of levels in human tissues indicate that these new contaminants are not a specific Arctic issue per se, (i.e., levels lower or similar to southern inhabitants) but are more likely a global and national issue. Currently, toxicological research on “new” contaminants is therefore not a priority of the NCP unless some other exposure characteristic unique to the Arctic indicates otherwise. Researchers are encouraged to explore the toxicity of these “new” contaminants through other funding programs. Researchers are also encouraged to consult the Environmental Monitoring blueprint, other NCP documents and published literature on “new” contaminants when developing rationale for the relevance and unique importance of these chemicals to the Arctic human context.

4.2 Background: Elevated levels of PCBs, various organochlorine pesticides, and metals such as mercury and lead have been found in human tissues and body fluids in certain Arctic regions compared to southern inhabitants. Epidemiological and toxicological studies in Canada and elsewhere have found that at certain levels these contaminants are toxic to humans. The previous Human Health blueprint has been in effect for five years with annual changes to reflect new information, to clarify priorities and to respond to directions from the NCP Management Committee. In June 2009 the NCP released the latest Human Health Assessment which identified a number of key conclusions resulting from NCP and external supported research in the blueprint elements. These conclusions can be obtained from the 2009 Canadian Arctic Contaminants and Health Assessment Report available by request from the NCP Secretariat. Over the last five years the NCP, with funds from INAC and Health Canada, has supported 51 of 73 proposed projects for approximately $8.5 million in expenditures under the Human Health subprogram. Eighteen exposure assessment projects were funded for a total of $2.3M; 17 epidemiology projects were funded for a total of $4.8M; 12 toxicology projects were funded for a total of $1.3M; and 4 Benefit / Risk projects were funded for a total of $160k.


4.3 Biomonitoring for Human Health

4.3.1 Context One of the knowledge gaps identified in the 2009 Human Health Assessment was that biomonitoring, including food choice surveys and monitoring of traditional/country food, should be continued to better understand how changing diet is impacting contaminant levels in northerners. This work should continue to focus on a cross section of highly and moderately exposed regions and should include both legacy and emerging contaminants of potential concern. The assessment of contaminant levels in traditional country foods along with food choice and dietary surveys will be key pieces of information for assessing sources and levels of dietary exposure. These elements of the biomonitoring program should be developed such that future assessments are carried out with the cooperation of project leads responsible for biotic monitoring under the Environmental Monitoring and Research subprogram. Doing so will strengthen the links between the two subprograms and ensure that knowledge about contaminants in the ecosystem is transferred to the assessment of human health risks. The results generated through such cooperation will also allow for further assessment of spatial and temporal trends. A biomonitoring program should be developed that builds on existing biomonitoring data. By focusing on continuation of the existing data set in a comprehensive manner, with community rotations over the next five years, a properly designed core biomonitoring program would create comparable data sets and allow for planned continuity, resulting in more meaningful trend analysis. Possible elements of the biomonitoring program could include:

• Contaminant levels in traditional/country foods • Contaminant levels in human blood • Dietary exposure assessment • Food choice surveys • Nutritional status • Appropriate biomarkers, i.e. oxidative stress

4.3.2 Implementation of the NCP Biomonitoring Program for Human Health

Work under the new Biomonitoring Program for Human Health falls under two main categories: dietary exposure assessments, and human biomonitoring.


4.3.2.1 Dietary exposure assessments The purpose of conducting dietary exposure assessments is to provide an up-to-date estimate on levels of contaminants in the diet of Northerners. These estimates of dietary exposure can then be compared with guidelines for safe levels of contaminant intake, i.e. tolerable daily intake (TDI). Dietary exposure assessments have been carried out in most regions of the Canadian Arctic at some point during the past 10 years and in many regions this data is now in need of updating. The updated assessment, when compared to past assessments will provide valuable information on how contaminant levels in country foods have changed, how dietary habits have changed, and ultimately how levels of dietary contaminant exposure have changed. In order to complete dietary exposure assessments there is a need to conduct new food choice and dietary surveys. The survey data will indicate which traditional/country foods are the highest priorities for contaminants monitoring. Food choice surveys will also provide information about the factors that affect dietary choices and the perception of contaminants in making those choices. A number of dietary surveys have been undertaken by NCP researchers over the last 15 years in the Yukon, NWT, Nunavut and Nunavik. This has provided valuable information in the interpretation of human contaminant biomonitoring and wildlife monitoring data plus allowed the development of better risk management advice to northerners. In connection with these surveys, samples of traditional/country foods should also be collected to allow for measurement of contaminant concentrations, including some of the new and emerging contaminants of concern listed in section 3.2.3. Measurement of contaminant concentrations in traditional country foods should be carried out in cooperation with project leaders from the Environmental Monitoring and Research subprogram, who can provide existing date on levels and trends in key food species, and who also have expertise on the analysis emerging contaminants of concern. The assessment of contaminant exposure needs to be coupled with an assessment of nutrient intake, which is essential for evaluating dietary risks and benefits. In priority regions for human biomonitoring, described in section 4.3.2.2, dietary exposure assessments, and particularly the food choice and dietary surveys, should be carried out in parallel with the human biomonitoring studies. This will allow for valuable comparisons of dietary exposure assessment to measured contaminant concentrations in human tissues and will facilitate the development of dietary intervention strategies as needed. The NCP has supported several maternal contaminant studies (Nunavik, Baffin and Inuvik regions) and various phases of the Inuit Health Survey in Nunavik, Nunatsiavut Nunavut, and the NWT to study both contaminant concentrations in human tissues and dietary exposures to contaminants. This body burden and dietary exposure information still needs to be evaluated in detail. This detailed evaluation will allow development of better intervention strategies and future dietary / human biomonitoring studies.


4.3.2.2 Human Biomonitoring The NCP is focussing on three regions for human biomonitoring: the Inuvialuit Settlement Region (ISR), Baffin Island (Qikiqtani Region), and Nunavik. These regions were chosen particularly because the program has already conducted significant work there and further work will allow a better assessment of changes in contaminant concentrations. Other regions will be considered if the northern health agencies provide a strong rationale. New approaches to sampling frequency will be considered in this program. It is anticipated that a human biomonitoring program would consume approximately $500k a year of the approximately $1.68M human health funds.

The development of a human biomonitoring program will use a staged approach, with development guidance from a steering committee made up of designated NCP members and other subject matter experts. The staged approach requires a proposal to be submitted this year, in coordination with the regional health authorities, which outlines activities for the 2010-2011 year, but also includes a plan for the full length of the project (e.g., 5 years). These proposals will need to set the general requirements for the program, including dietary, blood, and data quality objectives as specified below. Each proposal will be evaluated on the basis of the designated team, sample handling, engagement of northern resources, overall project viability, planned cost, and previous experience. The proposals will be evaluated in detail by the Human Health Technical Review Team as well as key partners from northern health organizations and aboriginal stakeholders. Particular consideration will be given to proposals that actively engage northerners. Target Populations for human biomonitoring

• Pregnant women should continue to be the target population of biomonitoring studies under the NCP. Continued sampling of maternal blood can allow trends to be assessed with past data that are not confounded by the sampling medium. Pregnant women are also an important group to focus on given the sensitivity of the developing fetus to contaminant exposure.

• Another important target group for biomonitoring is the adult men, as blood contaminant levels have, in general, been shown to be higher in adults than in pregnant women in several Arctic regions where both of these target populations have been studied (i.e., Nunavik, Canada; regions of Greenland; regions of Russia). Levels in adults may pose health risks not determined by the blood contaminant levels found in pregnant women.

• Other populations could be addressed if a strong rationale is provided. • The specific populations and related sampling frequencies are open to

discussion.


4.3.3 Contaminants of Concern

Transboundary contaminants The NCP focuses on transboundary contaminants that need assessment and monitoring to determine their presence in the Arctic environment and in human tissues given their persistent and bioaccumulative properties. Human exposure to these can be through the consumption of country food. Several of these contaminants have been targeted or nominated as potential candidates for regulation under the Stockholm Convention or the UNECE POPs Protocol.

o Examples: polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), perfluorinated

compounds (PFCs) and other emerging POPs such as hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD), endosulfans and short-chain chlorinated paraffins (SCCPs). See Appendix 1 for more detail.

Other contaminants

The biomonitoring program could also include chemicals to which populations are exposed through store foods, the preparation and storage of country food, drinking water and consumer products to fully understand the exposure profile of Northern populations. However, these are expected to be funded from sources outside of the NCP.

Broadening the spectrum of monitored contaminants to include chemicals studied under other national programs would support public health efforts of territorial and federal risk management efforts.

• Examples: organophosphate and organochlorine pesticides, pyrethroid

pesticides, metals, polyaromatic hydrocarbons [PAHs], phthalates and bisphenol A.

The funding for the analysis of these chemicals would come from sources outside of the NCP (e.g., through the Chemicals Management Plan or other funding sources).

Priority contaminants under the NCP

The chemicals of interest for monitoring under the core biomonitoring program have been prioritized into two general groups: legacy contaminants, and additional contaminants. Effort should be made to coordinate these chemicals of interest for biomonitoring in the Human Health subprogram with those monitored within the Environmental Monitoring and Research subprogram. Priority 1: Legacy Contaminants

The core biomonitoring program would continue to measure legacy contaminants (POPs and heavy metals) in human tissue and country food to ensure comparability with earlier


datasets for trend assessments, and to fulfill Canada’s commitment to monitoring under international agreements. Northerners continue to be exposed to legacy contaminants through the consumption of country food.

Priority 2: Additional Contaminants

Appendix 4.1 Summarizes examples of additional contaminants that could be included in human biomonitoring.

4.4 Human Health Effects Research

4.4.1 Context The focus of the health effects element is study of the interactions and effects of contaminants on human biological systems through investigations based on measurable determinants of health. Investigative techniques could include epidemiological, laboratory based toxicological, and relevant toxicogenomic studies. Proposed biological systems for study include, but are not limited to:

• Immune Effects - including suppression, disruption, and confounding effects • Endocrine Modulating Effects - including suppression, disruption, and

confounding effects • Oxidative Stress Effects- including cardiovascular and metabolic effects • Neurological Effects – including functional, psychological, and toxicological

effects Of all population groups in the Arctic, Inuit in Nunavik have participated most extensively in community-based health studies. This research has been carried out with partial funding from the NCP. Ongoing studies are now demonstrating that exposure to contaminants may be associated with subtle adverse health effects in Nunavik infants and children. The fetus and newborns are believed to be most at risk because their development at this stage of life is particularly susceptible to the adverse effects of contaminant exposure. These include reduced birth sizes and weights, and subtle changes in neurobehavioral and immunological development. It is not yet known whether these effects persist, or whether new effects will appear with time, and following up the existing cohort studies through childhood and into adolescence should shed light on this matter. It is expected that results from current and previous biomonitoring studies such as the Inuit Health Survey and the Child Cohort Study will be used to guide the pathways and effects research. Biomonitoring

Effects • Physical,

mental

Pathways/Mechanisms • Endocrine, etc


4.4.2 Pathways Biomarkers can potentially provide an early detection system for health conditions that may develop later, or can help address epidemiological issues that cannot be investigated directly because of low sample numbers. Research that focuses on biomarker development, however, is beyond the scope of the NCP. Any work with biomarkers funded through the NCP should be integrated within an epidemiological (or toxicological) study and demonstrate that a gap in NCP work is being filled by the research. Strong and convincing arguments need to be made by project proponents regarding the relevance of these biomarker studies to the Arctic human context. For a project to be considered for funding, the chosen biomarkers need to be reliably related to clinical health effects or clinical health outcomes experienced by Arctic peoples. Similarly, a strong association needs to be demonstrated between such health effects and contaminants. Human genomics has received much attention in recent years and has been raised as a potentially beneficial domain of research related to the effects of contaminants. Identifying the molecular mechanisms behind the contaminant effects observed in Arctic people could potentially be a useful approach to clarifying how contaminants are affecting the human body. Genomics has the ability to identify the molecular mechanisms associated with certain contaminant-related health effects at a very early stage and to uncover new biomarkers of toxicity. Any NCP-funded genomic work should emphasize applied outcomes relevant to the Arctic human situation, and will need to be clearly linked to known biomarkers of contaminant toxicity and/or to the elucidation of the mechanisms of action for high priority northern contaminants. In addition, proposed projects must use existing, well-validated genomic methods and endpoints.

4.4.3 Effects Reproductive/developmental effects have been associated with contaminants in studies of southerners and people occupationally exposed to contaminants, as well as laboratory studies using animals. Reproductive concerns among Canadian northerners have not emerged at a clinical or epidemiological level and fertility rates among northern Aboriginal people are among the highest in Canada. Despite this, reproductive studies will be considered by the NCP if a clear rationale is provided showing that reproductive effects related to contaminants are, or may become, a concern in the North. Arctic people are exposed to mixtures of contaminants rather than individual chemicals. During the past few years, NCP toxicological studies have investigated not only the health effects of individual contaminants, but also the effects of mixtures that mimic the exposure profile of highly exposed northerners. Early results demonstrate that the effects of the mixtures are not necessarily the same as those expected from studies of the effects of individual chemicals, and that interactions are occurring among contaminants.


Arctic epidemiological research is revealing that nutrients found in certain traditional/country marine foods may offer some partial protection from the health effects of contaminants found in those same foods. Potentially interactive effects may also occur between contaminants and lifestyle factors, e.g. smoking during pregnancy, which is common in northern communities. In such cases, a host of other chemical contaminants may be contributing to (or mediating) the effects of prenatal exposure to Arctic contaminant mixtures. There are a number of factors that come into play to ensure that effects studies funded under the NCP are relevant to the Arctic human context. Researchers are required to provide a brief but strong rationale justifying their choices with respect to each of the points below, and especially their relevance to the Arctic human context:

• The mixtures of contaminants and nutrients to be used should typify those found in the Arctic marine mammal diet or (human) maternal/cord blood, as appropriate.

• While mixture studies are a priority, studies of the effects of individual contaminants will be considered if a strong rationale is provided.

• If the study is in-vitro or laboratory animal based the specific exposures, including nutrients, should take into consideration the actual range of exposure levels (e.g. frequency distributions of exposures) experienced by Arctic residents.

• Residual tissue levels of contaminants in laboratory animals should be measured to assess whether they are consistent with those of exposed Arctic human populations.

• Study endpoints need to be able to be interpreted in an Arctic human context (e.g. appropriate neurobehavioural and sensory endpoints).

4.4.4 Health Effects Priorities • Research studying the interaction between nutrients/contaminants, particularly

in the area lifestyle, nutritional status and contaminant related health effects. • Studies examining NCP relevant endocrine disrupting contaminants including

pathways, interactions and effects studies. • Research on NCP relevant contaminants effects on immune, neurobehavioral,

and cardiovascular systems function, pathways and effects. • Work on identifying and characterizing contaminant links to chronic health

effects (eg. metabolic syndrome, diabetes, obesity) and other determinants of health of interest to Northern populations.

• Follow-up work, and work building off of, existing data sets such as the Inuit Health Survey or Child Cohort Studies.

• Priority will be given to epidemiological studies that study northern populations rather than toxicological studies. Toxicological studies will be supported where they more clearly illustrate mechanisms of contaminant action and/or emerging effects of relevance to human studies.


4.5 Benefit / Risk Evaluation

4.5.1 Context The ability to determine and compare benefits and risks, and to determine how best to communicate this information to northerners, are key components of the NCP and a current focus for the Human Health program. Standard risk assessment methodologies used to assess the potential risk of various contaminants to human health are, in general, well known and have been used for many years. However, their application to populations dependent on traditional/country food use can be problematic as there is little consideration given to benefits, and there are no common metrics to compare multiple risk benefit scenarios. For example, reporting that some consumers of traditional/country foods are being exposed to levels of a particular contaminant above the TDI should be considered only as a preliminary stage of assessing the overall risk as it does not account for the many health benefits that can be attributed to the consumption of traditional / country foods. The development of methodologies for assessing the benefits of traditional/country foods is a relatively new area of research, and some of the benefits are only described in subjective terms. Such benefits are nutritional, physical, social, spiritual and economic and pertain to overall well-being, while the risks focus on the more narrow questions of toxicity and potential health effects. It is therefore very difficult to evaluate benefits against the risks, or vice versa, and considerably more research is required in this area. When developing management strategies to balance the benefits of the traditional/country food diet, and the risks from contaminants in that diet, it is also crucial to look at the benefits and risks of dietary alternatives, e.g. a typical (affordable) store-bought diet. As the benefits and risks associated with store-bought foods are very different from those associated with traditional/country foods, and many of the benefits of the latter would be irretrievably lost by switching to store-bought foods, both techniques for ‘balancing’ benefits and risks with the traditional/country food diet and development of management strategies that consider the complete diet require attention. Arctic communities face risks from a variety of sources, of which contaminant exposure is one. It is important to these communities that the risks and benefits associated with contaminants are placed in a context relevant to the community in question. Issues surrounding food security and malnutrition are of increasing concern in Arctic communities and could have profound effects on health, particularly at early life stages. Communities also require more information on where contaminants fit with other lifestyle risks such as smoking, alcohol consumption, and other substance use. It is well known that these other lifestyle factors pose considerable risk to the developing fetus, for example. Projects that intend to study the evaluation of benefits and risks should focus on those communities that are considered more at risk, as determined in consultation with public


health authorities, from contaminants e.g. communities characterized by high and moderate exposure levels and dependent on a primarily marine mammal diet. Because the fetus, infants and children are often most at risk from contaminants, benefit/risk evaluations and communication should focus on their particular situations. This may require special communications with mothers, pregnant women and women/girls of childbearing age.

4.5.2 Benefit/Risk Evaluation Priorities • Methods to evaluate and then compare the benefits and risks of traditional/country

foods (and their alternatives) using a common denominator should be improved to provide better information to the health authorities making decisions.

• Methods should be developed to assess risk-risk comparisons, so that the comparative risks of various courses of action can be compared.

• Development and application of risk / benefit evaluation tools for northern health professionals.

• Improve our understanding of what determines Northern people’s food choices, and to what extent contaminants are a factor in these choices, with particular reference to mothers, pregnant women, and other women/girls of childbearing age.

• Evaluate food substitution and other management programs that aim to reduce contaminant exposure in high risk regions but still encourage consumption of highly valued traditional/country foods and other nutritional food sources.

• Benefit/risk evaluations and comparisons should be made with special reference to the most highly exposed communities and vulnerable groups, e.g. the fetus, infants and children.


Appendix 4.1: Examples of additional contaminants that could be included in human biomonitoring. Table 1a: Proposed List of Chemicals to be studied under NCP Human Health Program

Category/Groups Chemicals Justification

Legacy POPs & Metals POPs (oxychlordane, trans-nonachlor, p,p’-DDE, toxaphene-parlar 50, PCBs [e.g., PCB138, PCB153, PCB180]) Metals (total mercury, organic mercury, lead, cadmium, selenium)

The monitoring of these chemicals is part of the mandate of the NCP program. These chemicals have been targeted under several international agreements under UNEP and the UNECE, for which Canada is a signatory member. Canada also has an obligation to monitor for these chemicals. Time trend data is needed for these chemicals (minimum of 5 data points needed; currently we only have 2)

Emerging Contaminants

Transboundary Contaminants

Brominated Flame Retardants (PBDEs, HBCD/HBCDD, TBBPA) Industrial chemicals (PFOS, PFOA, PCNs, SCCPs) Pesticides/Insecticides (endosulfan, PCP) Pharmaceutical & Cosmetic Products

The chemicals list here, have all been identified as emerging contaminants in literature, and are of concern to the Arctic due their transboundary propertiesa (persistent, bioaccumulative, capable of long-range transport). Several of these chemicals currently are targeted under the Stockholm Conventionb (PBDEs and PFOS), and several others have been nominated as potential candidates for inclusion (SCCP, endosulfan, HBCDD). While not under the convention, decaBDEs may also be of concern due to their extensive use. PCNs and SCCPs have also been identified as POPs under


(Cyclic siloxanes) the POPs Protocol (UNECE). PCP and endosulfan have been nominated for review under the POPs Protocol (UNECE). Other chemicals such as cyclic siloxanes have the potential for persistence, and bioaccumulation in the Arctic, however more information regarding these chemicals is needed (in terms of presence in the environment, and potential toxicity).


