Report of the 1st GENICE Knowledge Exchange Forum 5 December 2016

RBC Convention Centre

Winnipeg, Manitoba

Microbial Genomics for Oil Spill Preparedness in

Canada’s Arctic Marine Environment

2

Executive Summary

The GENICE Knowledge Exchange Forum brought together a cross-section of people who live in and/or have a

broad interest in Canada’s Arctic, and a particular interest in the development of fuel spill response

preparedness and response strategies in Arctic waters. Participants included residents of northern

communities, Indigenous organizations, the scientific community, different levels of government, regulatory

agencies, and non-governmental and private sector groups all of whom are either potential contributors to

GENICE research and/or End Users of GENICE data and information. The objectives of the Knowledge Forum

were to introduce this group to the science behind GENICE research, and to:

❅ Determine information needs of Forum participants in relation to fuel spills in the marine

environment;

❅ Discuss the ways genomics can inform and assist response to such spills;

❅ Identify knowledge that participants will be able to contribute to the GENICE program;

❅ Isolate relevant policy gaps and problems identified by participants; and

❅ Co-develop an engagement plan that will maintain and sustain stakeholder and end-user

participation throughout the GENICE project (2016-2020) and beyond.

Knowledge Exchange Forum outcomes include identification of critical areas where flow and presentation of

information can be improved (i.e., basic genomics, tools for bioremediation, details of shipping activities, etc.),

identification of necessary resources to improve local, regional and Federal decision making, risk assessments,

training for response to spills, the identification of key research questions of interest to End Users of GENICE

data, and isolation of areas where GENICE End Users can make important contributions to the research

program. Key outreach from GENICE could include development of student science programs (e.g. Nunavut

Arctic College workshops), information packages for communities, and participation in events such as the

Hudson Bay Regional Roundtable. Follow-up from the Forum will involve regular communications among

GENICE investigators, Forum participants and others, and the development of a directory of experts who can

be engaged in event of a spill or similar incident.

3

INTRODUCTION

GENICE addresses Canada’s need to develop preparedness and response strategies for fuel spills in Arctic

waters. Funded by Genome Canada, the project brings together a broadly interdisciplinary and multi-sectoral

team to combine innovative genomics, analytical chemistry, and sea-ice geophysics with economic, policy and

end-user expertise to focus on the role of and potential for bioremediation of fuel spills in the Arctic marine

environment. The overarching objectives of the project are to generate baseline microbial genomics data for

the Hudson Bay Corridor, conduct a series of bioremediation viability case studies, develop recommendations

on technology-based emergency spill response strategies, and define best practices for knowledge sharing,

capacity building for spill-response, and policy development; each of these objectives is informed by genomics.

BACKGROUND

The impact of accidental fuel spills is exemplified by the 2010 Gulf of Mexico Deepwater Horizon (DWH)

blowout and more recently, the smaller 2015 Marathassa spill in English Bay, Vancouver. Both incidents

highlighted a general confusion and a genuine concern about such events, and raised questions about

preparedness for fuel spill response in Canada, particularly in marine settings. Appropriate preparedness and

effective response strategies to manage a spill incident in the Arctic, and along marine transport routes

adjacent to Canada’s northern coastal communities, are critical.

The GENICE Knowledge Exchange Forum began the process of connecting a broad community of Arctic

stakeholders – scientists, residents of northern communities, Indigenous organizations, different levels of

government, regulatory agencies, non-governmental, and private sector groups – all of whom are potential

contributors to and end-users of GENICE data and outcomes. This is the community that is best positioned to

share their needs and knowledge around emergency preparedness and response to fuel spills, and thus to

shape and enact GENICE deliverables.

The Knowledge Exchange Forum and follow-up activities are mechanisms for engaging and partnering with

non-specialists that want to use genomic and microbiological data to improve management of and response

to spills in Arctic waters. When combined with Indigenous Knowledge, and input from other end-user groups,

GENICE outcomes will lead to informed and appropriately scaled plans for coastal land ocean management,

spill mitigation strategies, improved risk management, and decreased environmental, social, economic, and

regulatory uncertainties associated with potential spills.

