SLAVE WATERSHED ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS PROGRAMcwn-rce.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/CWN-EN-Slave... · There is a long history of environmental monitoring and stewardship by northern

SLAVE WATERSHED ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS PROGRAMPROJECT LEADER: PAUL JONES,

WITH THE UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN AND SLAVE RIVER AND DELTA PARTNERSHIP Research conducted 2013-2015

WHY DID WE DO THIS RESEARCH?There is a long history of environmental monitoring and stewardship by northern Aboriginal people. Records of changing environments are found in the tradition of oral storytelling and artistic expression in Aboriginal and northern cultures in Canada. In the Slave River and Delta watershed (SRD), changing climate and various activities upstream in the Athabasca and Peace watersheds are impacting water quantity and potentially affecting water quality. Communities in the Northwest Territories are concerned about the health of the SRD.

In 2010, the Slave River and Delta Partnership (SRDP), representing communities along the river, was formed to address the changes people were noticing in their environments and in harvested foods from the river and delta. In 2011, community members worked with Paul Jones from the University of Saskatchewan (U of S) to collect fish samples during community fishing days to analyze fish health in the SRD. The communities’ interest and involvement in this research formed the basis of a new partnership between the SRDP, U of S and Government of Northwest Territories – Environment and Natural Resources (GNWT-ENR) that is looking at the health of the entire ecosystem.

This new partnership conceived the Slave Watershed Environmental Effects Program (SWEEP) together. In this program, local and Aboriginal communities work with scientists and government agencies to create a comprehensive cumulative effects framework that brings together Traditional Environmental Knowledge (TEK) and Western Science (WS) in a coordinated way to better understand the changes noticed in the SRD.

HOW WAS THE RESEARCH CONDUCTED? Prior to initiating SWEEP, three guiding questions had emerged from the communities:

1. Are the fish and wildlife safe to eat?

2. Is the water safe to drink?

3. Is the ecosystem healthy?

To help the communities answer these questions, TEK and WS indicators of environmental change were co-created by the SRDP, U of S researchers and other community members using a “two-eyed seeing” approach.1 The indicators ranged from contaminants in the water, ice safety, and fish and wildlife health, to changes in lifestyles and ethics in communities. Many of the indicators were measured by trained community members over a two-year period. The results from the indicators were assessed independently by research experts in each of the various disciplines before being blended in a computer model, called a Bayesian Belief Network (BBN), which was designed to balance TEK and WS indicators. The BBN is effective for modeling situations where some information is already known, but some information is uncertain or only partially available.

The collaborative team also co-created theoretical and practical outputs:

p A guiding framework (Figure 1, partially adapted from Houde, 2007) was produced for conducting environmental monitoring programs with communities undergoing environmental change.

p A video that captured the wisdom, experiences and struggles of the people in the region was created using TEK interviews with feedback from the community and GWNT-ENR.

p SWEEP researchers worked with local school teachers to create learning modules about aquatic bugs and how they can be used to monitor the health of ecosystems.

“Two-Eyed Seeing is the gift of multiple perspective treasured by many Aboriginal peoples and….refers to learning to see from one eye with the strengths of Indigenous knowledges and ways of knowing, and from the other eye with the strengths of Western knowledges and ways of knowing, and to using both these eyes together, for the benefit of all.”

Bartlett, Marshall & Marshall 2012, p. 335

SLAVE WATERSHED ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS PROGRAMPROJECT LEADER: PAUL JONES,

WITH THE UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN AND SLAVE RIVER AND DELTA PARTNERSHIP Research conducted 2013-2015

Canadian Water Network | Report published January 2017 1

p In collaboration with the SWEEP researchers, community members created a conceptual model of air pocket formation in the ice along the Slave River and Delta.

p Through this collaboration, dialogue has been forwarded on how to share information ethically with the wider world from projects such as this one.

Figure 1. SWEEP Guiding Framework

WHAT DID WE FIND?