Table 1b: Other contaminants of interest in the North, but falling outside of NCP mandate. Other Contaminants

Exposure from Consumer Products (phthalates, bisphenol A) Exposure from Food

• Pesticides (organophosphates, organochlorines, pyrethroids) • Metals (antimony, cesium, cobalt, molybdenum, thallium, uranium) • Other

(polyaromatic hydrocarbons [PAHs])

To fully understand the exposure profile of populations in the Arctic, it is important to have information on chemicals that populations are being exposed to through imported foods and other routes of exposure. This proposed list of chemicals are currently being monitored under the CHMS. The main route of exposure for these chemicals is thought to be through dietary consumption or through consumer products. In addition to food exposure, consumer products may pose a risk of exposure to other chemicals such as phthalates and bisphenol A.

Other Biomarkers of exposure (Cotinine)

High levels of cadmium have been linked to smoking in the Arctic. Measuring cotinine, a biomarker for exposure to cigarettes, would clarify the issue of smoking in the Arctic.

b Stockholm Criteria 1) persistence: t1/2 (days) of >60,>180, >180 in water, soil and sediment respectively

2) bioaccumulation: BAF/BCF of >5000; or a log Kow of >5 3) long-range transport: remote measurement; Vapour Pressure (Pa); Atmospheric Oxidation t1/2 (days) 4) toxicity

Blueprints – Environmental Monitoring and Research 2010-2011 26

5 Blueprint for Environmental Monitoring and Research – 2010-2011

5.1 Purpose • monitor contaminant levels and trends in the Arctic Environment and

assess the influence of environmental change on exposure and effects of contaminants on Arctic ecosystems

• support the assessment of Human Health risks with information on levels and trends of contaminants in traditional/country foods

• produce scientific information that supports domestic and international chemical management initiatives

5.2 Introduction In October 2009, at the 17th annual NCP Results Workshop, the Environmental Monitoring and Research subprogram underwent a critical review by a panel of 15 invited experts. The panellists covered a wide range of contaminants-related scientific expertise including: monitoring; pathways and processes; modeling; toxicology; and food web dynamics in all compartments of the Arctic environment, expertise in domestic and international contaminant policy and regulations as well as those with a Northern Aboriginal perspective on contaminant issues. While some experts are, or have been involved with the NCP, some had no prior NCP experience and brought a fresh perspective to the review. The results of the review are published in a meeting report (available from the NCP Secretariat) which provided the primary guidance for revising the Blueprint. The current Blueprint outlines environmental monitoring and research priorities for the Northern Contaminants Program under two general categories: A. Trend monitoring, and B. Pathways, processes and effects research. An additional category of monitoring activity is being planned over the coming year in cooperation with the Human Health subprogram that will involve the measurement of contaminant levels in traditional/country foods for the purpose of human dietary exposure assessment. Under the Human Health subprogram the NCP will be developing a long-term human biomonitoring plan that will include the collection and analysis of traditional/country food items for the purpose of conducting dietary exposure assessments. It is intended that dietary exposure assessments will be carried out cooperatively between the Environmental Monitoring and Research, and Human Health subprograms. Doing so will strengthen the links between the two subprograms and ensure that knowledge about contaminants in arctic ecosystems is transferred to the assessment of human health risks.


Activities under categories A and B are organized by ecosystem type, i.e. terrestrial, freshwater, and marine, and by major long-range transportation pathway, i.e. atmospheric, and marine. The majority of ecosystem monitoring and research is to be carried out in a limited number of defined Focal Ecosystems so that the two related activities are closely coupled and complementary. By concentrating monitoring and research on focal ecosystems the NCP hopes to develop detailed conceptual models of contaminant dynamics in these ecosystems. Monitoring activities are designed for optimal detection of temporal trends and build on the previous monitoring program, with a focus on media, species and locations that already have robust datasets on which to build. Research priorities are designed to improve our understanding of how contaminants enter into and cycle within arctic ecosystems. This research should help measure and predict how changing contaminant sources and climate related environmental changes will influence ecosystem uptake and accumulation of contaminants, and ecosystem health risks over time. For the 2010-2011 fiscal year, the Environmental Monitoring and Research subprogram has $1,200,000 in available funding. A portion of this funding envelope will be allocated to ongoing category A trend monitoring projects. Only those project leaders identified in this Blueprint are invited to submit proposals for these trend monitoring activities. Anyone interested in a particular trend monitoring project is invited to contact the project leader(s). In 2010-2011 approximately $500,000 will be available to fund projects under category B. pathways processes and effects research. Funding for projects under Category B will be determined based on an open call for proposals and the outcome of a detailed proposal review. If a researcher is interested in submitting a proposal but is new to the NCP, they are encouraged to contact the NCP Secretariat with a brief description of their proposal idea. The Secretariat will then be able to provide guidance to help new researchers through the proposal submission process. Proposal deadline will be 11:59 PM eastern time, Monday, February 1, 2010.

5.3 Background The Arctic is a remote environment, far from major emission sources, with environmental characteristics that make it particularly sensitive to long-range contamination by POPs and heavy metals. Furthermore, some arctic indigenous peoples that rely on traditional/country foods, and particularly marine mammals, as an essential part of their diet are exposed to high levels of contaminants in a scenario that is unique to the Arctic. The successful implementation of international conventions to reduce contaminant emissions is the most effective way available to reduce levels of exposure in the Arctic. Arctic monitoring and research are among the most important sources of


information for supporting current agreements, including the Stockholm Convention on POPs and the LRTAP Convention Protocols on POPs and Heavy Metals. Arctic science was a key driver for the development of these international agreements and will once again be critical to making the case for a global agreement on mercury, negotiations for which were initiated under UNEP in 2009. Providing arctic data and information in support of this process is an important role for the NCP. Environmental Monitoring and Research is also intended to support ongoing assessments of human health risks. Information related to temporal trends in traditional/country food species can be used to forecast potential changes in dietary exposure to contaminants. Similarly, the identification of new chemical contaminants in the environment provides an indication to risk assessors of possible future risks to human health and may lead to preliminary screening of human tissues, e.g. blood, and assessment of dietary exposure. As mentioned in the introduction, the NCP is planning to develop a long-term biomonitoirng program under the Human Health subprogram, which will incorporate more direct links to this Blueprint through a cooperative approach for assessing human dietary exposure to contaminants. Contaminants of concern for the NCP include persistent organic pollutants (POPs), mercury (Hg), and other “new” chemicals for which there is a reasonable probability of arctic contamination resulting from long-range atmospheric and oceanic transport. One of the main objectives related to monitoring POPs, which are already regulated under the global Stockholm Convention, is to assess how the environment is reacting in response to actions taken under the convention, and to assess the effectiveness of these actions. Similarly, monitoring related to mercury is also aimed at assessing how the environment will react to global actions to reduce emissions, however, in the case of mercury the results will be used to support the development of a global agreement, which does not yet exist. Because the Arctic accumulates contaminants primarily from long-range transport, arctic monitoring data on new chemicals are regarded as critical evidence when assessing the need to add new substances to the Stockholm and UN-ECE LRTAP Conventions. The NCP needs to make sure that it can provide the most complete data possible for substances being considered (see 1.5 Further Considerations for more information on contaminants of concern) Interpreting temporal variability in monitoring data and explaining the potential causal influence of global contaminant emissions and their sources can be very difficult. Contaminant concentrations in environmental media may be influenced by numerous factors in addition to global emission sources. Environmental changes brought on by climate shifts have been shown to influence temporal records of contaminant levels quite dramatically. Discerning the sources (anthropogenic or natural), and understanding the dynamic processes responsible for uptake and accumulation in arctic food


webs presents a particular challenge to the interpretation of trends of mercury. Source apportionment, and consideration of changing environmental processes, for all contaminants, will continue to be important topics for NCP research and monitoring. Levels of contaminants that have been reported for arctic wildlife can exceed reported thresholds for effects that have been established largely through laboratory based dosing studies. Since the last time contaminant associated risks to wildlife were reported in CACAR II, a number of important considerations have come to light which may warrant additional assessment. As noted above, climate change has the ability to influence contaminant pathways and processes that will result in modulating levels of exposure among arctic wildlife. Wildlife are also being put under increasing stress due to climate related changes in their environment that will make them more vulnerable to the potential risks posed by contaminant exposure. Comparison of tissue residues to published guidelines and thresholds for effects will continue to be an important aspect of NCP assessment reports, however, it is recognized that these comparisons are of limited value given the lack of thresholds developed specifically for arctic species. The direct investigation of toxic effects in arctic wildlife (i.e. toxicological studies) is therefore an important element in the ongoing assessment of contaminant related ecological risks. Results of NCP monitoring and research projects are published in annual synopsis reports and presented at annual NCP Results Workshops. This reporting often represents the first communication of results to NCP colleagues, managers, northern partners and communities. These are important reports to the program for assessing progress and generating ideas for future research and monitoring. Synopsis reports and the peer reviewed publications that follow form the foundation for periodic scientific assessments called Canadian Arctic Contaminants Assessment Reports (CACAR I, 1997; CACAR II, 2003). Preparation of a third CACAR is now underway with a publication goal of summer/fall 2011. The assessment is being conducted in two volumes, one focussed on mercury and one on POPs, which are being lead by Drs. Birgit Braune and Derek Muir. It is an obligation of NCP researchers to contribute to the preparation of CACARs, particularly where the results of NCP funded monitoring and research is concerned. The NCP represents Canada’s main contributor of contaminants related science to the circumpolar Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP). The NCP works very closely with AMAP and other Arctic nations on collaborative monitoring and research activities, and on the preparation of scientific assessments. Detailed information about AMAP can be found at www.amap.no. Participation of NCP project leaders in circumpolar monitoring networks and collaboration with other Arctic nations on NCP and AMAP priority research is encouraged. To the greatest extent possible, NCP monitoring and research projects should


be carried out in cooperation with communities. In the case of wildlife sampling, collections should be carried out in association with regular community harvesting. In cases where harvesting has been limited due to weakness in a particular population, e.g. polar bear, then project leaders should work with community members to develop non-destructive techniques for sampling wildlife, such as collection of fat biopsies or snagging of fur.

5.4 Research and Monitoring Plan

5.4.1 Pathways of Long-Range Transportation Air and seawater are the media that connect all parts of globe and which are capable of carrying contaminants from highly populated, industrial and agricultural parts of the globe to the Arctic. It has been clearly shown that the atmosphere is capable of transporting airborne contaminants from virtually anywhere in the northern hemisphere to the high Arctic in a matter of days. The world’s oceans represent large reservoirs of contaminants that can also transport contaminants to the Arctic through its Pacific and Atlantic gateways, and while this route is slower, taking years to decades, the potential quantities transported are great. Monitoring and research priorities related to air and seawater are described below.

5.4.1.1 Air

A. Monitoring: Monitoring contaminant levels in the arctic atmosphere continues under the NCP in order to maintain current data on contaminant input from long-range atmospheric transport. Data collected since 1992 will be used to evaluate temporal trends of atmospheric input of contaminants, monitor current source regions and validate global long-range transport models. Monitoring will contribute key data to evaluate the overall effectiveness of provisions outlined in the Stockholm Convention and the LRTAP Convention protocols on POPs and heavy metals. Another priority for atmospheric monitoring will be measuring new substances that demonstrate a reasonable probability of arctic contamination as a result of long range transport. These data are critical to the assessment of potential new POPs and their incorporation into international conventions. Temporal trends data will also be used to provide a general indication of whether or not contaminant input to the Arctic ecosystem is increasing or decreasing, a critical question for consumers of traditional/country foods. The NCP will participate in internationally coordinated air monitoring activities through the Arctic Council’s Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP). Air monitoring data collected at Alert continues to be a major contribution from the NCP to AMAP.


The current program is limited to continuous monitoring of POPs and mercury at Alert, which is the longest running air monitoring station in the Arctic. Expanding the spatial distribution of air monitoring within the Canadian Arctic would be extremely valuable in providing a more geographically complete picture of atmospheric contamination, and assessing global transport pathways and sources. The continuation of monitoring in the western Arctic is particularly important for the monitoring of Asian sources. To this end, monitoring of mercury at Little Fox Lake, Yukon, was resumed in 2007 and will continue under this Blueprint. Monitoring POPs in air using the same methods that are used at Alert is a costly activity that the NCP can not afford to support at more than one site. Fortunately the Canadian program for International Polar Year has supported atmospheric POPs monitoring at Little Fox Lake through the project called INCATPA (Intercontinental Atmospheric Transport of Anthropogenic Pollutants to the Arctic) during the IPY period. Results from INCATPA should provide valuable data on the trans-pacific transport of POPs to the Canadian Arctic. If so, the continuation of POPs monitoring at Little Fox Lake could be very useful for monitoring Pacific air-masses in the future and could also fill an important gap in the circumpolar monitoring network. While the NCP is not committing any funds to POPs monitoring at Little Fox Lake under the current Blueprint, it would be highly supportive of other funding agencies who wish to do so. Passive sampling may provide a cost effective alternative for expanding the NCP air monitoring program in the future. Testing of a flow through passive air sampler developed jointly by U of T and Environment Canada will continue through 2010-2011. Air monitoring priorities: 1. Mercury in air - Through monitoring atmospheric concentrations and

deposition of mercury at Alert and Little Fox Lake, assess temporal trends of mercury deposition and advance our understanding of atmospheric processes that may influence levels and trends being observed throughout the arctic environment. Using models, or other methods, and in collaboration with other programs/projects (e.g. ArcticNet), evaluate global atmospheric pathways and potential sources associated with the trends observed at Alert and Little Fox Lake. This project is lead by Alexandra Steffen.

2. POPs in air - Through monitoring atmospheric concentrations of POPs (including new chemicals, see Table 1) at Alert, assess temporal trends and advance our understanding of atmospheric processes that may influence levels and trends being observed throughout the Arctic environment. Using models, or other appropriate methods, and in collaboration with other programs/projects (e.g. ArcticNet), evaluate global


atmospheric pathways and potential sources associated with the trends observed at Alert. Samples should continue to be collected weekly, however, only one out of four weekly samples will be analyzed for routine trend analysis. The proposal should outline how the additional samples will be archived and for what purposes the archives would be used. This project is lead by Hayley Hung.

3. Passive air sampling - Expand the geographic coverage of the air monitoring program by developing, installing and operating passive air sampling devices, complementary to the work at Alert, that are capable of operating remotely under arctic conditions. A network of passive air samplers in the Arctic could be an important contribution to a global monitoring network being established to evaluate the effectiveness and sufficiency of the Stockholm and LRTAP Conventions. Passive air sampling can be used to determine latitudinal gradients in air concentrations, from which empirical estimates of characteristic travel distances (CTDs) can be made. Such information can be used to verify/improve the CTD estimates of long-range atmospheric transport models.

B. Research: 1. Construction of a long-term historical record of arctic mercury deposition

using snow and ice from Canadian Arctic ice caps. 2. Processes of contaminant deposition and the factors that influence the

exchange of contaminants between air and other arctic media 3. Modelling the transportation of contaminants from source regions to the

Arctic, including deposition/exchange of contaminants with other arctic media (e.g. water, ice, land…)

4. Use of models to identify chemical contaminants with the potential for long-range transport to the Arctic through the air and/or ocean.

5.4.1.2 Seawater

A and B. Monitoring and Research: The NCP has come to recognize the important role of the ocean in transporting contaminants to and within the Arctic, and the importance of environmental processes that act on contaminants within marine systems. There remains, however, a lack of data and information on contaminants in arctic seawater and marine contaminant processes that is needed for the interpretation of how contaminants behave in and affect arctic ecosystems. The contaminant burdens in animals that derive their exposure through aquatic foodwebs can be affected by system changes in foodwebs, ice cover, ocean exchange and many other ocean climate variables. Accordingly, an objective of the monitoring program will be:


1) to collect a set of baseline data for contaminants in arctic seawater against which future trends, sources and sinks in the ocean may be evaluated;

2) to collect the data in a way that will assist physical modeling of exchanges between water and the bottom of the foodweb, and;

3) to apply the ocean contaminant data to the design of a practical monitoring strategy for Canadian Arctic waters.

To achieve these objectives, ocean profiles should be collected to determine the present concentrations of POPs and Hg in the waters of the western Arctic Ocean (Beaufort Sea-Canada Basin), the Canadian Archipelago (Resolute) and the Eastern Archipelago (Baffin Bay). The collection of profiles in these three areas is intended to represent the major inflow, through flow and outflow for Canadian arctic waters. For POPs, the measurements in each of the regions should include a vertical profile of particulate and dissolved contaminants within the upper 500m of the ocean. Such data should also be accompanied by concurrent concentration data for at least the lower foodweb (phytoplankton, zooplankton) and other standard oceanographic data (salinity, temperature, nutrients, δ18O). The POPs data should build on data collected in the 1990s (Hargrave et al., 1997)1, but should extend the analyte compound list where practical to include PCBs, PDBEs, PFCs, current use pesticides and other chemicals that show a reasonable probability for arctic contamination. For Hg, vertical profiles should be collected for the same three regions using a sectional approach (Beaufort shelf to basin, Resolute single profile, Baffin shelf to basin) that emphasizes shallow water (0-500m) but includes basin water (500m-4000m) where possible (see, for example, Sunderland et al., 2009)2. Hg data should include full speciation (Hg(II), methyl-Hg, particulate Hg) and be accompanied by standard oceanographic data (salinity, temperature, nutrients, POC, DOC, δ18O), and Hg data for zooplankton and fish where possible. It is recognized that sampling and analysis for POPs and Hg requires the application of highly specialized clean sampling and handling techniques; the demonstration of capacity to make valid measurements in ocean media (water, particulates) will be a key requirement of the monitoring effort. Future

1 Hargrave, B.T., Barrie, L.A., Bidleman, T.F. and Welch, H.E., 1997. Seasonality in exchange of organochlorines between arctic air and seawater. Environmental Science and Technology, 31: 3258-3266. 2 Sunderland, E.M., Krabbenhoft, D.P., Moreau, J.W., Strode, S.A. and Landing, W.M., 2009. Mercury sources, distribution and bioavailability in the North Pacific Ocean: Insights from data and models. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 23: GB2010.


monitoring plans for POPs and Hg will be developed based on results of the first year’s data.

5.4.2 Ecosystem Based Monitoring and Research Under the new blueprint, ecosystem based monitoring and research will focus on several geographic areas that encompass locations of past monitoring and research activity on which the current Blueprint aims to build. A number of focal ecosystems have been chosen among arctic marine, freshwater and terrestrial environments. It is intended that monitoring and research in focal ecosystems will complement one another and should eventually contribute to a detailed conceptual model of contaminant cycling in these specific ecosystems. While much of the ecosystem research and monitoring should concentrate on focal ecosystems, research at other locations that contributes to a general understanding of contaminant pathways, processes and effects will also be considered. The following section describes monitoring and research priorities for each of the ecosystem types and specific focal ecosystems. There are, however, a number of common elements to monitoring and research across all ecosystem types which are described below.