4

KNOWLEDGE EXCHANGE FORUM OBJECTIVES

❅ Determine information needs of Forum participants in relation to oil/fuel spills in the marine

environment;

❅ Discuss the ways genomics can inform and assist response to such spills;

❅ Identify knowledge that participants will be able to contribute to the GENICE program;

❅ Isolate relevant policy gaps and problems identified by participants;

❅ Co-develop an engagement plan that will maintain and sustain stakeholder and end-user

participation throughout the GENICE project (2016-2020) and beyond.

FORUM STRUCTURE

Prior to the Forum, a short survey (Appendix 1) was distributed to invited participants (N=84, including all

members of the science team). The survey was designed to elicit basic information about interest in fuel spill

response, genomics knowledge, and GENICE outcomes. Twelve invitees responded to the questionnaire in

advance, and 26 invitees participated in the Forum representing the GENICE research team, provincial and

Federal governments, Indigenous organizations, northern communities, and Arctic Council.

Questionnaire results are presented in Table 1 and can be summarized as follows:

❅ Participants were unanimously interested (either ‘moderately’ or ‘considerably’) in oil spill

preparedness and response in the Canadian Arctic.

❅ Participants were equally interested in generating genomics knowledge with respect to oil spill

mitigation.

❅ The majority of participants thought that ‘technical data’ and ‘scientific data’ would be most useful for

meeting their needs around oil spill preparedness and response. There was less of an agreement

amongst participants on the usefulness of ‘policy relevant information’ and ‘regulatory relevant

information’.

❅ Participant knowledge of bioremediation was ranged equally across categories of ‘none’ to ‘excellent’,

but far more participants recorded ‘none’ to ‘good’ when asked about their knowledge of microbial

genomics in relation to oil spill mitigation.

5

Table 1. Survey Results

Q1. What is your interest in oil spill preparedness and response in the Canadian Arctic or more broadly?

No Interest Little

Interest Some

Interest Moderate

Interest Considerable Interest

4 8 Q2. What is your interest in generating genomic knowledge with respect to oil spill mitigation?

No Interest Little

Interest Some

Interest Moderate

Interest Considerable Interest

1 5 6 Q3. What kind of data or information would you find useful for meeting your needs around oil spill preparedness and response?

Not at all

Useful Slightly Useful

Moderately Useful

Very Useful Extremely

Useful Technical Data 2 6 4 Policy relevant information

1 4 1 6

Regulatory relevant information

1 3 3 5

Scientific data 7 5 Q4/ What is your current understanding of:

None Fair Good Very Good Excellent Bio- remediation

2 2 3 3 2

Microbial genomics related to oil spill remediation

4 3 4 1

Results were compiled in advance and used to structure the Forum into a series of overview talks, including a

presentation of survey outc0mes. Following this two-back-to-back break-out sessions focused on the five

objectives. Breakout groups were organized for diverse expertise to address Objectives 1-3 (break-out session

1) and then re-organized along lines of specific expertise to address Objectives 4-5. (break-out session 2).

Discussions were wide ranging, but common issues were identified in each group and concrete next steps to

help address project and end-user objectives over the life of the GENICE project were outlined.

6

Knowledge Exchange Outcomes

Objective 1. Determine information needs of Forum participants in relation to oil/fuel spills

in the marine environment.

Breakout group participants identified two areas where there was a need for more and better information and

a series of questions they would like to see tackled. Areas of interest are: 1) Shipping Activities; and 2) Oil Spill

Response Preparation.

Shipping Activities

Arctic ecosystems are fragile. If ship traffic continues to increase as it seems it will, the risk of spills will also

increase. Many small-scale incidents can accumulate and become as detrimental as larger accidents.

Community members will often be the first responders to an incident and they want to know who is responsible

for logging shipping activities in Canada’s Arctic waters and how to access that information in near-real time.

Statistical data on ship traffic (number of ships, types of ships, which sector ships are supporting, cargo, etc.)

are required as are some measures of risk for these different variables. For example, is a ship of Type X from

Country A, carrying Cargo B more likely to incur risk than a Ship of Type Y from Country A, carrying Cargo B

etc.