FISH HEALTHElders said they were concerned about the taste, abundance and appearance of the fish in the river and delta. They described sores on fish, and how fish tasted different from the past. The abundance of sores and lesions observed in 2011-2012 during initial sampling was greater than that observed during SWEEP (2013-2015). The improvement in overall fish aesthetics was matched by improvements in other indicators of fish health. While contaminant levels were determined to be below human health concern, issues of fish taste and texture remain distressing for communities.

FACE 5Culture and

Identity

FACE 4Ethics and

Values

FACE 2Management

Systems

FACE 6Cosmology

FACE 3Past and

Current Uses

FACE 1Factual

Observations

PHASE 1Visioning

PHASE 5Creating

Synthesis and Blending

PHASE 2Assessing and

Evaluating Elements

PHASE 4Gaining

Understanding and

Awareness

PHASE 8Reacting and

Reassessing the Vision

Implement knowledge mobilization plan and

share SWEEP process and lessons learned with other

communities.

Document Community, research and project

needs. Scan resources and learn about Traditional

Knowledge.

Contribute information to

decision making groups and

complete project reporting.

Create Bayeslan Belief Network and compile

cumulative effects

Develop indicators and measure and

document change.

Assess the quality and quantity of

data.

PHASE 6Creating

Thresholds

PHASE 3Seeing, Relating

and Being

PHASE 7Sharing New

Wisdom

Paul Jones demonstrates fish study processes

The six faces of Traditional Knowledge, as described by Houde (2007), correspond to eight phases of research design and implementation.

SLAVE WATERSHED ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS PROGRAMProject Leader: Paul Jones, with the University of Saskatchewan and Slave River and Delta Partnership, Research conducted 2013-2015


WILDLIFE ABUNDANCE The use of trail cameras to measure the numbers and arrival/departure times of migratory birds was met with mixed success. While their use enabled important conversations between the SWEEP research team and community partners about culturally relevant lakes and wetlands in the delta, there were problems with camera malfunction, theft, site access and damage by wildlife. As a result, information on waterfowl abundance was obtained at only three locations over one full season. Results indicated that waterfowl abundance is moderate and varies from site to site. TEK from local people also verified fewer numbers of migratory birds than in the past, as well as changes in species.

WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITYAccording to Elders and local people, water flow, size and frequency of floods, and water appearance and vitality (i.e., spiritual/life energy garnered from the water) have decreased from what they were in the past. SWEEP indicators suggest that some substances found in the water—both during this project and in the past—exceed guidelines, although these levels have not increased over time. Some of these guidelines do not account for the natural conditions of some northern rivers, where more dirt, mud and silt is present in the water. Because metals attach to dirt, northern rivers may have naturally high concentrations of some metals.

AQUATIC INVERTEBRATESSWEEP included a community-based monitoring program for benthic invertebrates (aquatic bugs that live at the bottom of rivers) because their communities respond quickly to changes in their environment. Specialized samplers were assembled, placed and collected by community members. With basic training and guidance, local grade 10-12 students effectively identified and counted the animals in each sample. This program has the potential to be an effective long-term monitoring tool, when data collected on aquatic bugs is combined with TEK indicators, such as biting season for bugs, bugs found in the guts of fish and birds and observations of new species.

Community member Victor Mandeville of Fort Resolution, NWT, installing a trail camera in the Slave River Delta.

Student Keenan Hunter-McKay (Deninu High School, Fort Res-olution, NWT) collecting water samples in the Slave River Delta.

Karisa Balsillie, grade 12 student at the Deninu School in Fort Resolution helping the researchers to identify aquatic inver-tebrates from the Slave River Delta.

Student Kelcey Pierot (Aurora College, Fort Smith, NWT) deploying aquatic invertebrate samples in the Slave River.