A. Monitoring: The focus of the current ecosystem monitoring plan is to measure long-term trends and variability of contaminant concentrations in arctic biota. The plan builds on temporal trends monitoring projects established in 2004 whereby samples from a number of key species at a few locations across the Canadian Arctic are collected and analyzed annually in order to maximize the statistical power of temporal datasets. Species have been selected based on the important role they play in their respective ecosystems and their importance to indigenous human communities (see Appendix A. Species Selection). As the temporal data sets become longer and more robust the monitoring objective has been improved from detection of a 10% change over 10-15 years, to detection of a 5% change over a 10-15 year period with a power of 80% and confidence level of 95%. This also brings the NCP monitoring objectives in-line with AMAP. The annual collection and analysis of 10 samples per species and location is felt to be sufficient to achieve this goal, however, the inclusion of more samples may be acceptable if it significantly improves the trend analysis, and is not cost prohibitive (e.g. in the case of mercury).

B. Research: Ecosystem based contaminants research is intended to improve our understanding of contaminant pathways, processes and effects of contaminants on the health of arctic wildlife. Results of this research will contribute to our interpretation of temporal trends, and/or variability, particularly


as it relates to the influence of climate change and changing sources, i.e. global emissions. While building on our current understanding of legacy POPs and mercury remains a priority, there is also a need to learn about newer chemical contaminants, like fluorinated and brominated organic chemicals and current use pesticides that have the potential for long-range transport and arctic contamination. Studies related to ecosystem pathways and processes are required in each of the ecosystem types, i.e. terrestrial, freshwater and marine. The investigation of contaminant related effects in wildlife should focus on those species that, based on the best available information, are at the greatest risk. Important considerations should be current level of exposure, expected changes in exposure (i.e., are levels increasing or expected to increase?), and the potential vulnerability of a given population to toxic effects, e.g. diminished health status due to climate related stresses. Based on these considerations species that might be considered for effects studies would include polar bear, beluga, and to a lesser extent seabirds and ringed seal. Wildlife effects studies should include the measurement of a suite of endpoints designed to test clearly rationalized hypotheses. These endpoints should be designed to detect changes in key biological systems, e.g. immune, reproductive, metabolic, neurological, etc., that could be compromised by contaminants. It is recognized that studies on wildlife in their natural environment can at best establish associations between contaminant exposure and effects. A weight-of-evidence approach, that considers multiple lines of evidence, from both wildlife studies and laboratory studies where causative relationships between contaminants and effects can be established, will be the best way to assess the impact of contaminants on wildlife and ecosystem health. Ultimately, the health of northern aboriginal populations is intimately linked to the health of arctic ecosystems, which represent a source of traditional/country food and social and cultural well being.

5.4.2.1 Terrestrial Ecosystems Focal ecosystem: Range of the Porcupine caribou herd

A. Monitoring: Porcupine Caribou herd (sampled in Yukon) and Qamanirjuaq Caribou herd (sampled from Arviat) for mercury and inorganic elements, led by Mary Gamberg

B. Research:


1. Investigate the uptake and accumulation of contaminants in terrestrial

food webs with a focus on new contaminants that display a high potential for accumulation in terrestrial food webs.

2. Development of a conceptual model for mercury in focal terrestrial ecosystems that quantifies the relative contribution for natural and anthropogenic mercury sources and predicts the responsiveness of the system to changes in global emissions.

3. Research that contributes to the modeling objectives in 2. 4. How will climate induced changes in terrestrial ecosystems influence

contaminant cycles?

5.4.2.2 Freshwater Ecosystems Focal ecosystems: Kusawa Lake, Yukon, Great Slave Lake, NWT, and High Arctic lakes on Cornwallis and Ellesmere Islands, Nunavut.

A. Monitoring: Kusawa Lake and Lake Laberge3 – lake trout for full contaminant suite, lead by

YCC with Gary Stern Great Slave Lake – lake trout and burbot for full contaminant suite, lead by

Marlene Evans Fort Good Hope3 – burbot for full contaminant suite, lead by Gary Stern High Arctic Lakes – land-locked Arctic char for full contaminant suite, lead by

Derek Muir

B. Research:

1. Investigate ecosystem changes in focal ecosystem lakes and assess the impact these changes may have on contaminant dynamics in the system, particularly how change might influence levels and trends in key monitoring species (i.e. lake trout).

2. Development of a conceptual model for mercury in freshwater focal ecosystems that quantifies sources and sinks of mercury in the system, describes mercury methylation/demethylation processes, uptake and accumulation within the food web and predicts the responsiveness of

3 Continuation of monitoring at Lake Laberge and Fort Good Hope aims to build on long existing time series, although neither of these are considered focal ecosystems for the purpose of ecosystem research.


the system to changes in global emissions and climate related changes to the ecosystem.

3. Research that contributes to the modeling objectives in 24.

5.4.2.3 Marine Ecosystems Focal ecosystems: Beaufort Sea/Amundsen Gulf, Barrow Strait/Lancaster Sound, Cumberland Sound/Davis Strait, Hudson Bay

A. Monitoring: Ringed seal – Sachs Harbour (Beaufort Sea/Amundsen Gulf), Resolute

(Barrow Strait/Lancaster Sound), Arviat (Hudson Bay), lead by Derek Muir Beluga – Hendrickson Island (Beaufort Sea/Amundsen Gulf), Pangnirtung

(Cumberland Sound), lead by Gary Stern and Gregg Tomy Polar Bear – Hudson Bay Population (Hudson Bay), lead by Robert Letcher Seabird eggs – thick billed murres and northern fulmars from Prince Leopold

Island (Barrow Strait/Lancaster Sound), thick billed murres from Coats Island (Hudson Bay), lead by Birgit Braune

Sea-run arctic char – Cambridge Bay (Beaufort Sea/Amundsen Gulf), and Pond Inlet (Lancaster Sound) lead by Marlene Evans

B. Research:

1. Investigate ecosystem changes in focal marine areas and assess the impact these changes may have on contaminant dynamics in the system, particularly how change might influence levels and trends in key monitoring species (e.g. ringed seal).

2. Development of a conceptual model for mercury in focal marine ecosystems that quantifies sources and sinks of mercury in the system, describes mercury methylation/demethylation processes, distribution and fluxes in the water column (horizontal and vertical), uptake and accumulation within the food web and predicts the responsiveness of the system to changes in global emissions and climate related changes to the ecosystem.

3. Development of a conceptual model for POPs and other organic contaminants in focal marine ecosystems that quantifies sources and sinks in the system, distribution and fluxes in the water column (horizontal and vertical), uptake and accumulation within the food web

4 Research on lakes/watersheds that are not described as focal ecosystems will be considered if results are shown to be broadly relevant to Arctic freshwater systems.


and predicts the responsiveness of the system to changes in global emissions and climate related changes to the ecosystem.

4. Research that contributes to the modeling objectives in 2 and 35. 5. The investigation of contaminant related effects in wildlife with a focus

on those species that, based on the best available information, are at the greatest risk or may serve as early warning indicators of effects in humans. Important considerations should be level of contaminant exposure and expected changes in exposure, and the potential vulnerability of a given wildlife population to potential effects, e.g. diminished health status due to climate related stresses5.

5.5 Further Considerations Assessment of temporal trends For the assessment of temporal trends in biota every effort should be made to explain, and control for, variance components through consideration of confounding factors such as age, sex, and time of collection. Ancillary data such as lipid content, stable isotope ratios, and body condition may also be required to account for variance in the dataset. The value of collaboration and complementary funding It is recognized that addressing some of the monitoring and research priorities described in this blueprint will be best addressed through multidisciplinary studies that involve collaboration and complementary funding from other researchers and programs (e.g. ArcticNet, Chemical Management Plan). Project leaders are encouraged to seek such opportunities for collaboration wherever possible. The level of collaboration and additional funds brought to a project from other sources will be evaluated as part of the proposal review process. It is recognized that ongoing research that isn’t related to the NCP may be addressing some of the research priorities identified in this blueprint. The leaders of these existing projects are encouraged to contact the NCP secretariat to discuss ways in which the NCP might be able to provide additional support that enhances the project and helps further address NCP priorities. Contaminants of interest Researchers are asked to rationalize an analytical program and schedule that best suits the proposed project. Table 1 identifies substances that are currently covered by international conventions. An important role for the NCP is providing monitoring data on substances that are already covered by these 5 Research on marine ecosystems and wildlife that are not described as focal ecosystems will be considered if results are shown to be broadly relevant to arctic marine systems.


conventions and substances that are being considered for inclusion. The NCP needs to make sure that it can provide the most complete data possible for substances being considered, particularly for those substances that represent a concern for the Arctic environment. Under the Stockholm Convention the POP Review Committee recently reviewed risk profiles for hexabromocyclododecane (HBCDD), endosulfan and short chain chlorinated paraffins (SCCPs) at their October 2009 meeting. The Committee found that the risk profile for HBCDD was sufficient for it to be classified as a POP and that it could proceed to a risk management evaluation. It decided, however, that the risk profiles for endosulfan and SCCPs were not sufficient and that stronger scientific evidence was required. New substances being considered under the LRTAP Convention include trifluralin, pentachlorophenol, endosulfan, hexabromocyclododecane (HBCDD) and dicofol. The Convention’s Task Force on POPs have reviewed the substances and is recommending that HBCDD, endosulfan and dicofol be considered POPs. The review of pentachlorophenol resulted in a recommendation to re-evaluate the substance based on its primary degradation product, pentachloroanisole (PCA). The Task Force is also recommending that trifluralin undergo further review as there was insufficient data to fully evaluate it against all the criteria, with bioaccumulation potential being identified as a particular weakness in the data. Finally, samples should be screened for new chemicals that demonstrate the potential for Arctic contamination but have yet to be identified in the Arctic environment. Analytical proposals to measure new contaminants should be well justified, using physicochemical properties, modelling results and existing data to demonstrate the potential for long-range transport and Arctic contamination. Sample Archiving It is important that all tissue samples collected during the course of these studies be properly archived for future use. Of particular importance is the collection and archiving of tissues that represent important traditional/country foods. These tissues could be used in the future for assessing dietary exposure. Archiving programs should incorporate the use of a database to capture vital sample information. Researchers are also encouraged to archive sample extracts as best they can. It is understood that properly archiving samples may incur a cost per sample. These costs, where applicable, should be included in the proposal budget. NCP QA/QC program A quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) program has been established to assess the performance of all laboratories carrying out contaminant analyses under the NCP and to ensure inter-comparability of


data. The program is also designed to meet the diverse quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) needs of the researchers and analysts by providing them with appropriate feedback on their analyses, and by offering guidance and support toward corrective measures if needed. The program is led and coordinated by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment’s Laboratory Services Branch in cooperation with Environment Canada. Details of the NCP QA/QC program can be obtained through the NCP secretariat. To ensure the continued success of the QA program, all laboratories that perform analyses for NCP research are expected to participate. Laboratories that are new to the NCP will be contacted by QAQC program leaders. Sample and Data Accessibility Access and availability of data, as well as collaboration among researchers, are cornerstones to the success of the NCP. The data and sample accessibility agreement included in the Call for Proposals package is intended to ensure a universal understanding of data and sample accessibility among NCP project leaders. The overall goal is that information is communicated in a timely manner and made available to national and international agencies for the purposes of servicing international agreements and completing assessment reports (e.g. Stockholm Convention and Canadian Arctic Contaminants Assessment Reports). Strengthening Arctic Science Capacity The NCP recognizes the importance of training the next generation of Arctic scientists as well as training scientists in the North. While the NCP does not provide funds directly for student stipends, NCP funded research is often well suited for graduate level research projects. The involvement of students in NCP research and monitoring projects is strongly encouraged. Project leaders are also encourage to develop links with the Arctic Colleges and other educational institutions to enhance the training and education of Northern students.


Table 1. Substances that are included or are being considered for inclusion in the UNECE LRTAP Convention (POPs and Heavy Metals Protocols) and Stockholm Convention on POPs.6 LRTAP Heavy Metals Protocol mercury cadmium lead

LRTAP POPs Protocol endrin aldrin dieldrin DDT HCH1

lindane HCB chlordane2

toxaphene3

mirex chlordecone

heptachlor hexabromobiphenyl PCB4

PCDDs PCDFs PAHs Now considered POPs: PFOS and related substances SCCPs Penta-, & Octa-BDE PCNs hexachlorobutadiene pentachlorobenzene hexabromocyclodo-decane (HBCDD) dicofol endosulfan Undergoing further review: trifluralin pentachloroanisole

Stockholm POPs Convention endrin aldrin dieldrin DDT HCB chlordane2

heptachlor toxaphene3

mirex PCB4

PCDDs PCDFs Now considered POPs: PFOS and related substances α-HCH, β-HCH & lindane chlordecone

hexabromobiphenyl penta-BDE octabromodiphenyl ether (c-OctaBDE) pentachloro-benzene hexabromocyclodo-decane (HBCDD) Undergoing further review: SCCPs endosulfan

Note: analytical programs should include specific congeners for the following legacy POPs to ensure intercomparability between contaminant programs, e.g. AMAP.

1. α-, β-, γ-HCH 2. oxychlordane, cis/trans chlordane, cis/trans nonachlor and trans-nonachlor 3. parlar – 26, 50, 62 4. CB- 28, 31, 52, 101, 105, 118, 138, 153, 156, 180

6 Not all substances listed can be measured in the Arctic, nor do they represent a concern for the Arctic, e.g. dicofol, and therefore are not a priority for monitoring and research under the NCP.


Appendix A.

Selection of species for long-term trend monitoring Ringed seal are a widely distributed species, found throughout the circumpolar Arctic, and are an important traditional/country food species for Inuit. Contaminants have been measured in samples of ringed seal collected near Arctic communities, such as Resolute, over the past twenty five years and represent an excellent opportunity to study temporal trends. A number of other Arctic countries also maintain ringed seal monitoring programs which provides the opportunity for international comparisons, particularly through NCP’s participation in AMAP. Ringed seals will be sampled annually under this program with the help of hunters from the communities of Sachs Harbour, Resolute and Arviat. These three locations represent very different regions of the Canadian Arctic that are experiencing varying degrees of climate change and contaminant input. Beluga whales, while not as widely distributed as ringed seal, are also an important country food species. Samples of beluga have been collected from places like the Mackenzie Delta, Hudson Bay and Pangnirtung at various times over the past 25 years and analyzed for contaminants. The existing temporal dataset for this species will be augmented with annual sampling at Hendrickson Island in the Mackenzie Delta, and in waters of Cumberland sound by hunters from Tuktoyaktuk and Pangirtung. This monitoring plan will allow researchers to compare beluga from the western and eastern Arctic which experience regional differences with respect to impacts of climate change and contaminant inputs. Polar Bear are the top predator in the Arctic marine food chain and can have the highest concentration of some contaminants found in the Arctic. Polar bear meat is also consumed by Inuit and has special sociocultural and economic importance (through commercial hunts) to Inuit communities. Like other species, polar bear have been sampled periodically in the past and analyzed for contaminants. The most extensive temporal data set for contaminants in polar bear exists for Hudson Bay, which is also Canada’s most southerly Arctic sea and is expected to undergo the most rapid climate change. Recent results from on-going monitoring of polar bear in Hudson Bay suggest dietary habits of polar bear may already be changing as a result of climate change. Seabird Eggs have been used for long-term monitoring of contaminants since the 1970s. The Arctic is an important breeding ground for a large number of seabirds that nest on rocky shores and cliffs of Arctic islands. During the nesting season seabird eggs are a popular food item for Inuit, for whom collecting and consuming eggs is an important spring tradition and source of nutrition. Eggs have been collected from Prince Leopold Island and Coats Island periodically by the Canadian Wildlife Service since 1975, and represent one of the best temporal contaminant datasets. Eggs of thick billed murre and northern fulmar are being collected once a year from each of these colonies to build on this past data and improve our assessment of temporal trends. Eggs are ideal for monitoring since they are relatively easy to collect and do not involve killing an adult bird. Seabird eggs are also collected as part of monitoring programs in other Arctic countries, allowing for international comparisons. The two colonies selected for monitoring are in the high Arctic, Prince Leopold Island, and further south in the mouth of Hudson Bay, Coats Island. These two sites provide opportunities to examine changes over time in two different ecosystems undergoing varying degrees of change.


Sea-run arctic char are widely distributed throughout the Arctic and are one of the most important traditional/country food species for Arctic people. Char represent a widely available and highly nutritious source of food that is being promoted by public health authorities. One of the reasons char is being promoted is because contaminant levels are thought to be relatively low compared to other traditional/country foods and it is an excellent source of protein, polyunsaturated fatty acids and other micronutrients. Over the past five years sea-run char have been collected from communities across the Canadian Arctic and the results confirm that contaminant levels are quite low, particularly when compared to marine mammals. One location in the central/western Arctic (Cambridge Bay), and one location in the Eastern Arctic (Pond Inlet) have been selected for continued annual monitoring to ensure contaminant levels remain low. Land-locked arctic char are also widely distributed species that inhabit arctic lakes and rivers. The NCP has been monitoring land-locked char in high-arctic lakes around the community of Resolute and on Elsmere Island for the past 20 years and has built up strong temporal datasets on contaminant levels. The lakes receive contaminants from the atmosphere and therefore represent good indicators of changing atmospheric inputs of contaminants. High Arctic lakes are also undergoing significant changes related to climate change which could also influence contaminant levels in the fish. Lake trout and to a lesser extent burbot are also important traditional/country food species for many northern communities and like char, both are an excellent source of nutrition. Lake trout and burbot can, however, have fairly high levels of mercury, especially older fish, and they can represent a significant source of mercury to people who consume it frequently. Like all of the species in the temporal trends program, trout and burbot have been monitoring for over 20 years in the Yukon and NWT and represent a valuable temporal trends dataset. The monitoring program will continue annual monitoring of lake trout and burbot in the important fishery of Great Slave lake; of burbot caught in the Mackenzie River near Fort Good Hope; and of lake trout in Lake Laberge and Kusawa Lake in the Yukon. Caribou have been selected for temporal trends monitoring due their importance as traditional/country food and because there is good historical information on contaminant levels in some herds. Contaminant levels in caribou, however, are among the lowest of any traditional/country food species and the monitoring program has verified this over the past five years where several herds from across the Arctic were sampled and analyzed for heavy metals. Two distinct caribou herds have been selected for continued annual monitoring of heavy metals, including the Porcupine herd and the Qamanirjuaq herd. The Porcupine herd ranges in the area of northern Yukon and Alaska, and may be exposed to atmospheric deposition of contaminants originating in Asia, whereas the Qamanirjuaq herd ranges from eastern NWT to southern Nunavut and the shores of Hudson Bay, which is more likely to received atmospheric contaminant input from North America. It should be noted that the vast majority of samples collected for NCP research and monitoring are collected by hunters from nearby communities as part of their subsistence hunting activities.

Blueprints – Community Based Monitoring and Research 2010-2011 44

6 Blueprint for Community Based Monitoring and Research

6.1 Introduction The NCP is developing a stand-alone subprogram to support community based monitoring and research projects. The purpose of the Community Based Monitoring and Research subprogram will be to address NCP monitoring and research priorities that are outlined in the Human Health and Environmental Monitoring and Research Blueprints through projects that are primarily lead and carried out by northern communities. 2010-2011 will represent a developmental year for the subprogram that involve funding a pilot project for community based research while also carrying out a critical review that will provide needed guidance for further development of the subprogram. In this call for proposals the NCP is seeking proposals to conduct a pilot project for community based research. Details related to the kind of project that NCP wishes to fund are provided in the following Blueprint. For the 2010-2011 fiscal year, $100,000 has been budgeted to fund this project. Proposal deadline will be 11:59 PM eastern time, Monday, February 1, 2010.