Oil Spill Response

All participants expressed an interest in how oil spills in Canada’s Arctic waters will be handled. The question

becomes how will first responders in communities and from local organizations be properly trained so they are

prepared to manage incidents? Today community members are likely to be the first responders although the

Canadian Coast Guard is formally responsible. Arctic communities are small and widely distributed, training is

limited, and the territory is vast. External support and secondary responders will not arrive quickly to an

incident scene due to distance and logistics, unless they fortuitously happen to already be in the vicinity. All

potential responders want to know how and if genomics research can improve our understanding

bioremediation, and what, if any genomics solutions or other solutions are available to them?

Important questions identified by participants in the break-out discussions were:

1. What is in a spill kit?

7

2. How is a spill kit used?

3. Who has the formal responsibility for spill management and response in the northern territories?

4. Who exactly are the first responders (i.e., local fire departments)?

5. What is the role of the Northern Rangers?

6. Who has the funding to develop and deliver spill response training, and ensure that it is regularly

updated?

Objective 2. Discussion of ways genomics can inform and assist response to such spills.

Forum participants ultimately want to develop a clear understanding of the research outcomes of GENICE, and

what are all the options or alternatives for oil spill response - for example, in a given situation what would be

the more appropriate clean up solution, bioremediation with or without the use of dispersants, or something

else? There has been lots research on the use of dispersants on the East coast and following the Deepwater

Horizon incident in the Gulf of Mexico. Workshop participants want to know what are the benefits and risks of

a dispersant option as compared to others? The kind of information needed for policy development remains

unclear at his point.

Participants hoped that genomics research could help to map risk in the Arctic, thereby assisting with

navigation and protection of marine mammal hotspots. Some of the questions they would like to see addressed

in GENICE or through other venues involved: 1) identifying where spills might end up (spill trajectory); 2)

whether the spatial extent of a spill changes under different conditions; and 3) whether areas vulnerable to

spills are changing already with changing seasons and conditions. Through genomics research one can begin

to understand which microorganisms are present in Arctic waters and if they are fuel degraders. Participants

discussed the possibility of developing a “dipstick” test to determine if microbial communities in different

regions have the capability to degrade fuels.

Important questions identified by participants in the break-out discussions were

1. How do microbial communities change?

2. What are the implications to ecosystems of proposed treatments, e.g., dispersants?

3. What is bioremediation?

4. What is bioaugmentation, and why doesn't this really work?

8

5. How can genomics be used to improve spill kits? Are there strategies that make oil more bioavailable

to microorganisms e.g. oil spill response kits tailored to the conditions of specific areas of Arctic

coastlines?

Objective 3. Identify knowledge that participants will be able to contribute to the GENICE

program.

Here we present a summary of the identified, available contributable knowledge from meeting participants.

From End User groups there is the possibility to provide:

1. Baseline data on the marine food web through interaction with the Northern Contaminants Program

(NCP);

2. A link to the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program to help promote GENICE internationally;

3. Supporting knowledge mobilization and translating information to different End User groups;

4. Information from the GENICE project to Arctic Council, and particularly to the Arctic Monitoring and

Assessment Program (AMAP) and the Emergency Prevention, Preparedness, and Response Working Group

(EPPR).

From within the GENICE research team and the GE3LS investigators specifically there was a request to provide

End Users with:

1. Outreach capacity to develop student science programs (e.g. Nunavut Arctic College workshops),

information packages for communities, the Hudson Bay roundtable, and the All Aboard Program;

2. Estimates on the socio-economic impacts from oil spills and develop related scenarios;

3. Provide detail on the law and policy context of GENICE, and design participatory decision-making tools

for governance.

Objective 4. Isolate relevant policy gaps and problems identified by participants.

Participants identified a series of policy gaps and problems related to shipping, spill response, and spill kits.

Around shipping these included:

1. Inability to access reports of ship activity at the community level. People felt reports should be provided.

There is particular concern around smaller recreational ships as participants commented that there is

no registry for this type of vessel.