Students at PW Kaeser High School work on benthic invertebrate identification



ICE DYNAMICSTEK interviews, ice core sampling and remote sensing helped SWEEP learn about changing ice conditions and its effects on local people. Places along the river with more variation in ice cover than in the past reflected weak spots in the ice, which causes problems for accessing traditional livelihood areas and invokes concern among local hunters and trappers for personal safety.

Variations in ice cover measured by WS included increased densities of air pockets within the ice cover and a higher proportion of rough (white) ice to smooth (black) ice. Researchers and local people also reported that the thick, smooth ‘rubber ice’ found in the past is rarely found today. These variations are due to changes in water flow and climate. Local people and SWEEP researchers also believe the changing water release patterns from upstream dams are affecting the consistency and strength of the ice.

These changing ice dynamics pose management and public safety risks. Predicting river ice-induced natural hazards, such as ice cover breakup and ice jam flooding, are important for the community in order to adapt transportation and ice regimes. The springtime ice breakup, which is less dramatic now than the past, is spiritually important to the people.

TRADITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL KNOWLEDGEInterviews were completed with 11 Elders and local people currently living in Fort Resolution and Fort Smith, who were born in the South Slave region, grew up living traditional lifestyles, and observed changes in the SRD. Five main categories of change were noted:

Winter ice work along the Slave River.

Lalita Bharadwaj and Harvey Mandeville talk about his experiences in the Slave River and Delta.

Community member Bruce Balsillie (Fort Resolution, NWT) sampling sediment in the Slave River Delta.

p The Elders and local people are concerned about how their social dynamics have changed from the 1950s to today. They feel the tradition of cooperating and taking care of each other is not as strongly emphasized today.

p They are concerned about the visible effects of development and disease in their ecosystem. For example, they perceive animal migration patterns are changing because of roads and traffic, and animals have more disease than in the past.

p Elders are concerned that the food systems of local people are changing. They perceive less people are eating traditional wild foods, and there are less plants, animals and medicines to harvest due to changes in the environment.

p The respondents perceive changes in the water quality, quantity and seasonal dynamics of the river and delta affect how they live.

p They expressed that changes in the environment are causing changes in their people’s cosmology, or way of life.

These perceptions are explained in more detail in the whiteboard animation: The Delta Ways Remembered (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHjmcdNwVpE)



ANALYZING THE RESULTS TOGETHER: After working with community members and researchers to categorize, prioritize and measure these indicators, the SWEEP team combined the data in a BBN model. TEK and WS indicator results were both included in balanced proportions, and, before looking at the data, each of the indicators was separated into categories of low, moderate or high. For example, mercury concentrations in fish less 0.2 parts per million (ppm) was considered low, 0.2 to 0.5 ppm was considered moderate, and >0.5 ppm considered high.

During two workshops held in May, 2015, 16 contributors representing local people, Elders, government researchers and academics were presented with hypothetical scenarios that included different combinations of the 41 indicators, corresponding to nine indices (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Conceptual depiction of the Bayesian Belief Network for the Slave River and Delta. Western Science indicators are in blue, Tra-ditional and Local Knowledge indicators are in green. Indices are in white.

In the exercise, the condition of the indicators (low, moderate or high) was changed in various combinations, and the contributors were asked to rate each of the nine corresponding indices as low, medium or high. For example, contributors were asked to rate the Wildlife Health Index as low, moderate, or high, given low muskrat contaminants, low moose stress, low mammal aesthetics and low mammal usage for one hypothetical scenario, and again given high muskrat contaminants, low moose stress, low mammal aesthetics and low mammal usage in another scenario. This was done for as many indicator combinations as necessary to make the model run. The contributors were then asked to consider the three guiding questions such as “Is the ecosystem healthy?” while being presented with various combinations of indices, again as hypothetical scenarios. The actual data gathered in the SWEEP program for the indicators was then entered into the BBN model and compared against the hypothetical scenarios to determine how the contributors would rate each index and answer the questions.