6.2 Background The Northern Contaminants Program has made it a priority to involve northern communities and make use of traditional knowledge as much as possible in environmental and human health monitoring and research projects. The extent to which this has taken place from project to project has been described in annual proposals, each of which has undergone a social/cultural review by the relevant Regional Contaminants Committees. In the case of Environmental Monitoring and Research projects, the attempts to involve communities have included the engagement of local hunters to collect samples and record a standard set of observations which are subsequently shipped and reported to project leaders. Very rarely have community members been involved in the interpretation of results, which for the most part have been restricted to analysis and interpretation of chemical relationships. The use of traditional knowledge in projects has largely been restricted in application to the collection of samples by hunters, or so it is often stated in proposals. There may be a few cases where traditional knowledge has been used in a more substantive way for the interpretation of results, however, this seems to be quite rare.


Under Human Health several projects have engaged community members to assist with the recruitment and collection of human samples and associated data (i.e. questionnaires). There have also been a few projects that have involved in-depth interviews of community members to ascertain dietary habits and learn about perceptions of health risks. While some of these projects have perhaps engaged communities at a relatively high level, the community involvement in leading the project and in final interpretation of results, formulation of conclusions and application of the findings has been limited. A regularly identified need for improvement in the NCP, raised often during the annual review of proposals, is towards the meaningful involvement of communities in all aspects of conducting contaminants related research, and ultimately towards community leadership of research projects. Furthermore the program has struggled to use traditional knowledge in a very meaningful way in the actual pursuit of monitoring and research objectives, i.e. improved knowledge. The need to do better in the areas of community involvement and traditional knowledge, were again raised in panel discussions and Blueprint review breakout sessions at the recent NCP Results Workshop. These are not challenges unique to the NCP, but ones that must be overcome for any future Arctic monitoring and Research program. Community based monitoring and research will be a key component of the science program in support of Canada's Northern Strategy: Our North, Our Heritage, Our Future and the High Arctic Research Station. Community based monitoring is also considered an integral part of the Sustained Arctic Observing Network being developed through the Arctic Council and International Arctic Science Committee.

6.3 Pilot project for a community based research project to address priorities of the Environmental Monitoring and Research Blueprint

It has become increasingly evident that a changing climate is causing significant effects to ecosystem structure and function in the Arctic. These ecosystem changes have the capacity to influence contaminant uptake and accumulation in the food web, which affects concentrations in NCP monitoring species, like caribou, ringed seal, beluga and polar bear. The NCP monitoring program measures year to year changes in contaminant concentrations in an effort to assess long term trends, which will hopefully reflect global efforts to reduce contaminant emissions. In order to make the link between trends and emissions, there is a need to understand what is causing the trends, and this requires us to know how the ecosystem has changed over the monitoring period. In order to make their living, hunters have to be keen observers of the environment and biological systems that sustain their communities. These observations have been made throughout the period of recent dramatic climate driven changes in the Arctic, and over the period since the NCP began


monitoring. Hunters will also continue to make these observations into the future. Hunters therefore have the knowledge of how ecosystems have changed in the past, what the current status of the ecosystems are, and are likely in the best position to predict future trends. With ongoing observations, hunters will also be able to collect the data required to test and modify their predictions. This understanding of Arctic ecosystems and how they’ve changed and are changing could make a significant contribution to the interpretation of temporal trends in contaminant concentrations, and predicting future trends. Proposed community based research projects should systematically document this knowledge in a way that is both informative for the community and other hunters, and contaminant research scientists. Potential subjects for a pilot project could be caribou, ringed sea, beluga, or polar bear in one of the focal ecosystems where they are being monitored under the Environmental Monitoring and Research Blueprint. The project should be co-lead by a community organization in cooperation with a researcher who has expertise in working with communities and using methods of participatory research. The co-leads should work with a team derived of local (community) environmental experts, as well as relevant NCP environmental monitoring and research scientists. The goal of the project would be to conduct a methodologically rigorous study of how the ecology of important NCP monitoring species, including the supporting ecosystem, has changed in recent decades. The study could be designed and carried out in cooperation with the NCP project leader responsible for monitoring the particular species at the particular location to ensure that the study will provide information relevant to contaminants.

Blueprints – Communication, Capacity, and Outreach– 2010-2011 47

7 Blueprint for Communications, Capacity, and Outreach 2010-2011

7.1 Introduction The current Blueprint outlines Capacity and Communications priorities for the Northern Contaminants Program under four general categories:

A. Core capacity building and communications activities (prescribed); B. Building further capacity among frontline workers and communicators; C. The delivery of synthesized contaminants messages; and D. Learning how best to communicate about contaminants.

Priority A activities are prescribed, with specific project leaders identified (outlined in Table 1 later in this document). This Priority is not open to new proposals. However, funding for Priorities B through D will be determined based on an open call for proposals and the outcome of a detailed proposal review. If a researcher is interested in submitting a proposal but is new to the NCP, they are encouraged to contact the NCP Secretariat with a brief description of their proposal idea. The Secretariat will then be able to provide guidance to help new researchers through the proposal submission process. For the 2010-2011 fiscal year, the Capacity and Communications subprogram will have approximately $860 k in total funding. Of this, $340k is available to fund Priorities B, C, and D above. The call for proposals for this subprogram is open, but it is encouraged that whenever possible the work is led by Northerners. The remaining funds are allocated to Priority A, which represents ongoing support for Regional Contaminants Committees and key NCP communicators. Proposal deadline will be 11:59 PM eastern time, Monday, February 1, 2010.

7.2 Background In addition to northern consultations with the NCP’s Regional Contaminants Committees and others, a historical review of the subprogram has been undertaken to identify strengths, weaknesses, and gaps in past E&C activities. These two pieces of work – the national consultation report and the historical review – along with a review of relevant documents and input from the NCP Management Committee form the basis for this Blueprint.


The Blueprint gets revised annually. The biggest change this year is the recognition that there are core capacity building elements that are ongoing priorities for the NCP. These elements are included in Priority A, along with the proposals for Regional Contaminants Committee (RCC) support. Previously, these RCC proposals were included in a separate subprogram of the NCP: National/Regional Coordination and Aboriginal Partnerships. They are included now in this newly renamed Capacity and Communications Blueprint with the recognition that the ongoing support they receive continues to build the capacity of these highly diverse and important regional stakeholders.

7.3 Goal and Objectives of the Communications, Capacity, and Outreach Subprogram

The overall goal of the subprogram is to support and facilitate the communication and understanding of contaminants research activities and results of the NCP to community, regional, national and international audiences, while effectively communicating these results and their implications to those whose mandate it is to inform the public. Appropriate health officials have the overall responsibility of putting these messages into the context of public health messaging. To meet this goal, activities under the CC&O subprogram can be subdivided into four main objectives and several priorities, as follows: Priority A: Core capacity building and communications activities (prescribed). This priority includes support for the Regional Contaminants Committees (previously submitted under the National/Regional Coordination and Aboriginal Partnerships envelope), as well as ongoing support for key NCP communicators. These projects, their designated project leaders, and the approximate budgets are outlined below in Table 1. Table 1 Project Project leader Approximate

Budget Yukon Contaminants Committee Pat Roach $16,500 NWT Regional Contaminants Committee (including participation funds for Aboriginal organizations)

Lorna Skinner $129,000

Niqiit Avatittinni Committee (Nunavut) Erika Solski $54,000 Nunavik Nutrition and Health Committee Elena Labranche $97,750 Nunatsiavut Health and Environment Research Committee Nunatsiavut

Government $87,250

Inuit Research Advisors

• Inuvialuit Settlement Region • Nunavut • Nunavik

IRC NTI KRG

$33,300 $43,700 $34,500


• Nunatsiavut Nunatsiavut Government

$23,800

Total: $519,800 Priority B: Building further capacity among frontline workers, communicators, and researchers. This priority will build further capacity among frontline workers (Regional Contaminants Committee members, Community Health Representatives, health promotion specialists, Inuit Research Advisors, and people to whom community members go for information on environmental contaminants) to identify, understand, and facilitate understanding and uptake of information on long-range contaminant issues.

• Increasing the capacity of the RCCs to understand the NCP Program

and contextualize (into the broader health and environment regime) contaminants information and project results. (This could include targeted training sessions for RCC members if an identified knowledge and expertise gap exists.)

• Increasing the capacity of northern community members to engage in contaminants research (e.g., development and delivery of training to further the understanding of, and ability to engage in, the research undertaken in the NCP, especially the public health authorities in the North).

• Providing support to RCCs to increase the capacity of NCP researchers to work and communicate with northern communities.

Priority C: Delivery of synthesized contaminants messages. This priority allows for the delivery of contaminants-related messages from several combined NPC projects. Delivery of individual project results back to the communities in which the sampling took place falls under the responsibility of the Human Health or Environmental Monitoring subprograms.

• Development and delivery of new and existing communications tools and products to communicate contaminants information to appropriate frontline workers and organizations.

• Delivery of a synthesis or compilation of several projects’ results on contaminants in the regions. These syntheses should be put in the proper public health context for the region and integrated among related projects (even from different funding programs) occurring in the same location.

• Partnering between researchers and communicators to disseminate NCP results from various projects (e.g., delivering results from various projects in a certain geographic area)


Priority D: Communications Research. This priority mainly focuses on research around communications, learning how best to communicate about contaminants in the North, taking into consideration the broader context.

• What is the best way to communicate contaminants messages? Documentation and/or evaluation of processes that advance the understanding of what is effective communication at the community or regional levels

• What do people in the North know about contaminants, and how do we improve their understanding? Surveys or other methods to assess the state of knowledge in northern communities around contaminants issues, including work to improve our understanding of how community members perceive and see (conceptualize) and discuss the contaminants issue and where they access contaminants information. .

• How do we know that our communications efforts are working? Development of evaluative components to measure the effectiveness of message delivery, comprehension, retention, and impact, as well as evaluation of training and capacity building efforts.

• Research on risk communication.

7.4 Context

7.4.1 Evolution of the NCP and the importance of the contaminant issue in the North

The NCP has been communicating about long-range contaminants for over 15 years. In that time, much has been learned about the presence, trends, and health effects of contaminants in the North, as well as about how to communicate all of this complex information. There have been many efforts to reach target audiences (community members, hunters, youth, women of childbearing age, etc) over the years using a variety of methods (e.g., posters, newsletters, development of school curricula, community tours, radio call-in shows, workshops, frontline training courses, Elder-Scientist retreats ). The methods of reaching target audiences have evolved over the years. There are many health issues in the North that are seen to be more urgent than the presence and effects of long-range contaminants. For example, several NCP-funded studies over the last few years surveyed community members from across the North on the relative importance that contaminants play in their decisions concerning what they eat. These studies have concluded that, the large majority of the time, the contaminant issue is low on the list of driving forces of what community members choose to eat. It is also a fact that levels of many legacy POPs are decreasing in the North.


Given this situation, it may not be prudent to perhaps overwhelm northern community members with information about contaminants out of context with other issues, for fear of increasing their anxiety. Instead of creating whole workshops and newsletters devoted to the issue of contaminants, public health authorities deemed it to be appropriate to insert contaminants messaging into existing public health messages. The NCP has been successful in doing this in a number of cases, such as the release of public health messages in Nunavik in 2003 and Nunavut in 2004. However, continued improvement in this approach is needed. The NCP has the responsibility to inform northerners about the research that is taking place in their communities and regions, particularly the results of that research. However, this information should be presented in the context of the overall public and environmental health situation in the North. As such, communicators must work with public health authorities (and relevant RCCs) in the regions to determine the appropriate level of activity on contaminants communication and education.

7.4.2 Relation of Communications, Capacity, and Outreach subprogram with other elements of the NCP

The Communications, Capacity, and Outreach subprogram is directly linked with the other two NCP subprograms (Human Health and Environmental Monitoring and Research) in that it supports projects based on messages coming from the results of the other two subprograms. These subprograms are designed to be complementary, and projects that link two or more subprograms together are encouraged. For example, dietary exposure assessments carried out under the Human Health program can make use of samples and data being generated by the Environmental Monitoring and Research subprogram; Environmental Monitoring and Research projects can benefit from local knowledge gathered through Capacity and Communications activities, which in turn can employ researchers from the Environmental Monitoring and Research subprogram to help better communicate their scientific results.

7.4.3 Other Relevant Northern Programs The NCP is not the only program in the North that includes communication, education, training, and capacity building: other programs include, the Government of Canada Program for International Polar Year (IPY), ArcticNet, Health Canada’s Climate Change and Health Adaptation program, INAC’s


Climate Change Adaptation Program, and the Nasivvik Centre for Inuit Health and Changing Environments. The NCP has ongoing collaboration with all of these programs. Given that there are numerous programs funding research in the North, communicators for the NCP should be aware that communities may not distinguish between an NCP-funded researcher and those from other programs. Any communications efforts must be placed within the broader context of research throughout the North, and where possible, collaboration with other programs. There is some harmonization of Capacity and Communications efforts among some research programs. For example, ArcticNet, the Nasivvik Centre, and the NCP are co-funding the salary of several Inuit Research Advisors (IRAs) across the North. These IRAs act as liaisons between researchers and northerners Collaborative initiatives such as this should be encouraged.

7.5 Media It is important to note that northern audiences are no longer isolated in terms of media access. Many people have satellite television access, and broadband Internet access is now also becoming more available in many regions. Up to now, internet bandwidth has been relatively low in many northern communities, which resulting in slow and unreliable connections. Tools such as live streaming of video and interactive online learning modules usually require high bandwith and have not functioned properly in northern communities. However, the Canadian Government has recently committed $100 million per year over a five year period towards the completion of Canada’s broadband network, starting in the 2010-2011 year. Community radio and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) remain more reliable and popular sources of information for northerners. This access to different media sources means an increasing risk of message crossover and potential public confusion. If people in a community meeting are told one thing about contaminant levels and the risk to their health, and then read another perspective on the research in the news, they are likely going to be both confused and concerned. It is therefore important that community members know where to go and who to contact to answer their questions about contaminants when they become concerned. The NCP needs to ensure that these “frontline workers” (e.g., Regional Contaminants Committee members, wildlife officers, nurses, doctors, Hunters and Trappers Organizations, school teachers, community adult


educators, etc.) and spokespeople have the information they need to answer questions in a timely manner.

7.6 Audiences The main target audiences for NCP communications in the past have included a wide-range of groups of traditional/country food consumers, including youth, hunters, frontline workers, Elders, and particularly mothers, pregnant women, and women/girls of childbearing age. Other key audiences have included stakeholders at a National level, NCP researchers, and public health professionals. With the recognition that contaminants efforts should be put in the proper context, it is recommended that the main audience for NCP communication this year is not the general community population, but the frontline workers and public health authorities. This group includes the people to whom community members would regularly go to for answers about contaminants-related questions, specifically members of the Regional Contaminants Committees (RCCs), nurses, doctors, community leaders, nutritionists, wildlife and fisheries officers, lands and environmental protection offices, adult educators, school teachers, Inuit Research Advisors. It is not necessary this year that the NCP reach out directly to each community member, but to ensure that the people who work with community members know everything they need to put NCP messages into the proper regional, environment, and health context. It is the long-term intent of the Capacity and Communications subprogram of the NCP to ensure that a wide-range of northern community members is educated about contaminant issues. The focus for this year is on frontline workers, but this will hopefully progress in future years to include wider portions of the northern population. The need for education and training of frontline workers will most likely continue, especially as there are high turnover rates in frontline worker positions in the North. The NCP is also involved in communication activities at the international level targeted at government, policy and Aboriginal representatives involved in international initiatives. The information needs, concerns and interests at this level are important to identify and understand, as it is at this level that international action is influenced by the knowledge generated through programs such as the NCP. Without the communication material provided by NCP, representatives to international processes would not be able to present key research results on the significance of contaminants in the Arctic or have the justification to take action on an international scale (e.g., United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution Protocols on POPs and heavy metals, UNEP Global Mercury


Initiative, and the global Stockholm Convention on POPs.) These international communication activities are funded by the NCP, but are not part of this Call for Proposals. They are dealt with in another envelope of the NCP called the National/Regional Coordination and Aboriginal Partnerships.

Blueprints - National/Regional Coordination and Aboriginal Partnerships Guidance Document 2010-2011

55

8 National/Regional/International Coordination and Aboriginal Partnerships

Guidance document 2010-2011 This envelope of funding is to be applied for the following purposes: 1) Coordination and Administration of the Northern Contaminants

Program The NCP Secretariat prepares a proposal for review by the NCP Management Committee to cover the costs and expenses of administering the program. This proposal includes costs for NCP meetings, publications, and a Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) program, among other things. 2) Capacity Building A: Aboriginal Partner Attendance at NCP Meetings Proposals should include funds for time and travel to participate in RCC and Management Committee meetings, as well as the Results Workshop. 3) Capacity Building B: Aboriginal Partner Review, and Consultations

of NCP Funded Projects The four northern Aboriginal Partners (ITK, ICC, Dene Nation and CYFN) shall be funded to review NCP projects for which they are the relevant Aboriginal organization, as defined under the Revised Consultation Process Guidelines, and to consult with the principal investigators and communities as necessary. All NCP funded projects for 2010-2011 must abide by the NCP’s Consultation Process. The total resources to be made available to an Aboriginal Partner for consultation purposes will be in proportion to the number of projects that are active in their respective regions. Funding levels under Capacity B will be decided only after the NCP Management Committee has made its final decisions in April 2009 concerning project funding.

Proposal Format 2010-2011 56

9 Proposal Format, 2010-2011 In order to be considered for funding, all proposals submitted to the NCP must include a detailed proposal document that follows the format outlined below. The sample proposal provided in Appendix A provides a good example of the quality, level of detail and completeness that reviewers are looking for in an NCP proposal. Note: For ongoing multi-year projects, please emphasize any changes from

the original proposal 1. Program

Category Indicate only one of the following four subprograms that the project falls under: Human Health; Environmental Monitoring and Research; Community-Based Monitoring and Research; Communications Capacity and Outreach; or National/Regional Coordination and Aboriginal Partnerships.

2. Title 3. Project Leader, Affiliation and Contact Information

(including address, telephone, fax, e-mail) 4. Project Team Members and their Affiliations 5. Plain Language

Summary 100-200 words (narrative or bullet-form) providing both project relevance and a description of the proposed project that would be understood by the non-scientific public. This will be used in the review process, particularly by the NCP Management Committee, and to produce the Summary of Northern Contaminants Program Projects booklet containing basic information on each approved project for distribution throughout the North and elsewhere. The summary should answer the following questions: What is the proposed work? What questions is it attempting to answer and why? Where and when will the work be done? How will it involve/help Aboriginal peoples and other northerners? What are the expected results and the results to date?