9

2. There is no clear understanding of the fuel directives for shipping in Hudson Bay. In Svalbard, for

example, only diesel fuel is allowed. There have been foreign ships delivering P50 fuel in the

communities. People questioned whether foreign ships are subject to the same regulations as Canadian

ships?

Around spill response Participants understand that all are supposed to have spill kits on board but are uncertain

if this policy is enforced. Uncertainties exist around:

1. Who is responsible for mitigation and preparedness measures, and who is responsible for dealing with

the aftermath of a spill;

2. When does the Federal Government take over responsibility for responding to and remediating spills;

3. What resources are available to communities as first responders; and particularly with respect to oil spill

kits community members are uncertain as to their content, when and how to use the kits, and who is

responsible for providing training to community members.

Understanding spill kit contents and obtaining spill response training were perhaps the most commonly cited

gaps in spill preparedness. The access to and use of kits is considered problematic by end-users across the board

– from individual community members, to representatives of the Coast Guard, to the private sector. In addition,

there is clearly a lack of either actual policy or a gap in understanding of existing policy related to shipping –

reporting, tracking, monitoring, and providing information. Community members are looking for ways to easily

access this information, and other End-Users are looking for ways to streamline or more effectively coordinate

effort across responsibilities and among responsible parties under spill conditions.

Objectives 5. Co-develop an engagement plan that will maintain and sustain stakeholder

and end-user participation throughout the GENICE project (2016-2020) and beyond.

Participants agreed that there is a critical need for improved risk communication around shipping and spill

response and that development of a communication strategy should include meaningful community and other

End-User engagement. With respect to GENICE in particular there was a request for a proactive approach to

communication, and better engagement within as well as beyond the scientific team. This will require efficient

and smart planning and use of resources. Participants also felt that It is important to develop clear information

10

around bioremediation, genomics, and other spill response solutions so that the public and communities know

what works and what does not in each circumstance.

Participants wanted to know what the communication plan was for reporting on GENICE progress and to have

access to a “yellow pages” of experts who can be engaged in event of a spill or related issue. At the time of the

Knowledge Exchange Forum the communication plan involved the production of a biennial newsletter to be

sent to End-Users with project information and progress updates, however more regular quarterly

communications, and communication in person particularly in communities, is preferred.

Community leaders’ comments make this, the need for long-term follow-up, and broader engagement with

the private sector clear:

“The regional meetings are probably the best communication avenue as larger number of

people are there for engagement. Also, any resolutions can be passed at the meeting and

there is no waiting time. My challenge is taking information I learn at workshops like this back

to my community. Also, sometimes there is a misunderstanding on what a meeting will entail

when they are actually there in person. Face-to-face is good.”

“We have had lots of projects in the area but there is never any follow up with us on how the

technique(s) worked or if they worked. One of the big concerns is will something be invasive.

Something that would be very useful is letting us know who is out there we can talk to about

proposed products and strategies to help us make the best decisions.”

“We get lots of our community leaders to meetings such as this but we never see the industry

people in the room. They need to understand what the needs are of the communities they

operate in. We rarely see the business people (e.g. Supervisors) who understand how a

project will be developed. We wonder who are the people responsible for an incident and has

the plan been communicated to the community.”

11

Next Steps

GENICE Timeline

For the scientific research, GENICE recruiting (of graduate students and post docs) is taking place throughout

2017. The first field expedition, aboard the Amundsen in Hudson Bay and elsewhere in the Canadian Arctic,

commences in May 2017 and will run throughout the summer. Planning this work has therefore had the

opportunity to consider input from End Users including those in the Knowledge Exchange Forum and the

findings presented in this report. Samples from the Amundsen will allow the first opportunity for GENICE to

determine environmental baselines. Bioremediation experiments on these samples (ice, water, and sediment)

will also be performed under a variety of spill conditions, and inform larger scale efforts using the Churchill

Marine Observatory’s Oil in Sea Ice Mesocosm later in the project.

GE3LS Activities Going Forward

The GE3LS team is now planning to take up action items stemming from the Knowledge Exchange Forum.

Including planning for one or more future meetings in Churchill and participation in regional meetings.