Water Quantity Index

DO under ice

Water depth

Turbidity External anomalies

Dissolved phosphorus Fish bile PAHs Muskrat mercury

Invertebrate density

Ice thickness Fur-bearer abundance

Flow regime

PAHs Internal anomaliesMetals Fish mercury Moose stress

Invertebrate taxa richness

Shannon Weiner index Bird Abundance

Ice significance Adaptation

Air pocket density Travel

Length of ice period Harvesting

Animal ethics

Ecotourism

Storytelling

Flood extent

Invasive plants Bird aesthetics

Fish usagePhysical appearance Mammal usage

Water flow

Plant usage Bird usage

Cultural changes

Fish aestheticsWater vitality Mammal aesthetics

Is the ecosystem healthy?

Is the water safe to drink? Are the fish and wildlife safe to eat?

Social Index

Ice Regime Index

Food Web Index

Livelihood Index

Wildlife Population Index

Water Quality Index Fish Health Index Wildlife Health

Index



Based on the data presented from TEK and WS indicators, the output from the BBN model suggests that the all nine of the indices are in low or medium states. This led to high probabilities of “no” (54%) or “don’t know” (45%) in answering the question: “Is the ecosystem healthy?”

p No single indicator caused a significant change in the model’s calculations.

p Workshop contributors viewed water vitality and polycyclic aromatic compounds and metals in water as important indicators of water quality.

p The most important fish and wildlife health indicators were contaminants and aesthetics.

p Contributors viewed water quality and quantity and social change as important indicators of overall ecosystem health.

p WS indicators were in moderate condition, whereas TEK indicators were poor in comparison to the past. Note that the WS indicators reported here are inherently spatial (i.e. comparing to other locations) while the TEK indicators are predominantly temporal (i.e. comparing across time).

The different perceptions that were expressed among diverse knowledge holders means that additional data collection and information from the community is needed to reduce uncertainty and to gain clearer confidence in the results of the model. It should be noted that these results support findings from other projects examining northern ecosystems2,3,4 that rate overall water quality as moderate based on WS, and poor based on TEK.

The BBN is a tool that the community can now update, as new information becomes available on the indicators or additional experts are identified for inclusion.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR STAKEHOLDERS AND DECISION MAKERS?Based on the information gathered in the SWEEP project, as well as through other research and historically, there is concern for the overall health of the Slave River and Delta ecosystem. Given the pace of development in the Peace and Athabasca watersheds, management and policy changes should be implemented to lessen the impact of upstream activities so that:

p The quantity and quality of fish and wildlife persist p The quantity and quality of water, as well as its vitality, persist p Aboriginal traditional rights of hunting, fishing, gathering and trapping are protected p Water, fish and wildlife are uncontaminated and aesthetically acceptable p Nutritional wild foods are honoured

The SWEEP program furthered the collection of information for informed resource use and management by using a community-driven process that was inclusive of different ways of knowing about the world. By scaling up from individual projects to building a community of practice focused on evaluating the ecosystem, many contributors were able to come together to support program development. With continued collaboration, these community-based programs can advance the monitoring of cumulative effects, the management of resources and enhance lifestyles.

Community engagement with partners in the North is effective because of a spirit of togetherness. Ongoing open and respectful communication has been a vital part of the process. SWEEP collaborators built on the SRDP’s prior work and developed a conceptual framework, created a whiteboard animation and infographic, made school classroom visits and held a series of community workshops to share the knowledge that was gathered. Recommendations from the Northern Voices, Northern Waters: NWT Water Stewardship Strategy (2010) were followed.

Shawn McKay (Fort Resolution Metis Council) and Tim Jardine presenting on the Slave River and Delta wetlands.



REPORT AUTHORED BY MEMBERS OF THE SLAVE RIVER AND DELTA PARTNERSHIP

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND AT: SWEEP.INSIGHTHOSTING.COMPHOTO CREDITS: LORNE DOIG, CHRYSTAL MANTYKA-PRINGLE, KARL-ERICH LINDENSCHMIDT, TIM JARDINE, LEIF ANDERSON, UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN.