6. Project Description I) Objectives ii) Rationale

Provide well-defined short-term and long-term objectives for the overall project in relation to the applicable NCP Blueprint (included in the call for proposals information package). Describe the rationale for the project in relation to the applicable


iii) Progress to

Date iv) Proposed Work v) Clients/Partners vi) Laboratory

Analysis vii) Capacity

Building and Training

NCP Blueprint. This should be a detailed section that clearly lays out a scientific basis for the proposed work. It is this section that will convince reviewers that the proposed work addresses the needs described in the blueprint in a way that is scientifically defensible. Describe the results of the work completed to date so that the project can be properly and fully evaluated. This should include any work carried out in related NCP projects as well as non-NCP funded projects whose results are specifically relevant to the proposed work. Provide a brief description of activities to be carried out over the life of the project. Include a more detailed description of planned activities in the year for which funds are being immediately requested. List the departments, agencies, Aboriginal organizations, communities and other countries, with the corresponding contacts, that are involved in the project and/or could make use of the results. Describe the laboratories being used to conduct contaminant analyses by providing the name of the laboratory, the individual cost of analysis per sample, the quality assurance/quality control methods and procedures to be used and if the laboratory is currently taking part in the Northern Contaminants Program QA/QC Program or is willing to do so. Capacity building can be defined, for the purposes of the NCP, as activities which can improve an organization, community, or person’s ability to engage in contaminants issues. Some examples of capacity building include (but are not limited to): • Formal training programs (individual one-on-one, or small

group training with the researcher) • Community or target group workshops • Presentations to, and engagement of, science classes

(promoting student involvement)


viii) Traditional

Knowledge ix) Communications

x) Related Projects

• Hiring and engagement of local individuals in research projects

Describe the capacity building efforts planned for the upcoming year, as well as those undertaken in the previous year’s NCP project. Explain how the proposed project will incorporate traditional knowledge, unless not applicable. Examples include: the use of TK in collecting wildlife samples (to assess the timing of sample collection, changes in migration patterns, changes in populations, changes in habitat), etc. Describe in detail any communications activities planned as part of this proposed project, as well as those undertaken in the previous year’s NCP project and, including names of people and organizations that have been or will be contacted. Examples of communications activities could include: production of fact sheets or other materials, presentations to school groups and other community members, progress reports sent to Hunters and Trappers Organizations, poster presentations, etc. List any other projects that are related to the proposed work and indicate any shared costs and/or sample archival possibilities.


7. Consultation

This section is to be completed for all projects, including ongoing multi-year projects for which any part of the project in any year of the study was conducted in the North or made use of samples from the North. For projects that have no northern component at any stage, a brief statement explaining why there has been no northern consultation is sufficient. Describe the specific details of the consultation that has occurred thus far, including efforts and successes from the previous year’s project (if applicable), and specific plans for future consultation, e.g. what was discussed, with whom, when. Proponents are strongly encouraged to contact the relevant Regional Contaminants Committee (RCC) during proposal development to receive guidance on what consultation is needed for their project. Proposals for human health research should include information about relevant ethics review, what body(s) are reviewing the project and the status of the review. A copy of the relevant consent form should also be included. It should be noted that NCP access to project data needs to be recognized in this documentation.

8. Deliverables Specify what the deliverables will be over the life of the project and for the current year for which funding is being requested. Include data reports, open literature publications, reports, workshops and items for communications initiatives.

9. Detailed Budget Provide detailed budget information for the specific year in which funding is being requested, as well as an estimate of the annual funding needed for the balance of the project (see Table 1). Also show funds/human resources from other sources besides this program (see Table 2).

10. References and other Relevant Publications / Presentations

Provide a list. Maximum 2 pages. This should include publications and presentations by project team members relevant to the proposed project. This section should also include references for publications cited in the text of the proposal.

11. Supportive Information on Expertise

Attach résumés, etc. to show scientific excellence of applicant and co-applicants (maximum 2 pages per applicant or co-applicant).


Budget Tables Table 1: Detailed Budget Information for NCP Project Funding Class of Expenditures* (fill in classes as applicable)

Previous Year 2009-2010

(if applicable)

Current Year 2010-2011

Next Year 2011-2012

(if applicable - add further columns as necessary for 2012-13, 2013-14, etc.)

1. Professional Fees and Services (e.g., contracts)

2. Equipment and Facilities

3. Travel (includes field costs, NCP Results Workshop)

4. Other Costs (specify: e.g., supplies, publications, phone, fax, mail)

5. Administration Fee (maximum 15%)

TOTAL COSTS NOTE: One form must be completed for each proposal submitted. * See attachment for detailed description of each class of expenditure.


Table 2: Associated Costs and Other Funding Sources - Detailed Budget Information Class of Expenditures* (fill in classes as applicable)


(if applicable)

Current Year 2010-2011

Next Year 2011-2012

(if applicable - add further columns as necessary for

2012-13, 2013-14

1. Associated Support (including in-kind)

a) Salaries

b) Equipment and Facilities

c) Operating Funds (in-house resources)

2. Other Project Funding Sources (Specify as much detail as possible)

TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS FOR ASSOCIATED SUPPORT AND OTHER PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (#1 and #2 above)

TOTAL NCP FUNDING REQUESTED (from Table 1)

GRAND TOTAL PROJECT COSTS NOTE: One form must be completed for each proposal submitted. • See attachment for detailed description of each class of expenditure.


Description of Each Class of Expenditure Proposals submitted to the Northern Contaminants Program (NCP) for 2010-2011 funding should include the following level of budget detail and indicate multi-year funding as applicable: Table 1 1. Professional Fees and Services • legitimate entries under this category are the wages of people hired

specifically for the project (i.e. non-federal employees including students, Aboriginal and/or local employment). Caution should also be exercised that double counting of contracted employees does not occur.

• Contracts: please indicate the total estimated value of each contract to be let under the project, the contractor name (if known), and purpose;

• Contractors must provide a justification of their fees; • in the case of contracted laboratory services, indicate the cost of analysis per

sample, the type of analysis and number of samples. • this category should not include the salaries of full-time continuous or term

federal employees participating in the proposed project. These salaries are A-base and are covered by the particular department whether the personnel are participating in an NCP project or in other work. Such salaries should be reported as Associated Support (Table 2).

• 2. Equipment and Facilities • equipment costs (purchase, lease, maintenance): specify the type of

equipment and the extent to which it will be applied to NCP contaminants projects;

• only equipment that is specifically purchased, leased or developed for the particular project should be reported in this category;

• the maintenance cost of equipment already owned by the federal government and used as part of the project should be reported as Associated Support (Table 2);

• laboratory analysis: indicate the cost of analysis per sample, the type of analysis and the number of samples to be analysed;

• only the cost of sample analysis and/or the development of specific analytical techniques for an NCP project are appropriate for Table 1.

3. Travel • include all travel, accommodation and meals; • the cost of establishing and operating field camps, aircraft rental, and

shipping (i.e. freight) charges should also be included in this category; • ship time should be reported in this category only when the project is being

charged directly for the use of the ship or where smaller vessels are rented for the express purpose of conducting the project;


• if ship time is considered A-base (i.e. the project manager is not charged for time on board), then such costs should be reported as Associated Support (Table 2);

• the maximum allowable amount for travel to the NCP Results workshop, is $2,500.

4. Other Costs • Other costs include miscellaneous costs such as office supplies and

operating expenses (office space, rental, phone, printing, computer time, fax, photocopying and postage).

• Costs that do not fit in any of the above categories should also be expressed here.

5. Administration Fee All administrative expenses associated with the project activity may be included in this category. This may include, for example, expenses for payroll or accounting services. Administrative expenses should not exceed 15% of the total project budget. Table 2 1. Associated Support/Other Project Funding • indicate associated contributions (staff salaries, services, facilities and

operating funds) as well as the estimated value, status and source of other known or potential contributions to the project - e.g. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), ArcticNet, Climate Change Action Plan, other government departments (OGDs), Canadian Foundation for Innovation, etc.

NOTE: As a general guideline, if there is any direct cost to the project being charged to the NCP, report such expenses in Table 1; if costs are absorbed through regular departmental funding (A-base) or from other funding sources with no billing or “administrative fee” applied to the NCP, then such costs are Associated Support (Table 2).

Criteria for Review of Proposals Submitted to the 2010-2011 Northern Contaminants Program

64

10 Criteria for Review of Proposals Submitted to the 2010-2011 Northern Contaminants Program

The project proposal review process involves an external peer review (as applicable), and evaluations by territorial/regional contaminants committees and review teams. The NCP Management Committee considers the recommendations of all of these reviews in final funding decisions. Review criteria used by the peer reviewers and the review teams in evaluating the proposals are attached for your information and consideration in preparing your proposals. For further details of the review process, please refer to the NCP Operational Management Guide (available through the NCP website: http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ncp/ ). Human Health and Environmental Monitoring and Research Subprograms

- Review Team Relevance Criteria - Peer Reviewer Review Criteria (Human Health Subprogram only) - Social/Cultural Review Criteria

10.1 Human Health and Environmental Monitoring and Research Subprograms

TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM RELEVANCE CRITERIA 40 Does the research proposal address one of the key research needs

outlined in the appropriate blueprint? If not, then no further consideration of the proposal is necessary. If it does, then what level of priority is given to that research need in the blueprint? (Note: this question should be asked before the proposal is sent out for peer review. If the answer is no, then the proposal should not be sent out for peer review.)

20 Does the research proposal have greater relevance for northern

populations/issues than southern populations/issues? 15 Does the budget seem appropriate (e.g. reasonable charges for sample

analysis, etc.) and is other funding/in-kind support identified? 15 What is the “track record” of the principal investigator, i.e. on delivering

results, on scientific excellence, etc.? 10 Can the results be delivered within the Northern Contaminants Program

time frame?


65

Y/N If this research project directly impacts northern communities or Aboriginal

groups, have they been consulted and do they support this research? Have the proponents addressed the Northern Contaminants Program revised Guidelines for Responsible Research and provided a written consent (where applicable)?

PEER REVIEWER REVIEW CRITERIA

20 Scientific excellence/expertise of principal investigator and team (including consideration of relevant publications)

15 Clarity and scope of objectives

15 Clarity, adequacy and intercomparability of methodology

15 Suitability of proposal design for meeting the objectives (e.g. sample size, etc.)

10 Appropriateness of time frame (e.g. can the project results be delivered within the time frame specified in the proposal and within a time frame appropriate to the NCP?)

10 Appropriateness of budget (e.g. charges for sample analysis)

15 Overall clarity and organization of proposal

Written Assessment: Peer reviewers are asked to provide a brief written assessment (up to one page) of the proposal, including an assessment of the importance of the proposed project with respect to the priority areas identified in the relevant NCP blueprint.


66

CRITERIA FOR SOCIAL/CULTURAL REVIEW (to be carried out by the relevant Regional Contaminants Committee)

Criteria Attributes

Communications How complete are the communications activities: - prior to project implementation? - during project execution? - after project results are received? How good is the rapport of the project proponent within the study area?

Northern Priority Does the project address a question that is important to northerners? (Note: The proposal must also meet a priority outlined in the Blueprints.) Has similar work been done already? Recently? Does the proposal build on existing data?

Capacity Building/Training

Does the proposal provide local or northern training opportunities? Does the proposal promote capacity building in the North?

Traditional Knowledge Does the proposal make use of appropriate traditional knowledge? Have the relevant communities been consulted on how traditional knowledge could be incorporated into the project?

Each proposal will receive a High, Medium, or Low rating accompanying a narrative concerning the review of that proposal by the relevant RCC. For example, a box such as that given below will be completed for each proposal. Narrative Rating

5 High 4 Medium-High 3 Medium 2 Medium-Low 1 Low

10.2

Timelines for the Northern Contaminants Program Review Process 2010-2011

67

11 Timelines for the Northern Contaminants Program Review Process 2010-2011

TASK DATE

Approval of the Blueprints at the mid-year meeting of the NCP Management Committee (Toronto, ON) Nov 18-19, 2009

Call for Proposals (Human Health, Env. Monitoring and Research; Community-Based Monitoring and Research, Communications, Capacity, and Outreach)

week of Dec 6th, 2009

Deadline for submission of proposals 11:59 PM ET, February 1, 2010

Distribution of proposals to peer reviewers, technical review teams and RCCs Mid- February 2010

Response from peer reviewers due and distributed to technical review teams March 2010

Detailed social/cultural review of proposals by regional contaminants committees; comments and overall rating of proposals forwarded to NCP Secretariat

March 2010

Detailed proposal review by Human Health, Environmental Trends, and Education and Communication review teams; comments and overall rating of proposals forwarded to NCP Secretariat

March 2010

Social/cultural and technical review comments consolidated and forwarded to project proponents by NCP Secretariat; if needed, revised proposals requested

March 2010

Deadline for submission of Approval of Consultation forms to NCP Secretariat March 31, 2010

NCP Secretariat consolidates all comments from Review Teams and forwards entire package to NCP Management Committee

Early April 2010

NCP Management Committee meets to conduct policy/funding review of proposals April 2010

Applicants receive written notification of the status of their proposal(s) April/May 2010

Appendix A: Sample proposal The following proposal provides a good example of the quality, level of detail and completeness that reviewers are looking for in an NCP proposal.

Appendix A- Sample Proposal

69

NORTHERN CONTAMINANTS PROGRAM 2009-2010 FUNDING PROPOSAL

1. Program Category: Environmental Monitoring and Research 2. Project Title: Temporal Trends of Contaminants in Arctic Seabird Eggs

3. Project Leader: Birgit Braune

Environment Canada, National Wildlife Research Centre Carleton University, Ottawa, ON Phone: (613) 998-6694, Fax: (613) 998-0458 E-mail: [email protected]

4. Project Team Members (2009-2010): R. Letcher, S. Trudeau, G. Gilchrist, A. Gaston; Environment Canada/NWRC (Ottawa) M. Mallory; Environment Canada/CWS (Iqaluit) K. Hobson; Environment Canada (Saskatoon) Polar Continental Shelf Project Indian and Northern Affairs 5. Plain Language Summary: Contaminants have been monitored in arctic seabird eggs collected from Prince Leopold Island in the Canadian High Arctic since 1975. Those data have shown declines in most of the legacy organochlorines (e.g. PCBs, DDT) as well as dioxins and furans. Contaminants such as hexachlorocyclohexanes (i.e. β-HCH) and mercury, however, have been increasing. Some of the newer chemicals, such as the brominated flame retardants (BFRs) and perfluorinated compounds (PFCs), have also increased since 1975. In order to examine inter-year variation in the temporal trend data series, we have been collecting eggs from each of two species of seabirds (northern fulmar, thick-billed murre) from Prince Leopold Island annually for five years since 2005. As well, for comparative purposes, we have also been making annual collections of thick-billed murre eggs from Coats Island in northern Hudson Bay (our Low Arctic monitoring colony since 1993) in parallel with the High Arctic collections. 6. Project Description i) Objectives: In order to examine annual variation in the temporal trend data series, we have been collecting eggs for contaminant analyses from each of two species of seabirds (northern fulmar, thick-billed murre) from Prince Leopold Island annually for five years since 2005. For comparative purposes, we have also been making annual collections of thick-billed murre eggs from Coats Island in northern Hudson Bay (our Low Arctic monitoring colony since 1993) in parallel with the High Arctic collections. The collections in 2009 will be the last of the annual collections.


70

ii) Rationale: The Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) has monitored contaminants in eggs of thick-billed murres (Uria lomvia), northern fulmars (Fulmarus glacialis) and black-legged kittiwakes (Rissa tridactyla) from Prince Leopold Island in the Canadian High Arctic since 1975 (Braune 2007a) to provide an index of contamination of the arctic marine ecosystem and possible implications for seabird health. As well, many Northerners harvest seabirds and their eggs for consumption. Collection of eggs as an index to contamination was chosen as a non-intrusive way of obtaining information for an ongoing survey. Due to the high costs and logistical difficulties of accessing arctic seabird colonies, collections of eggs for arctic seabirds have been opportunistic in the past but, with the support of the Northern Contaminants Program, the collections have been standardized to every five years since 1988. The temporal trend data to date have shown declines for most of the legacy persistent organic pollutants (e.g. PCBs, DDT) as well as polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs) and dibenzofurans (PCDFs), whereas contaminants such as hexachlorocyclohexanes (i.e. β-HCH), polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) and mercury (Hg) have been increasing (Braune 2007a, 2008). The pattern of organochlorine declines documented to date in these migratory seabirds most likely reflects overall lower contamination of the food chain resulting from restrictions placed on the use of many of these compounds in the 1970s and 1980s. More recently, chemicals such as the perfluorinated compounds (PFCs) (Martin et al. 2004, Muir et al. 2004), polychlorinated naphthalenes (PCNs) (Muir et al. 2004), and hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) (Braune and Muir 2005) have been found in arctic seabirds. Retrospective analyses have shown that perfluorinated carboxylic acids (PFCAs) in eggs of thick-billed murres and northern fulmars have increased between 1975 and 2007 whereas PFOS has not shown any discernible trend over that time period (Braune 2008). Continued monitoring of seabird eggs will provide valuable information against which to compare the effectiveness of more recent international agreements such as the 1998 UN ECE LRTAP Protocols on Heavy Metals and POPs, and the 2001 Stockholm Convention on POPs, as well as contribute to the UNEP Global Mercury Assessment.

Interpretation of temporal trend data is often obscured by the "noise" associated with concentration measurements. The probability that a monitoring program will detect a temporal trend in concentrations, in spite of the "noise" in the data, represents its statistical power. Long contaminant monitoring time series show random inter-year variations which are not part of a trend, which demonstrates the risks in using small, scattered sets of data on occasionally collected samples for interpreting environmental issues (Bignert et al. 1993, 1994, 1998; Olsson 1995, Hebert and Weseloh 2003).