Additional outreach should also happen through individual scientists (e.g., new connections were made

between the project scientists and the Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) following CCG participation in the

Knowledge Exchange Forum). A GENICE website will provide information about project progress and

supplement face to face meetings and quarterly updates on progress. The GE3LS team will work in partnership

with various End Users to develop the requested “yellow pages of experts”, and will participate where and

whenever possible in end-user meetings organized by science team members. Other Specific Action Items

include:

1. Development of a document that begins to address some of the Important Outstanding Questions

identified by End Users during discussion during Breakout Groups 1 and 2

2. Development of an implantation plan for meeting objectives identified in discussion during Breakout

Groups 2 and 3.

3. Preparation and distribution of the First Biannual Report on GENICE Activities and Outcomes for

distribution to the GENICE Team, End Users, and others.

12

Non-Technical Summary of Presentations

GENICE Project Overview

Reduced sea ice cover and progressively more ice-free summers have led to a 166% increase in ship traffic

through the Northwest Passage since 2004. Cruise ship tourism alone has grown by 500% in the past five years.

The US-based Crystal Cruises Crystal Serenity cruise ship made a first voyage through the Northwest Passage

in August 2016, carrying about 1,000 passengers and over 600 crew – the first ever transit of this kind. More

activity brings greater risk of accidental releases fuel and other transportation-related contaminants. Climate

change has also focused attention on Arctic fossil fuel reserves, the potential for exploration and development

and with that the possibility of a spill in Arctic water. While significant fossil fuel reserves are estimated to exist

in the Canadian Arctic, recent decisions by major producers including Shell, ExxonMobil, Chevron, and others

signal that drilling is at least a decade away. This “hiatus” in offshore exploration and production offers an

important window of opportunity to develop emergency preparedness plans.

GENICE is focused on microbial genomics research with the end-goal of generating and sharing credible,

science-based knowledge on the potential role of bioremediation – the biodegradation of oil by naturally

occurring microorganisms – as a spill response strategy. Marine microbial communities are likely nature’s ‘first

responders’ in the event of spill, yet little is known about the effectiveness of this potential mitigation approach

in the Arctic marine environment.

GENICE research will produce: 1) microbial baseline information; 2) bioremediation viability case studies and

demonstrations for Arctic marine habitats. These results can potentially lead to the development of dynamic

mapping of risks and mitigation potential using microbial genomic biomarkers. Scientific outcomes of GENICE

will inform GE3LS research around relevant policy development and implementation, emergency

preparedness, and spill response. Ongoing engagement and interactive exchange of knowledge will include

the GENICE team, northern residents and Indigenous organizations, different levels of government including

regulatory agencies, non-governmental organizations, and the private sector.

13

A key deliverable of GENICE will be a Best Practices document for End Users concerning bioremediation of oil

spills in the Arctic that will be produced and available to Canadians at the end of the project.

Casey Hubert, University of Calgary Microbial diversity and hydrocarbon degradation

Oil degrading bacteria are ever-present as oil is a natural material that serves as a cordon (barrier) and as an

energy source to many different organisms. Bacteria have adapted specialized mechanisms to utilize

hydrocarbon compounds including the ability to degrade them by direct contact, and a modified cell surface to

increase the surface area in contact with the oil. Some bacteria are so specialized to oil degradation that this is

the only substrate they can use (obligate hydrocarbonoclastic bacteria).

Several large-scale field experiments have been conducted to look at methods to improve oil biodegradation.

In Canada, these have been in intertidal areas in the St. Lawrence River and in Nova Scotia. Experiments of this

type are not possible in Arctic Canada, however there have been some in Norway. Simulated studies in Canada

use microcosm and mesocosm experimental systems. Seawater and sea ice samples are collected in the field

and immediately set up in these experimental systems with a variety of different treatments (fertilizer,

dispersant, etc.) and incubations are set at ambient Arctic conditions (sub-zero temperatures). These

preliminary experiments have yielded valuable information on the microbial biodiversity in the Arctic marine

environment and the response of these microbial populations to the presence of oil and oil biodegradation.