RESEARCH TEAM

PAUL JONES, University of SaskatchewanLALITA BHARADWAJ, University of SaskatchewanKARL LINDENSCHMIDT, University of SaskatchewanLORNE DOIG, University of SaskatchewanTIM JARDINE, University of Saskatchewan

LORI BRADFORD, University of SaskatchewanCHRYSTAL MANTYKA-PRINGLE, University of SaskatchewanJENNIFER FRESQUE-BAXTER, Environment and Natural Resources, Government of the Northwest Territories

ERIN KELLY, Environment and Natural Resources, Government of the Northwest TerritoriesGILA SOMERS, Environment and Natural Resources, Government of the Northwest Territories

PARTNERS

SMITH’S LANDING FIRST NATIONSALT RIVER FIRST NATIONSNORTHWEST TERRITORY MÉTIS NATIONDENINU K’UE FIRST NATIONTOWN OF FORT SMITH

HAMLET OF FORT RESOLUTIONFORT RESOLUTION MÉTIS COUNCILFORT SMITH MÉTIS COUNCILAURORA RESEARCH INSTITUTEAURORA COLLEGE

PARKS CANADAENVIRONMENT CANADAFISHERIES AND OCEANS CANADAGNWT MUNICIPAL AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRSGNWT ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES

REFERENCES1 BARTLETT, C., MARSHALL, M., AND MARSHALL, A. 2012. Two-eyed seeing and other lessons learned within a co-learning journey of bringing together indigenous and mainstream knowledges and ways of knowing. Journal of Environmental Studies and Science 2: 331-340.

2 CASH, K.J., GIBBONS, W.N., MUNKITTRICK, K.R., BROWN, S.B., AND CAREY, J. 2000. Fish health in the Peace, Athabasca and Slave River systems. Journal of Aquatic Ecosystem Stress and Recovery 8: 77-86.3 SCHINDLER, D.W. AND SMOL, J.P. 2006. Cumulative Effects of climate warming and other human activities on freshwaters of Arctic and SubArctic North America. Ambio 35: 160-168.

4 DUBÉ. M., JOHNSON, B., DUNN, G., CULP, J., CASH, K., MUNKITTRICK, K., WONG, I., HEDLEY, K., BOOTY, W., LAM, D., RESLER, O., AND STOREY, A. 2006. Development of a new approach to cumulative effects assessment: A northern river ecosystem example. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 113: 87-115.HOUDE, N. 2007. The six faces of traditional ecological knowledge: Challenges and opportunities for Canadian co-management arrangements. Ecology and Society 12(2): 34

COVER PHOTO CREDIT

LEIF ANDERSON, Fort Smith, NT

TO CONTACT THE RESEARCHER, EMAIL [email protected]. VISIT OUR REPORT LIBRARY AT WWW.CWN-RCE.CA

Policy with respect to upstream development in the north needs to be cautious, and should consider whether risks are acceptable given the existing pressures on fish, wildlife and water, and the effects on livelihoods driven by cumulative impacts. Effects felt downstream must be communicated to upstream jurisdictions, and the SWEEP process and results can contribute to setting objectives and establishing the triggers outlined in recently signed transboundary agreements.

By supporting and empowering local and Aboriginal communities, people can make better decisions about their land and ultimately their livelihoods. River and delta communities worldwide can be supported in making decisions that are based on indicators of ecosystem heath, local people’s voices, and TEK in co-created, legacy community-based monitoring programs.

SWEEP results are feeding into a larger initiative, the Delta Dialogue Network (usask.ca/research-groups/ddn), that seeks to unify knowledge and experiences across three of Canada’s inland deltas that are undergoing environmental change.



Documents

SLAVE WATERSHED ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS PROGRAMcwn-rce.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/CWN-EN-Slave... · There is a long history of environmental monitoring and stewardship by northern