One of the objectives of the core monitoring component of the NCP Blueprint for Environmental Monitoring and Research is to be able to detect a 10% annual change in contaminant concentration over a period of 10-15 years with a power of 80% and confidence level of 95%. In an effort to examine the inter-year variation in contaminant data and to improve the statistical power of the temporal trend data series for Canadian Arctic seabirds, we proposed to collect eggs from each of two species of seabirds (northern fulmar, thick-billed murre) from Prince Leopold Island annually for five years starting in 2005. For comparative purposes, we also proposed to make annual collections of thick-billed murre eggs from Coats Island in northern Hudson Bay (our Low Arctic monitoring colony since 1993) in parallel with the High Arctic collections. We now have data for that colony which indicate that rates of change of both organochlorines and mercury are quite different between the two colonies (Braune and Gaston 2004), despite the fact that population parameters at each colony tend to mirror each other (Gaston 2003). We are analyzing these eggs annually for the normal suite of legacy POPs and


71

total mercury. As well, we are analyzing for PBDEs, PCDDs, PCDFs and coplanar PCBs in the murre and fulmar eggs from Prince Leopold Island in order to continue the time trends established and examine the inter-year variation for those compounds. Having confirmed that seabird eggs are a viable monitoring matrix for PFCs (Braune 2008), we are also be analyzing the eggs from Prince Leopold Island annually for PFCs.

iii) Progress To Date: Historical/Retrospective Monitoring: This proposal relates to an ongoing monitoring program based on egg collections for thick-billed murres and northern fulmars from Prince Leopold Island archived in the National Wildlife Research Centre's Specimen Bank since 1975, and eggs of thick-billed murres from Coats Island collected and archived since 1993. Temporal trends for contaminants in seabird eggs collected from Prince Leopold Island between 1975 and 2003 are reported in Braune (2007a) and trends for Coats Island for 1993-2003 are described in Braune and Gaston (2004). Temporal trends of ΣPBDEs show a steady increase between 1975 and 2003 in both the thick-billed murres and the northern fulmars, but after 2003, ΣPBDE concentrations appear to have started to decrease in both species (Braune 2008). A reanalysis of archived samples has shown that perfluorinated carboxylic acids (PFCAs) in eggs of thick-billed murres and northern fulmars have increased between 1975 and 2007 whereas PFOS has not shown any discernible trend over that time period (Braune 2008). The 2008 field season was a major monitoring year in the five-year cycle of the core seabird egg monitoring program. Eggs were successfully collected from each of five species of seabirds (northern fulmar, thick-billed murre, black-legged kittiwake, black guillemot, glaucous gull) from Prince Leopold Island as well as eggs of thick-billed murres from Coats Island for analyses of the legacy POPs, total Hg and stable isotopes. In addition to the legacy POPs, total Hg and stable isotopes, analyses of PFCs, PBDEs, HBCD, PCDDs, PCDFs and coplanar PCBs are also planned for the murre and fulmar eggs from Prince Leopold Island. The eggs have all been processed and sample aliquots have been submitted to the various laboratories for chemical analyses. Annual Monitoring (2005-2010): Collections of eggs (n=15 per species per year per colony) for the first four years (2005-2008) of the five-year study on inter-year variation have been successfully completed for thick-billed murres and northern fulmars from Prince Leopold Island, and for thick-billed murres from Coats Island. Results for the 2005, 2006 and 2007 egg collections have been reported in Braune (2006, 2007b, 2008). The eggs collected in 2008 have been processed, pooled as required, and sent to the appropriate laboratories for chemical analyses. Major organochlorines, such as total PCBs (ΣPCB) and DDT metabolites (ΣDDT), in eggs of both thick-billed murres and northern fulmars from Prince Leopold Island have decreased since 1975 but now appear to be levelling off, albeit with some inter-annual fluctuation (Braune 2007b). Total Hg increased between 1975 and 2003 followed by some fluctuations in concentrations during the last three years in both species (Braune 2008). Interspecies Comparison for New Chemicals: There has been no study comparing the newer chemical compounds, such as BFRs and PFCs, across a variety of species of Canadian arctic seabirds based on recent samples. Samples collected in 1975 and 1993 from three species of arctic seabirds (thick-billed murre, northern fulmar, black-legged kittiwake) have been screened for BFRs (Braune and Simon 2004), and samples collected in 1993 from two species of arctic seabirds (northern fulmar, black guillemot) were included in a screening study for PFCs (Martin


72

et al. 2004). In 2008, we collected eggs from each of five species of seabirds (northern fulmar, thick-billed murre, black-legged kittiwake, black guillemot, glaucous gull) from Prince Leopold Island as part of the five-year cycle of the core seabird egg monitoring program (see previous section on egg collections). These samples will be analyzed for BFRs and PFCs allowing us to carry out a comparison of contaminant profiles for these newer groups of compounds on recent samples from five seabird species which occupy quite different trophic levels. The eggs have been received, processed and submitted to the appropriate laboratories for chemical analysis. Spatial Survey: The last spatial survey of contaminants in Canadian arctic seabirds was carried out in 1993 and included only the legacy POPs and total Hg (see Braune et al. 2002). As part of an IPY study on dietary change in marine birds carried out by Dr. Tony Gaston of Environment Canada, adult thick-billed murres and northern fulmars were collected from a number of locations throughout the Canadian Arctic during 2007 and 2008. The birds were dissected with the help of students from Arctic College (Iqaluit). Livers will be analyzed for the legacy POPs, BFRs, PFCs, and total Hg. With NCP funding from this proposal (M-08) plus additional funds obtained through M-29 in 2008, livers from 10 adult murres (5 males, 5 females) from each of the following four locations will be analyzed: Prince Leopold Island, Digges Island, Akpatok Island, the Minarets, plus 5 murres (females) from Coats Island. Additionally, 10 adult fulmars (5 males, 5 females) will be analyzed from each of the following two locations: Prince Leopold Island, the Minarets/Cape Searle (~30 km from the Minarets). These analyses will allow us to: (i) update earlier spatial information on contaminants in thick-billed murres, (ii) provide spatial information for northern fulmars which were not included in the 1993 survey, and (iii) generate spatial information for newer contaminants such as BFRs and PFCs in seabirds. iv) Proposed Work: Annual Monitoring (2005-2010): In order to examine annual variation and to improve the statistical power of the temporal trend data series for Canadian Arctic seabirds, we have been collecting eggs from each of two species of seabirds (northern fulmar, thick-billed murre) from Prince Leopold Island (74°02’N, 90°05’W) annually for five years starting in 2005. For comparative purposes, we have also been making annual collections of thick-billed murre eggs from Coats Island (62°30’N, 83°00’W) in northern Hudson Bay (our Low Arctic monitoring colony since 1993) in parallel with the High Arctic collections. In accordance with established NWRC (National Wildlife Research Centre) protocol for collecting eggs from arctic seabird colonies for monitoring of contaminants, 15 eggs are collected on the basis of one egg per nest from each of two species of seabirds (northern fulmar, thick-billed murre) from Prince Leopold Island and from thick-billed murres from Coats Island. Based on analyses of pooled vs individual samples of Great Lakes herring gull eggs, Turle and Collins (1992) concluded that any differences between the contaminant means of individual analyses and those of pooled samples are generally less than the normal analytical variation. Therefore, eggs will be analyzed for the normal suite of legacy persistent organic pollutants (e.g. PCBs, DDT, chlordanes, chlorobenzenes, etc.), PFCs, PBDEs and HBCD in pools of 3 eggs each (15 eggs per collection = 5 pools of 3 eggs each) as per the established NWRC protocol. PCDDs, PCDFs and coplanar PCBs will be carried out on the basis of pools of 5 eggs each (15 eggs per collection = 3 pools of 5 eggs each) as in previous years due to the need to minimize cost as well as acknowledge laboratory analytical capacity for those compounds. Total Hg will be analyzed in individual eggs. Finally, in order to evaluate the potential effect of changes in seabird diets on the


73

temporal trends observed for contaminants (Hebert et al. 2000), all eggs will be also be individually analyzed for stable isotopes of nitrogen (15N/14N) and carbon (13C/12C). 2009-2010: Egg collections – The egg collections in 2009 will be the last of the five-year inter-annual study started in 2005. As was done in the previous four years, we will collect eggs of northern fulmars (n=15) and thick-billed murres (n=15) from Prince Leopold Island, and of thick-billed murres (n=15) from Coats Island in 2009. The eggs will be pooled and analyzed for the legacy POPs, PBDEs, HBCD, PCDDs, PCDFs, coplanar PCBs, PFAs, total Hg and stable isotopes as described in the previous section. Field Support: In 2009, scheduling of field programs for seabird research does not include having a field team at Prince Leopold Island during the egg-laying period (late May - early June for northern fulmars; late June-early July for thick-billed murres). Therefore, a field team will be put in the field earlier at Prince Leopold Island to collect the seabird eggs for the contaminants monitoring program. A separate proposal is being submitted by Braune under Section 3.0 Pathways, Processes and Effects of the Environmental Monitoring and Research Blueprint which would require that a field team be put on Coats Island for a week during the egg-laying period. However, should that proposal not be successful, minimal travel expenses for the egg collection from Coats Island will be included here as in past years. Field expenses for Coats Island between the two proposals are cross-referenced. The 2009 field programs for arctic seabird research will be managed by Mark Mallory, Tony Gaston and Grant Gilchrist of Environment Canada. v) Clients/Partners: Indian & Northern Affairs Canada (R. Shearer, INAC), Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program (AMAP, Canadian contact – R. Shearer, INAC), Niqiit Avatittinni Committee (Nunavut – E. Solski, INAC), HTAs of Resolute Bay (Isaac Kalluk/Nancy Amarualik) and Coral Harbour (Willie Nakoolak/Louisa Kudluk), Polar Continental Shelf Project (M. Bergmann), Environment Canada (R. Letcher, S. Trudeau, A. Gaston, G. Gilchrist, M. Mallory, K. Hobson). vi) Laboratory Analysis: Analyses of the legacy POPs, PBDEs, HBCD, PFCs, PCDDs, PCDFs, coplanar PCBs and total mercury will be carried out at the National Wildlife Research Centre (NRWC) laboratories at Carleton University in Ottawa, Ontario. Organochlorine analyses for the legacy POPs (@ $350) will be carried out by gas chromatography using a mass selective detector (GC/MSD) according to NWRC Method No. MET-CHEM-OC-06B. Analyses of the 14 standard PBDE congeners and total-α-HBCD will be carried out using GC-low resolution MS also according to NWRC Method No. MET-CHEM-OC-06B. Since the methodology for the analysis of PBDEs and HBCD has been integrated with the analytical methodology for the legacy POPs, the costing structures have also been integrated. PFCs (@ $200) will be analyzed using HPLC/MS/MS in negative electrospray mode (ESI-) according to NWRC Method No. MET-WTD-PFC-01. PFCs to be analyzed include 10 PFCAs (including PFOA), 4 PFSAs (including PFOS), 3 FTUCAs, PFOSA and 3 FtOHs. Analyses of PCDDs, PCDFs, coplanar PCBs (@ $1100) will be carried out using high resolution gas chromatography / high resolution mass spectrometry (HRGC/HRMS) according to NWRC Method No. MET-CHEM-PCDD-01H. Total mercury (Hg) will be analyzed (@ $30) using an Advanced Mercury Analyzer (AMA-254) equipped with an ASS-254 autosampler for solid samples according to NWRC Method No. MET-CHEM-AA-03G. The method employs direct combustion of the sample in an oxygen-rich


74

atmosphere. Quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) for all analyses will be monitored by Laboratory Services at NWRC, Ottawa, Ontario, which is an accredited laboratory through the CAEAL-SCC and has participated in the NCP’s QA/QC Program. Stable isotope (C, N) analyses (@ $25) will be carried out through the Environment Canada lab at PNWRC in Saskatoon with isotopic measurements made at the Department of Soil Science, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon. All samples will be archived in the NWRC Specimen Bank.

vii) Capacity Building and Training: The contaminants monitoring program at Prince Leopold Island in the Canadian High Arctic is part of a long-term, integrated seabird monitoring program which has been investigating seabird population trends and relationships with climate change and contaminants for over 30 years. Although much of the work on the colony at Prince Leopold Island can be very dangerous and requires specialized skills (i.e. cliff climbing), we often start new field assistants by having them assist in undertaking the population monitoring (that is, those parts of the work that do not require specialized training for dangerous work on nesting cliffs). In 2008, we applied for Nasivvik Centre funding to hire a student from the Nunavut Arctic College (Iqaluit) or a local community member from Resolute Bay to help with some of the High Arctic work. However, due to the timing of funding approvals, it was too late for us to find a student interested in participating in the field work and we were unsuccessful in recruiting a local community member from Resolute Bay. Fortunately, as part of the spatial survey for which we received additional NCP funding (see M-29), we sent a technician trained in dissection and tissue preparation from the Laboratory Services section of NWRC to Iqaluit to teach students at the Arctic College the correct procedures for sampling and storing tissue samples for contaminants analyses. Using the Nasivvik Centre funding, we were able to hire a few of the interested students to continue working with the technician and a graduate student to carry out bird dissections for several days at the Arctic College. Subsequently, two of those Arctic College students travelled to Ottawa where they were given a tour of the facilities, met with research scientists and lab technicians, and worked in the NWRC laboratories for two days. Given that birds will not be collected in 2009, as well as the late timing of funding approvals, we will not be applying for Nasivvik Centre funding to hire a student or community member to help with the field work at Prince Leopold Island in 2009. However, at least one Inuk assistant will be hired to help with the field work at Coats Island, as has been the case for more than 20 years at the site. This person now has the requisite safety and logistical experience. viii) Traditional Knowledge: A study on Local Ecological Knowledge (LEK) of marine birds at Resolute Bay and Pond Inlet was conducted by CWS in 2004/05, some of which has been presented to the community (see below), and which has been incorporated into scientific manuscripts. This study built on previous LEK work on selected seabird species carried out at Arctic Bay, Resolute Bay and Grise Fiord (e.g. Mallory et al. 2003). LEK work conducted on marine birds has been used to: (a) identify survey areas, (b) note whether bird distributions appear to have changed, (c) note whether timing of bird arrival and departure seems to have changed, (d) assess whether bird populations appear to have changed, (e) identify whether the habitats used by birds have changed in distribution or timing, and (f) identify if birds are reported with more abnormalities than in the past. All of these provide potentially useful information for how to assess whether environmental stressors (e.g. contaminants, climate change) may be affecting northern migratory bird populations. To date, LEK data have not suggested that Inuit have observed trends or obvious differences in marine


75

bird abundance or distribution, which we interpret as natural variation in response to ice conditions. ix) Communications: A presentation was made by Mark Mallory (Project Team Member) to the school in Resolute Bay in May 2005, and to Ummimak School in Grise Fiord in January 2004, on aspects of seabird work including contaminants. As well, some of the results were presented to the HTO in Arctic Bay in December 2005 (as part of a presentation on overall stressors on High Arctic marine birds), as well as to Resolute Bay and Grise Fiord in January 2006. Most recently, Mallory made a presentation on contaminant and climate change seabird studies at Prince Leopold Island to the Resolute Bay HTA in June 2008, which was well-received. Grant Gilchrist (Project Team Member) gives presentations on the work that Environment Canada is doing on arctic birds at the school and elsewhere in Coral Harbour about every two years. The last presentation was February 2007 and the next presentation is planned for February 2009. The residue data along with a plain language summary of the findings from this project will be submitted to the Niqiit Avatittinni Committee (Nunavut) for their review and recommendation as to the most appropriate communications strategy back to the northern communities. Annual reports of the results to date will be made to the NCP. The results will continue to be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journals. Plain language visuals will also be prepared for inclusion in any future tours of Arctic communities. Results from the previous work on organochlorines and mercury in seabird eggs were included in the 1999 and 2001 tours of Arctic communities. Finally, plain-language summaries of the work are included in the annual Coastlines newsletter (in English and Inuktitut) put out by CWS-Iqaluit and sent to all HTOs in Nunavut. x) Related Projects: Pre-1993 egg collections at Prince Leopold Island were made possible through field programs funded by CWS. The 1993, 1998 and 2003 egg collections and residue analyses for Prince Leopold Island and Coats Island were made possible by funding through the Northern Contaminants Program as were the retrospective analyses of archived seabird eggs for organochlorines, dioxins, furans, coplanar PCBs, PBDEs, total mercury and new chemicals. These projects have provided the foundation for the contaminants temporal trend monitoring work to date. This project also complements other NCP-funded monitoring projects for marine biota (i.e. marine mammals). As well, this project relates to the long term population monitoring work of seabirds at Prince Leopold Island and Coats Island, and the more recent examinations of the effects of climate change on marine birds breeding at these sites (i.e. the effects of multiple stressors, including contaminants, on local breeding populations). It is becoming apparent that there are probable synergistic effects going on amongst these multiple stressors, so looking at any single factor (e.g. contaminants) in isolation may miss the bigger picture. The temporal trend Hg data set generated by the seabird egg monitoring program has also set the foundation for a proposal entitled "Interspecies sensitivity of arctic marine birds to methylmercury exposure" being submitted under Section 3.0 of the Environmental Monitoring and Research Blueprint. That proposal would require that a field team be put on Coats Island for a week during the egg-laying period. Field expenses for Coats Island between the two proposals have been cross-referenced.


76

7. CONSULTATION: As with the past years, all appropriate CWS and Nunavut research and collection permits will be obtained, the process of which includes consultation with northern communities in the surrounding area. This means that the HTO in the community is typically contacted by the CWS-Iqaluit office by translated FAX prior to the field season, to update them on our plans, and in the case of Resolute Bay (the main community responsible for Prince Leopold Island), we contact them again in person when we arrive in Resolute each year. As already mentioned, some of the results have been presented by CWS-Iqaluit in plain language to the nearby communities (Arctic Bay and Resolute Bay) during overall consultations on the status of seabirds in the High Arctic. This has been put in the context of “multiple stressors” on Arctic seabirds, i.e. climate change, ecotourism, harvest, and contaminants. We have been looking for feedback on whether there are other aspects of marine bird work that communities think we have overlooked. Based on the results of meetings since 2005, some people were aware of the general patterns of increases in some contaminants in wildlife, notably Hg, suggesting that some of the communications material from government sources, in general, is getting through. We also provide a simple review of work in the translated Coastlines newsletter to all Nunavut HTOs and wildlife management boards. The Niqiit Avatittinni Committee (Nunavut Contaminants Committee) has been contacted for guidance on community consultation as recommended in the NCP Call for Proposals. 8. DELIVERABLES: The residue data along with a plain language summary of the findings will be submitted to the Niqiit Avatittinni Committee (Nunavut) for their review and recommendation as to the most appropriate communications strategy back to the northern communities. A report of the results for 2008 will be made to the NCP in 2009. The results of the five-year annual monitoring program will be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Plain language visuals will be prepared for inclusion in any future tours of Arctic communities, as well as the translated Coastlines newsletter on seabird work in the Canadian Arctic.


77

9. DETAILED BUDGET: _________________________________________________________________________ Table 1 - Detailed Budget Information for NCP Project Funding (2009-2010) _________________________________________________________________________ 1. Salaries and Wages: ----- 2. Equipment and Facilities: Laboratory Costs:

Prince Leopold Island (PLI) & Coats Island eggs: Egg processing & pooling: 45 eggs @ $25

$ 1 125. Stable isotope (C, N) analyses: 45 @ $25

$ 1 125. Total mercury analyses: 45 eggs @ $30

$ 1 350. OC/PCB/BFR analyses: 15 pools @ $350

$ 5 250. Specimen banking & data management: 3 sample sets @ $300* $ 900.

PLI fulmar & murre eggs only: PFC analyses: 10 pools @ $200

$ 2 000. PCDD, PCDF, coplanar PCB analyses: 6 pools @ $1100 $ 6

600. 3. Travel: Field Costs: Prince Leopold Island (PLI)

Airfare (Ottawa-Resolute return): 3 people @ $5000 (1 EC staff + 2 contractors)

$15 000. PCSP: air charter (Resolute-PLI return), 6 hours @ $2000 $12

000. PCSP: meals & accommodation, 3 people x 6 days @ $160 $ 2 880. Supplies & Shipping

$ 4 000. Field Costs: Coats Island** Airfare (Ottawa-Iqaluit): 1 person @ $2 000 $ 2 000.

Iqaluit: meals & accommodation, 1 person x 6 days @ $80 $ 480. PCSP: air charter (Iqaluit-Coats), 3½ hours @ $1600

$ 5 600. Travel to NCP Results Workshop (BB)

$ 2 000. 4. Professional Fees:


78

Contracts (PLI): 2 people @ $4000 each (20 d @ $200 x 2) $ 8 000. 5. Operating Costs: ----- 6. Other Miscellaneous Costs: ----- __________________________________________________________________________ TOTAL FUNDING REQUESTED FROM NCP (2009-2010) $ 70 310. __________________________________________________________________________

* Specimen banking cost incorporated here is ~50% of commercial cost of long-term freezer storage space. ** Field costs for Coats Island are minimal and cover only travel costs since egg collections will be made through (and with the help of) another field camp. __________________________________________________________________________ Table 2 - Associated Costs and Other Funding Sources __________________________________________________________________________ 1. Associated Support:

a) Salaries: Principal Investigator (BB) $ 5 000. DOE Personnel (GG, MM, AG, KH, NWRC technicians) $12 000. DOE Management (LS) $ 2 000. b) Equipment and Facilities: Building/lab operations & specimen banking (NWRC) $50 000. c) Operating Funds (A-base): CWS-Prairie & Northern Region (MM) $20 000. Wildlife & Landscape Science (GG, AG) $31 000. 2. Other Project Funding Sources: ----- __________________________________________________________________________

Budget Tables Table 1: Detailed Budget Information for NCP Project Funding Class of Expenditures* (fill in classes as applicable)

Previous Year

2006-2007

Previous Year

2007-2008

Previous Year

2008-2009

Current Year

2009-2010

Next Year

2010-2011

1. Salaries and Wages

----- ----- ----- ----- -----

2. Equipment and Facilities

31 405. 19 250. 49 700. 18 350. -----

3. Travel (includes field costs, NCP Results Workshop)

36 900. 37 180. 36 480. 43 960. -----

4. Professional Fees (i.e. contracts)

8 000. 8.000.

8 000. 8 000. -----

5. Operating Costs (i.e. supplies, publications, phone, fax, mail, administration fee)

----- ----- ----- ----- -----

6. Other Costs (must specify)

----- ----- ----- ----- -----

TOTAL COSTS 76 305. 64 430. 94 180. 70 310. -----


80

Table 2: Associated Costs and Other Funding Sources - Detailed Budget Information

Class of Expenditures* (fill in classes as applicable)

Previous Year2006-2007

Previous Year

2007-2008


Current Year

2009-2010

Next Year

2010-2011

1. Associated Support (including in-kind)

a) Salaries 33 000. 23 000. 39 000. 19 000. -----

b) Equipment and Facilities 100 000. 50 000. 50 000. 50 000. -----

c) Operating Funds (in-house resources) 37 000. 15 000. 38 600. 51 000. -----

2. Other Project Funding Sources (Specify as much detail as possible)

----- ----- 227 100. ----- -----

TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS FOR ASSOCIATED SUPPORT AND OTHER PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (#1 and #2 above)

170 000. 88 000. 354 700. 120 000. -----

TOTAL NCP FUNDING REQUESTED (from Table 1)

76 305. 64 430. 94 180. 70 310. -----

GRAND TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 246 305. 152 430. 448 880. 190 310. -----

Appendix A – Sample Proposal 81

10. RELEVANT PUBLICATIONS / PRESENTATIONS: References cited in text: Bignert, A., Göthberg, A., Jensen, S., Litzén, K., Odsjö, T., Olsson, M. and

Reutergardh, L. 1993. The need for adequate biological sampling in ecotoxicological investigations: a retrospective study of twenty years pollution monitoring. Sci. Total Environ. 128: 121-139.

Bignert, A., Olsson, M., de Wit, C., Litzén, K., Rappe, C. and Reutergardh, L. 1994. Biological variation - an important factor to consider in ecotoxicological studies based on environmental samples. Fres. J. Anal. Chem. 348: 76-85.

Bignert, A., Olsson, M., Persson, W., Jensen, S., Zakrisson, S., Litzén, K., Eriksson, U., Häggberg, L. and Alsberg, T. 1998. Temporal trends of organochlorines in Northern Europe, 1967-1995. Relation to global fractionation, leakage from sediments and international measures. Environ. Pollut. 99: 177-198.

Braune, B. 2006. Temporal trends of contaminants in arctic seabird eggs: inter-year variability. pp. 97-100, In: Synopsis of research conducted under the 2005-2006 Northern Contaminants Program, Smith, S. and Stow, J, eds. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada.

Braune, B.M. 2007a. Temporal trends of organochlorines and mercury in seabird eggs from the Canadian Arctic, 1975 to 2003. Environ. Pollut. 148: 599-613.

Braune, B. 2007b. Temporal trends of contaminants in arctic seabird eggs: inter-year variability. pp. 89-97, In: Synopsis of research conducted under the 2006-2007 Northern Contaminants Program, Smith, S. and Stow, J, eds. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada.

Braune, B. 2008. Temporal trends of contaminants in arctic seabird eggs: inter-year variability. pp. 76-82, In: Synopsis of research conducted under the 2007-2008 Northern Contaminants Program, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada.

Braune, B.M. and Gaston, A.J. 2004. Changes in concentrations of organochlorines and mercury in Canadian Arctic seabirds between 1975 and 2003. Fourth SETAC World Congress, Portland, Oregon, 14-18 November.

Braune, B.M. and Simon, M. 2004. Trace elements and halogenated organic compounds in Canadian Arctic seabirds. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 48: 986-1008.

Braune, B. and Muir, D. 2005. New contaminants in arctic seabirds. pp. 121-127, In: Synopsis of research conducted under the 2004-2005 Northern Contaminants Program, Smith, S., Stow, J, Watkins, J. and Carrillo, F, eds. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada.

Braune, B.M., Donaldson, G.M. and Hobson, K.A. 2002. Contaminant residues in seabird eggs from the Canadian Arctic. II. Spatial trends and evidence from stable isotopes for intercolony differences. Environ. Pollut. 117: 133-145.

Gaston, A. J. 2003. Synchronous fluctuations of thick-billed murre (Uria lomvia) colonies in the eastern Canadian Arctic suggest population regulation in winter. Auk 120: 362-370.


Hebert, C.E., Hobson, K.A. and Shutt, J.L. 2000. Changes in food web structure affect rate of PCB decline in herring gull (Larus argentatus) eggs. Environ. Sci. Technol. 34: 1609-1614.

Hebert, C.E. and Weseloh, D.V.C. 2003. Assessing temporal trends in contaminants from long-term avian monitoring programs: the influence of sampling frequency. Ecotoxicol. 12: 141-151.

Mallory, M.L., Gilchrist, H.G., Fontaine, A.J. and Akearok, J.A. 2003. Local ecological knowledge of Ivory Gulls in Nunavut, Canada. Arctic 56: 293-298.

Martin, J.W., Smithwick, M.M., Braune, B.M., Hoekstra, P.F., Muir, D.C.G. and Mabury, S.A. 2004. Identification of long-chain perfluorinated acids in biota from the Canadian Arctic. Environ. Sci. Technol. 38: 373-380.

Muir, D., Alaee, M., Butt, C., Braune, B., Helm, P., Mabury, S., Tomy, G. and Wang, X. 2004. New contaminants in arctic biota. pp. 139-148, In: Synopsis of research conducted under the 2003-2004 Northern Contaminants Program, Smith, S., Stow, J, and Carrillo, F, eds. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada.

Olsson, M. 1995. Ecological effects of airborne contaminants in Arctic aquatic ecosystems: a discussion of methodological approaches. Sci. Total Environ. 160/161: 619-630.

Turle, R. and Collins, B. 1992. Validation of the use of pooled samples for monitoring of contaminants in wildlife. Chemosphere 25: 463-469.

Relevant conference presentations: Braune, B.M., Hobson, K.A., Gaston, A.J., Mallory, M.L. and Gilchrist, H.G. Mercury

Trends in Seabird Eggs from the Canadian Arctic: 1975 – 2003. Eighth International Conference on Mercury as a Global Pollutant, Madison, Wisconsin, 6-11 August 2006.

Muir, D., Braune, B., Li, Y-F., Sverko, E., Butt, C. and Mabury, S. Can temporal trends of legacy POPs in Arctic biota help infer pathways and future trends of new chemicals? 232nd American Chemical Society National Meeting, San Francisco, California, 10-14 September 2006.

Braune, B., Wakeford, B. and Letcher, R. Polybrominated diphenyl ether and hexabromocyclododecane flame retardants in Canadian Arctic seabirds, 1975-2007. 5th SETAC World Congress, Sydney, Australia, 3-7 August 2008.

Butt, C.M., Mabury, S.A., Muir, D.C.G., Morris, A.D., Sturman, S., Letcher, R.J., Chu, S. and Braune B.M. Trophic maginification and foodweb dynamics of perfluorinated organic compounds in the Arctic. SETAC North America 29th Annual Meeting, Tampa, Florida, 16-20 November 2008.

11. SUPPORTIVE INFORMATION ON EXPERTISE: Dr. Birgit Braune is a Research Scientist with the Science and Technology Branch of Environment Canada working out of the National Wildlife Research Centre at Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario. She is also an Adjunct Professor of Research with the


Department of Geography and Environmental Studies at Carleton University. Dr. Braune received her B.Sc. from the University of Toronto, and her M.Sc. and Ph.D. from the University of Guelph. Her current responsibilities include development, implementation and coordination of monitoring, research and assessment programs and activities related to the impact of toxic chemicals on seabirds and other wildlife. In this context, Dr. Braune coordinates the contaminants monitoring, survey and related research activities of the National Wildlife Toxicology and Disease Program with related programs in Environment Canada and other departments and organizations. Dr. Braune was a contributing author to the CACAR I and II, and AMAP I and II, Assessment Reports. She was lead author of the temporal trends chapter of the AMAP II Heavy Metals Assessment Report. Selected publications: Braune, B.M. 2007. Temporal trends of organochlorines and mercury in seabird eggs

from the Canadian Arctic, 1975 to 2003. Environ. Pollut. 148: 599-613. Braune, B.M.; Simon, M. 2003. Dioxins, furans and non-ortho PCBs in Canadian

Arctic seabirds. Environ Sci Technol 37:3071-3077. Braune, B.M. and Scheuhammer, A.M. 2008. Trace element and metallothionein

concentrations in seabirds from the Canadian Arctic. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 27: 26-32.

Braune, B.M.; Donaldson, G.M.; Hobson, K.A. 2001. Contaminant residues in seabird eggs from the Canadian Arctic. I. Temporal trends 1975-1998. Environ Pollut 114:39-54.

Braune, B.M.; Donaldson, G.M.; Hobson, K.A. 2002. Contaminant residues in seabird eggs from the Canadian Arctic. II. Spatial trends and evidence from stable isotopes for intercolony differences. Environ Pollut 117:133-145.

Braune, B.M.; Hebert, C.E.; Benedetti, L.S.; Malone, B.J. 2003. An Assessment of Canadian Wildlife Service Contaminant Monitoring Programs. Tech Rep Ser No 400, Can Wildl Serv, Ottawa, 76 p.

Braune, B.M., Mallory, M.L., Gilchrist, H.G., Letcher, R.J. and Drouillard, K.G. 2007. Levels and trends of organochlorines and brominated flame retardants in ivory gull eggs from the Canadian Arctic, 1976 to 2004. Sci. Total Environ. 378: 403-417.

Braune, B.M., Mallory, M.L. and Gilchrist, H.G. 2006. Elevated mercury levels in a declining population of ivory gulls in the Canadian Arctic. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 52: 969-987.

Braune, B.M., Outridge, P.M., Fisk, A.T., Muir, D.C.G., Helm, P.A., Hobbs, K., Hoekstra, P.F., Kuzyk, Z.A., Kwan, M., Letcher, R.J., Lockhart, W.L., Norstrom, R.J., Stern, G.A. and Stirling, I. 2005. Persistent organic pollutants and mercury in marine biota of the Canadian Arctic: An overview of spatial and temporal trends. Sci. Total Environ. 351-352: 4-56.


Butt, C.M.; Mabury, S.A.; Muir, D.C.G.; Braune, B.M. 2007. Prevalence of long-chained perfluorinated carboxylates in seabirds from the Canadian Arctic between 1975 and 2004. Environ. Sci. Technol. 41: 3521-3528.

Appendix B – User’s Guide for On-line Submission of Proposals 85

Appendix B: User’s Guide for On-line Submission of Proposals Introduction The current version of the Northern Contaminants Program - Project Management Application (NCP-PMA) is designed to accommodate on-line proposal submission, secure electronic proposal storage, minor process tracking, and the storage and display of project related reports. The NCP-PMA is only designed to capture certain pieces of proposal specific data separate from the detailed proposal document. This data, along with the detailed proposal document, will be stored in the database for future reference. By capturing certain pieces of data, eg. keywords, future users of the NCP-PMA will be able to search for projects based on certain criteria. Basic reports, eg. project summaries, will also be easily produced. For the purposes of technical review, however, the detailed proposal document will be essential. It is recommended that this document be developed prior to initiating your on-line session. Part of the on-line proposal submission process will involve uploading the proposal document. Getting started The NCP-PMA is designed to run on Internet Explorer, therefore, certain functions may not work on other internet browsers (e.g., Firefox). The NCP-PMA can be accessed via the NCP website at: http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/nth/ct/ncp/pma-eng.asp The first time you log-on to the system you will be required to fill out a user profile. To create your profile click on the “new user” button under the NCP-PMA heading. In creating a new profile you will be asked for several pieces of information, those that are mandatory are marked with a red asterix. Two pieces of very important information will be your e-mail address and your password. Your e-mail address will become your user ID. Passwords must be between 8 and 14 characters long and must start with a letter, however, other characters (with the exception of dashes “ - “) such as numbers may be used in the rest of the password. Once you have created a user profile, you may proceed to the log-on page. Should you forget your password you can click on “Forgot Password” and fill in your e-mail address. The PMA will then look up your password and e-mail it to you right away.


The “Main” screen After logging on you will automatically find yourself on the “Main” screen. The Main screen displays an information card for each of your proposals. If you have never prepared a proposal before a message will state that there are no proposals to display. The information cards include:

• the year - refers to the year in which the proposals are submitted, i.e. 2008 refers to proposals submitted for the 2008-2009 call for proposals

• title of the proposal • author of the proposal • category - refers to the subprogram under which the proposals is

submitted • region of the Canadian North where work is being proposed • proposal ID - this is a unique number that is automatically assigned by

the system • status - indicates which stage of development or review that the

proposal is at: in progress, submitted, approved pending, approved, not approved, withdrawn or deleted.

Along the bottom of the information cards are links to proposal documents, and for completed projects there are links to synopsis of research reports and plain language summary of results reports. Once a proposal has been submitted, the NCP secretariat assigns an NCP reference #, e.g. H-12, which appears to the left of the “details” button. Proposals can be created in multiple sessions before being submitted. Prior to being submitted, a proposal that is under development will have the status “In progress”. While “In progress”, any part of the proposal can be edited, however, once the proposal has been submitted it can no longer be edited. Clicking on the details button will take you to the proposal status page for a given proposal. From this page you may navigate to other proposal pages by clicking next page or by selecting the desired page from the menu on the left. To return to the Main screen, and your list of proposals click on the main screen link from the menu on the left. Creating a new proposal Before you begin creating your on-line proposal we recommend that you open your detailed proposal document in another window. This will make it easy to copy and paste information from the document into the relevant sections of the on-line forms. From the Main screen menu on the left click on “new proposal”


Using a past proposal as a template After clicking new proposal you are given the option to use a previously submitted proposal as a template. Any proposal for an ongoing project should be created in this way. By responding yes to this question a drop down menu will appear from which you can select the desired project to use as a template. Once this is done, a new proposal will be initiated, assigned a unique ID number and each of the fields in the proposal will be pre-populated with information from the past proposal. Each of these fields should be reviewed carefully and updated before submitting the new proposal. Don’t forget to remove the old proposal document and replace it with the new one. Create a proposal from scratch Proposal page 1 The first step in creating a new proposal is choosing the program category from the drop down menu and filling in the project title in the space provided. By clicking on the create proposal button, the database will save your information and will automatically assign a proposal number. The next step involves selecting the blueprint element that your proposal is addressing and then specifying the geographic region(s) in which your research will take place. Following that please enter the names and information of the project leader(s) and project team members(s). To add your own profile, simply click “add my profile”, verify that the information is correct, click save and your profile will automatically be added to the list. Once all project leaders and team members have been entered, click the “save” button to save the information or simply click “next page” which will automatically save. Note - clicking “back page” or leaving this screen by any other means does not automatically save. Proposal page 2 The next step is entering the plain language summary. The easiest way to do this is to simply copy and paste the text from your detailed proposal document. A special word processing feature has been built into the plain language summary text box to allow for simple formatting. Basic formatting from Word and WordPerfect should be preserved with a “copy” and “paste” insertion. Be sure to click “save” or “next page” to advance to the next screen. Proposal page 3


The purpose of the next screen is to capture proposal keywords, locations of work (eg. sampling locations, communities, etc.), and clients and partners. When adding keywords, you may either choose from an existing list of “available keywords” or specify your own. To enter your own keyword, type the word in the available space and click “add”. When all of the applicable information has been entered, click “next page” to continue. Budget Table 1 and Budget Table 2 These two tables are identical to the tables that are included as part of the detailed proposal document. These tables each have three columns that capture budgetary information for three fiscal years including the year for which the proposed project will take place (2010-2011), the year before (2009-2010) that and the year after (2011-2012). Only proposals that were created based on a proposal from last year will display data in the first column (i.e. 2009-2010). If you are creating a new proposal then the first column will remain empty. Proposal Upload The next step is to upload your detailed proposal document. Acceptable file types include Word, WordPerfect and .pdf. The detailed proposal document should follow the standard NCP proposal format, including completed budget tables. You will be permitted to upload only one document, so ensure that all parts of your proposal are included, e.g. tables and graphics. To upload your file, click on the “browse” button and select the appropriate file from your computer and click open. When you have selected your proposal file and it appears in the upload box, click “upload file”. A screen should appear confirming that the file has been successfully uploaded. If this is the case click “ok”, otherwise contact the NCP secretariat. You may then view your document, or remove it and replace it with another one. Note - you may not submit a proposal without uploading a detailed proposal document. If you are happy with the document you have uploaded, proceed to the next page. Submit proposal page At this point you may formally submit your proposal to the NCP. If, however, you are not quite ready and would like to come back to the proposal in another session, you may simply log off and your existing proposal will be saved as “In progress”. Note - All proposals must be submitted by 11:59 PM Eastern Time, February 1, 2010. Any proposal that is still “In progress” on February 2nd will not be considered for funding. Once a proposal has been formally submitted it can no longer be edited.


Forgot password If you can not remember your password you have two options. The easiest thing to do is to click on “forgot password” from the log-in page and perform a password lookup. This simply involves entering your e-mail address into the space provided. The PMA will then send you an e-mail that contains your password. If for some reason this isn’t possible you can simply call or e-mail the NCP secretariat to have your password reset. Once your password has been reset we strongly recommend that you change it. In fact, the first screen that will appear upon logging on with your reset password will prompt you to do so. Questions/Help Do not hesitate to contact the NCP Secretariat: Jason Stow – [email protected] or call (418) 614-2374

Appendix C – Northern Contaminants Program Data and Sample Accessibility Agreement Form

90

Appendix C: Northern Contaminants Program Data and Sample Accessibility Agreement Form Project Proponent Information:

Project Title:___________________________________________________________ Leader:_____________________________ Agency:__________________________ Tel:___________________ Fax:____________________ Email:____________________________

Data and Sample Accessibility Agreement

The intent of this agreement is to ensure that the Northern Contaminants Program’s needs are met with respect to access and availability of data derived through NCP projects. This agreement recognizes that proprietary issues surrounding data may be addressed by existing federal policies that carry legal ramifications. The NCP Management Committee will resolve any conflicts between this and the existing federal policies as they may arise (e.g., federal policies where timelines for release of data exceed one year).

Access and availability of data, as well as collaboration among researchers, are cornerstones to the success of the NCP. This accessibility agreement will ensure that data and information are available and communicated in a timely manner to northerners as well as made available to national and international agencies for the purposes of servicing international agreements and completing assessment reports (e.g. Stockholm Convention and Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme assessment reports).

It is agreed that all project team members receiving NCP funding must report on their data and results within 1 year of sample collection or on a schedule agreed to by the NCP Management Committee and specified in NCP Funding Agreements.

If retroactive analysis of previously archived samples collected with NCP funds is required by NCP, the agency (herein called Agency A) which is maintaining the samples will be given the opportunity to lead the project or, if agreed to by the researchers responsible for the collection, participate as members of the project team and conduct the analysis. However, the NCP, through discussions at the Management Committee may, for a valid reason(s) (e.g. lack of interest, capability or capacity for the sample custodians to participate, non-competitive costs), request in writing that those samples (collected with NCP funding) be transferred to another agency (herein called Agency B). In order for this to happen, Agency B must demonstrate an acceptable capacity to meet NCP standards for the storage and management of the transferred samples and resulting data. Agency B must also commit to not share data and/or samples with a third party without the consent and approval of the NCP and Agency A. As part of this written and other communications, the NCP Management Committee members representing the agencies involved will work

Appendix C – Northern Contaminants Program Data and Sample Accessibility Agreement Form

91

together to resolve any issues that may arise. It is expected that researcher(s) from Agency B, who are leading the NCP project, would recognize the researcher(s) from Agency A that were responsible for the collections of the transferred samples in an appropriate and mutually agreed to manner, i.e. authorship.

For tissue samples and raw data collected from human health studies, where it may not be ethical or legal to share with fellow colleagues, researchers are expected to collaborate in the spirit of this agreement, particularly on the intellectual side of the project outcomes while still respecting all ethical requirements. Ethical issues such as the protection of confidentiality of participants and the custody of data as agreed in the consent form that has been reviewed and approved by the NCP, will need to be considered. Similarly, decisions of the appropriate Research Ethics Board will also need to be considered. Any research using archived human samples must comply with the original agreement of consent that was signed by the study participants. In the event that human samples are transferred from one agency to another, as described in the preceding paragraph, Agency B shall also demonstrate suitable standards of privacy protection policies and procedures.

Recognizing that a synopsis report and presentation at the Results Workshop will be completed as an annual requirement of all NCP projects, the researcher (and supporting agency) may expect that a reasonable timeframe of two years will be allowed for the researcher to publish their data before it may be used, in cooperation with the researcher, in any other secondary literature, e.g. NCP and AMAP assessment reports. If NCP wishes to use data within this two-year timeframe, then NCP will obtain prior consent from the researcher.

It is further noted that the term “agency” is to be broadly applied to any organization which received NCP funds including but not exclusive to federal, provincial, university, and territorial agencies.

This agreement must be signed by all project leaders (one per project) and their managers at the time of proposal submission to allow the NCP Management Committee to make appropriate funding decisions. At the discretion of the Management Committee, NCP funding will only be made available to organizations that sign on to and comply with this agreement.

Certification

I confirm that I have read and agree to abide by the Northern Contaminants Program Data and Sample Accessibility Agreement.

Project Leader Manager ______________________________ ______________________________ Date:__________________ Date:__________________ (Please return this form by fax to the Northern Contaminants Secretariat at (819) 934-8980

Appendix D – Consultation Requirements for Northern Contaminants Program Projects: Process and Documentation

92

Appendix D: Consultation Requirements for Northern Contaminants Program Projects: Process and Documentation 1. All project proponents are required to read and abide by the Northern

Contaminants Program (NCP) Guidelines for Responsible Research. These Guidelines provide direction to project leaders and scientists for planning communications, and in developing research agreements with communities.

2. FIRST STEP: All project proponents must contact the relevant Regional

Contaminants Committee (RCC) or Inuit Research Advisor (IRA) during the proposal development stage to discuss consultation requirements. A sample list of questions that may be asked by the RCC/IRA can be found on page 94. This list was generated by the Nunavut RCC to guide discussions with proponents. Proponents should then include in the "Consultation" section of the proposal a summary of their discussions with the RCC. During these discussions, RCCs may provide proponents with specific actions to carry out before the NCP Management Committee makes its funding decisions in mid-April 2009. Contact information for the RCCs can be found in this document (page 95).

3. GUIDELINE FOR RCCs: The Regional Contaminants Committees will

determine the appropriate consultation needed for projects in their regions, but there is a recognition that not all projects require the same level of consultation (e.g. Human Health projects vs. computer modelling projects). With this difference in mind, the following is a guideline for minimum levels of consultation required. The RCCs may recommend further consultation in addition to the minimum. a) Human Health projects (active or archived samples): consultation

needed with the territorial/regional health authority and/or the appropriate health centre

b) Biotic/Wildlife projects (active sampling): consultation needed with the community and the HTO/HTC (Hunters and Trappers Organization/Committee) at the appropriate level (regional and/or local)

c) Biotic/Wildlife projects (archived samples): consultation not necessarily needed if the original sampling agreement covered further analysis


93

d) Abiotic projects (active sampling): consultation needed with communities close to the sampling sites. If there is no nearby community, consultation should only be with the RCC.

e) Abiotic projects (archived samples): consultation not necessarily needed

f) Laboratory-based/Modelling projects: consultation not necessarily needed, except where specified by RCCs

4. For every project involving consultation (as directed by the RCCs), project

proponents must ensure that signed Approval of Consultation forms or equivalent letters of support are submitted to the Secretariat by the appropriate bodies with whom consultation has taken place (deadline: mid-March). This assures the NCP that the consultation for any particular proposed project is satisfactory.

5. Due to the different nature of NCP projects, the “appropriate” Aboriginal

organization or regional/community body will vary, and will be decided by the relevant RCC. For instance, a project that intends to sample at a remote location may require consultation with the appropriate Aboriginal organization(s) represented on the NCP Management Committee (Council of Yukon First Nations, Dene Nation, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami). A project to be conducted within or near a community will require consultation with a community-level organization. Even if project members stop only briefly in a community en route to a sampling site, community consultation may still be required. In addition, projects involving the use of archived samples may also require consultation since the proposed use may differ from that which was originally approved. Such cases will be decided by the appropriate RCC on an individual basis.

6. Please note that in addition to the completion of the NCP Approval of

Consultation form, other licencing agencies in the regions have separate licencing and approval requirements (e.g. territorial research licences) for carrying out studies in the North. It is the responsibility of individual researchers to determine what other approvals relevant to their specific projects, and external to consultation requirements within the NCP, are needed. For example, in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, researchers must follow licencing and approval requirements of the Aurora Research Institute and the Nunavut Research Institute, respectively.


94

Sample Questions to Guide Proponent/RCC/IRA Discussions on Consultation NIQIIT AVATITTINNI COMMITTEE NCP Researcher Consultation Summary Project leader: Contact information: Program Category: Title of Project: 1a) Is this a new or ongoing project? ___ new ___ ongoing 1b) If this is an ongoing project, please provide a summary of your communications and consultation activities (attach separately). 2) How will this project benefit Nunavummiut? 3) What communities do you expect to be working with in the course in your project? 4a) What Nunavut/Inuit organizations have you spoken to regarding this project? 4b) What are the recommendations from the people you have spoken to with respect to this project? 4c) How do you plan to meet these recommendations? 5) What is your communications plan for this project. (Please clearly state when and how the NAC will be included in this process): 5a) During project development? 5b) During the project? 5c) Following project completion? 6) What training opportunities for Inuit and/or community members may be associated with your proposal?


95

Initial Consultation Contacts For guidance in initiating community consultations, project proponents are encouraged to contact the following territorial/regional contaminants committees, Inuit Research Advisors, or the NCP Secretariat. YUKON Yukon Contaminants Committee Pat Roach Tel: (867) 667-3283 Fax: (867) 667-3361 Email: [email protected]

NORTHWEST TERRITORIES NWT Regional Contaminants Committee Lorna Skinner Tel: (867) 669-2847 Fax: (867) 669-2721 E-mail: [email protected]

Inuit Research Advisor (for research in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region) Shannon O’Hara Tel: (867) 777-7022 Fax: (867) 777-4023 Email: [email protected]

NUNAVUT Niqiit Avatittinni Committee (Nunavut) Erika Solski Tel: (867) 975-4577 Fax: (867) 975-4736 Email: [email protected]

Inuit Research Advisor Stephanie McDonald Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated Tel: (867) 975-4951 or 1-888-646-0006 Fax: (867) 975-3440 Email: [email protected]

NUNAVIK Nunavik Nutrition and Health Committee Elena Labranche Nunavik Board of Health and Social Services Tel : (819) 964-2222 Fax: (819) 964-2888 Email : [email protected]

Inuit Research Advisor Rynee Kokiapik Kativik Regional Government Tel: (819) 254-8239 Fax: (819) 254-8763 Email: [email protected]


96

NUNATSIAVUT Nunatsiavut Health and Environment Research Committee Mary Denniston Nunatsiavut Government (NG), Tel: (709) 922-2942 x292 Fax: (709) 922-2931 E-mail:[email protected]

Inuit Research Advisor John Lampe Tel: (709) 922-2847 Fax: (709) 922-1040 Email: [email protected]

NORTHERN CONTAMINANTS PROGRAM SECRETARIAT Simon Smith (Communication, Capacity and Outreach; Human Health; and National/Regional/International Coordination and Aboriginal Partnerships) Tel: (819) 997-9448 Fax: (819) 934-8980 Email: [email protected]

Jason Stow (Environmental Monitoring and Research; Community Based Monitoring and Research; and Project Management Application) Tel: (418) 614-2374 Email: [email protected]


97

Northern Contaminants Program Approval of Consultation Form I, __________________________________ (name/organization) have been

consulted with/by ___________________________________ (name of project

leader/ organization) regarding the proposed project

_________________________________________________________

(project title).

The consultation that has taken place to date and further consultation as proposed in the project proposal to the Northern Contaminants Program is deemed satisfactory / unsatisfactory (please circle one). If this proposed project receives approval for funding by the Northern Contaminants Program, I/my organization grants approval for its conduct. It is understood that any community involved has the right to negotiate a research agreement with the project leader during community consultations.

_________________ Name and Organization (please print) Signature

Date Additional comments: (Please return this form by fax to the Northern Contaminants Program Secretariat at 819-934-8980.)


98

Appendix E – Guidelines for Responsible Research 99

Appendix E: Guidelines for Responsible Research I. Introduction The following document represents a guideline for communications planning to assist Northern Contaminants Program (NCP) project leaders in initiating community contacts and developing research agreements with communities. Ultimately, the objective is that communications/ participation planning will become integral to research proposal development. II. Key points The following are key points to consider when planning communications and community participation in NCP projects: A. Consultation 1. Consult early with the Regional Contaminants Committees (RCCs),

before and during the development of a proposal. 2. During consultation, researchers should explain the potential beneficial

and harmful effects of the research on individuals, communities and/or the environment.

3. No undue pressure should be applied to obtain consent for participation

in a research project. 4. Greater consideration should be placed on the risks to cultural values

than to potential contributions of the research to knowledge. B. Research Obligations 1. Research should include community participation in the identification of

research topics and priorities. 2. Community participation in project planning and implementation goes

beyond "moral" obligations; rather it is a legal and constitutional requirement associated with land claims.


3. For all parties to benefit from research, efforts should be made, where practical, to employ and train local (especially Aboriginal) researchers and assistants.

4. It is important to develop approaches to research that are responsive to

local or regional needs. The Regional Contaminants Committees (RCCs) and Aboriginal organizations are good mechanisms for achieving this.

5. Research must respect sacred sites, cultural materials, and cultural

properties. 6. Subject to requirements for confidentiality, publications should give

appropriate credit to everyone who contributes to the research. 7. All project leaders are required to prepare a report on their project for

inclusion in the annual NCP Synopsis of Research report to be used by the RCCs for communications purposes.

C. Research Relationships 1. Community-researcher relationships should be established early on in

the project planning process, outlining details of "level of consultation" and "mutual obligations" for each partner. This will ensure a meaningful two-way exchange of information.

2. Researchers and communities may wish to set out the parameters of

their agreements and understandings in a Memorandum of Understanding.

3. From the NCP perspective, development of researcher-community

relationships is a dynamic and evolving process. As research projects progress, common elements will emerge regarding the perceptions, needs, and resource/capacity strengths of individual communities and researchers, including their criteria and preferred form of participation in scientific research projects.

4. The right to refuse participation always rests with the individual at any

point in any study. D. Communications


1. Researchers are advised to contact the appropriate Regional Contaminants Committee (RCC) for advice on communications planning during the development of their proposal.

2. Researchers should incorporate RCC advice on communication into

their proposal. Communication of results should include consideration of media other than printed reports. Examples of effective methods for information dissemination include: face-to-face discussion, local radio, CD-ROM, pamphlets, videos and web sites. Many of these can successfully present highlights of several projects or categories of research activity over several years. Public presentations that allow for little interaction are seldom regarded as useful. RCCs will direct the project leader if communication of results is required.

3. Communication support materials, such as pamphlets, posters and

videos, should not be seen as solutions to communications problems, but as tools to be used in combination with person-to-person communication. Communications support materials should be sent to the appropriate Territorial/regional Contaminants Committee for review.

4. Translation of summary reports into local languages is recognized as

critical and should be done wherever possible/appropriate. E. Reporting of Specific Health Risk Results 1. The existing protocol for reporting results from human health risk

assessments (from analysis of fish/wildlife contaminants burdens) must be adhered to. The decision to conduct such assessments is part of this protocol.

2. Researchers must ensure the accuracy of their results since these may

influence decisions and policy that can directly affect individuals and communities.

1. There is a process to prepare contingency plans if results are reported

that require some form of intervention or action, in relation to reporting of individual human results. This is done by the responsible health authority (e.g. territorial departments of health and social services) in consultation with the Regional Contaminants Committees, the four NCP Aboriginal Partners, and the NCP Management Committee.


III. Researcher guidelines for planning communications and community participation in NCP projects All Projects Refer to the Consultation Requirements for Northern Contaminants Program Projects: Process and Documentation and its associated forms. In addition, for proposed projects in which any portion of the project is to be conducted within Nunavut, Northwest Territories, Yukon Territory, Nunatsiavut or Nunavik (including, in some cases, projects using archived samples previously collected from one or more of these regions), project proponents must arrange to have signed Approval of Consultation forms or equivalent letters of support submitted by the appropriate approval bodies, as directed by the RCC. It will continue to be the responsibility of individual researchers to determine the institutional requirements (external to the NCP) relevant to their specific projects. These may include federal, territorial and land claims permit and regulatory conditions. The following is a guide to project leaders on key contact and reporting requirements during the planning and execution stages of an NCP project, arranged according to the type of project, i.e. a study involving data on humans, an ecosystem study not involving data on humans, or a study with no northern sampling or contact. Project leaders are encouraged to contact the appropriate Regional Contaminants Committee to obtain relevant contact names and addresses. A. Projects Involving Data on Humans This category is for projects which involve data on humans, including medical or social information. Prior to NCP funding application: Project proponents should contact the following: 1. Contact: RCCs

NOTE: As indicated in the Consultation Requirements for Northern Contaminants Program Projects: Process and Documentation, project proponents are required to contact the appropriate RCCs before contacting any communities.

Purpose: - Initiate northern consultation - Awareness of projects and nature/purpose of research


- Request signed Approval of Consultation forms or equivalent letters of support

2. Contact: Follow the recommendations of the RCCs. This may

require sending letters to leaders of communities in which research is intended to occur

(e.g. Hamlet, First Nation, Band Council, Métis Local, HTOs)

cc. relevant NCP Aboriginal Partner.

Purpose: - Indicate that a proposal is being submitted - Describe general nature of project, purpose, background,

timelines, etc. - Describe other contacts within the community that are

being made as part of proposal preparation (e.g. health centre, community health committee) - Explain timing of NCP funding application process (funding approval, need for community endorsement) - Request signed Approval of Consultation forms or equivalent letters of support

3. Contact: Regional Health Board and/or Territorial Health

Department Community health centre/representative (health committee if applicable) It is expected that contact would be initiated by letter with follow-up by telephone required.

Purpose: - Describe project, background/context, purpose, general

methodology, etc. - Explain what/how/why/when project results will be used - Receive general input on project proposal/method and planning - Receive general input on plan for dissemination of information about the study (to community, to study participants, to health workers) - Clarify existing protocols for results reporting/release - Briefly describe and receive general input on plan for results reporting (to individuals, to community, etc.) - It may be helpful to provide information which provides context for the project in terms of the NCP as a whole. The annual Summary of NCP Projects booklet may be a useful tool for this.



Following funding approval: Contact: Based on contacts and information received above Purpose: - Inform that the project has received funding approval and indicate

schedule/timeline - Identify training/employment opportunities - Finalize details of project planning, recalling three different groups of information recipients: I) community at large, ii) individual participants, and iii) health workers. Allow for meetings with community representatives, as requested. - Finalize details of plan and protocol for delivery/communications of results prior to commencing sampling. This includes provision for anonymity and confidentiality (at the community level as well) as agreed upon during project planning. - Explain and clarify use of the project results (peer reviewed scientific literature, education, contribution to decision-making processes, etc.).

Reporting: Reporting will be based upon the plan and protocol for delivery as

agreed upon with the community. This may include interim progress reports at specified intervals.

B. Projects Directly Involving the Arctic Ecosystem This category is for ecosystem studies which do not include human data, but involve any biotic sampling (terrestrial, marine or freshwater) or physical/chemical field studies (e.g. air, snow/ice, water, soil, sediment). Prior to NCP funding application: 1. Contact: RCCs

NOTE: As indicated in the Consultation Requirements for Northern Contaminants Program Projects: Process and Documentation, project proponents are requested to contact the appropriate RCCs before contacting any communities.

Purpose: - Initiate northern consultation - Awareness of projects and nature/purpose of research



2. Contact: Letter to regional organization(s) in region where work will

be conducted [e.g. Regional Inuit Association (Kivalliq, Qikiqtani, Kitikmeot, etc.); Land administrator (e.g. in Inuvialuit); Regional or Tribal Councils (Gwich'in, Sahtu, Dogrib, etc.); Regional Self-Governing First Nations]

cc. relevant NCP Aboriginal Partners cc. nearby communities - the project and all its

associated activities may be visible to northern residents. This is not restricted to on-site methodology, but may include activities such as repeated overflights, cruises, camp set-up, etc. Community/regional/national contacts should provide researchers with input if the communication plan (list of contacted communities) requires adjustment.

cc. Renewable Resource Officers or INAC district offices in nearby communities.

The initial contact letter could indicate final response date beyond which the researcher will assume no major concerns/comments/suggestions from the community. Follow-up by telephone is essential.

Purpose: - Inform that project is being proposed

- Describe project, background/context, purpose, general methodology, etc. (include general description of field activities, e.g. camp set-up, cruises, etc.)

- Provide researcher contacts - Explain what/how/why/when project results will be used and reported - Request general input on project proposal, sampling plan, plan for reporting results to community - Explain timing of NCP funding application process (funding approval, need for community endorsement) - Request signed Approval of Consultation forms or equivalent letters of support

Following funding approval: Contact: As above and/or as determined from contacts made above

e.g. recommendations for contacts with First Nations or Band Councils, Hunters and Trappers Associations or Committees, fish and wildlife management boards, game councils, etc.


Purpose: - Inform that project has received funding approval and can

proceed - Provide schedule and description of intended field activities, etc. - Identify local training/employment opportunities - Inform of all intended or potential future uses of collected samples (e.g., archiving) - Where interest is expressed, receive input on sampling plan - Where applicable, request permission for access to lands, wildlife (e.g. exclusive or preferential harvest rights under land claims)

Reporting: - Review existing protocols for information dissemination

- Inform of timing for data availability and options for reporting of project-specific results - Inform community of available general information (summary reports, etc.) and option to receive copies if requested - Identify community requirements/desires for results reporting

C. Projects with No Direct Northern Contact or Sampling This category is for projects with no northern sampling or contact, e.g. modelling, inventories, laboratory-based physical/chemical studies (such as volatilization studies), and databases. Contact: RCCs Purpose: Awareness of projects and nature/purpose of research,

availability/accessibility of general information related to this kind of research

Reporting: Layperson's summary of project activities, with contact names

and explanation of project purpose (general as well as relative to NCP goals). Other media such as a state of the environment video, assessment reports, etc. should be considered to present the overall highlights of this category of research, rather than (or in addition to) reporting on details from individual project

Northern Contaminants Program - First Nations€¦ · NCP Blueprints - Introduction 6 3 NCP...

Documents

Transcript of Northern Contaminants Program - First Nations€¦ · NCP Blueprints - Introduction 6 3 NCP...