GENICE will expand on these studies and produce critical data for understanding and optimizing oil

degradation in Arctic waters as a component in the development of an effective spill response strategy using

the natural bacterial communities’ ability to degrade oil.

Charles Greer, National Research Council & McGill University Chesterfield Inlet – A Community Perspective on Fuel Spill Hazards and Preparedness

Barney Aggark has been the Chairman of the Chesterfield Inlet Hunters and Trappers Organizations since 2007.

Since 2007, the community has observed increased shipping, with 35-55 ships passing through Chesterfield

Inlet each year. Community members have noticed a decrease in sea mammals. In 2013 there was a minor spill

of 96L from a shipping company; the community was not informed. The wind is strong in Chesterfield Inlet,

with gusts of up to 150km/hr. Since 2007 five ships have blown ashore. The community has expressed that they

have no capacity to contain potential spills, yet they anticipate ship traffic to increase in their region because

of a new mine opening south in 2017.

14

Barney Aggark, Mayor, Hamlet of Chesterfield Inlet

Tuktoyaktuk faces similar issues to those in Chesterfield Inlet. The community has observed increased ship

traffic with increased sea ice-free conditions. One ship ran aground in the Tuktoyaktuk Peninsula. Tuktoyaktuk

has no mechanisms to know how, when and where ships are coming and going.

Patrick Gruben, Chair, Inuvialuit Game Council

Environmental Sampling and Experimental Design

The research area proposed in GENICE is an ideal fit for the Canadian sub-Arctic, specifically Hudson Bay,

Hudson Strait, and Foxe Basin (referred to here as Hudson Bay). The region is exposed to intense and increasing

ship traffic, contains natural resource deposits, and is home to the Port of Churchill, the new Churchill Marine

Observatory facility, and the Churchill Northern Studies Centre (CNSC). Hudson Bay is ecologically sensitive to

climate change and industrialization and considered a bellwether for broader Arctic ecosystems. Hudson Bay

is experiencing an increase in shipping traffic, much of it related to the Port of Churchill. The Hudson Strait has

the highest ship traffic volume in the Canadian Arctic, nearly double that of other regions. The Port of Churchill,

Canada’s only deep-water port, can only be accessed by ship during the open water season (mid-July to early

November) and is a significant gateway for exports, handling roughly 10,000 tons of marine re-supply freight

per year. Ship traffic is expected to increase with future exploration and extraction of natural resources in

Hudson Bay and adjacent areas, including oil and gas deposits. Major GENICE sampling platforms and

experiments will be conducted at 1) new Oil in Sea Ice Mesocosm (OSIM), part of the new Churchill Marine

Observatory (CMO) Research Facility currently being built up at Churchill Manitoba; 2) on board the CCGS

Amundsen and; 3) the new Arctic Research Foundation coastal ship – still to be named. Additional sampling

throughout the tenure of this projects will be conducted as opportunities arise.

Gary Stern, University of Manitoba

Environmental, Ethical, Economic, Legal and Social Aspects (GE3LS)

A critical companion to the natural science work is the law and policy component of the GE3LS that must deliver

new tools for informing law and policy regarding oil spill preparedness and response, based on the scientific

evidence revealed. The GE3LS team will be working with end-users such a government departments (CCG) and

local communities to explain the research work being undertaken. The goal of this aspect of the research is to

address whether existing regulatory/policy frameworks adequately deal with the science arising from GENICE

research in order to develop learning platforms for sharing policy implications where needed.

15

The objectives of this work include:

(1) Understanding the current policy and legal landscape for marine transportation in Hudson Bay study

corridors, and to investigate the benefits, risks, uncertainties, values, and priorities – particularly in relation to

marine spill preparedness and response;

(2) Exploring how GENICE research findings may inform and change the policy landscape along the shipping

corridor in relation to marine spill preparedness and response; and,

(3) Creating unique opportunities for end users to interact directly with scientists and preliminary GENICE

products (i.e. Deliverable 3, vulnerability maps) in a northern research environment.

Learning is an important dimension of this work. Application of Genomics to bioremediation of oil in ice-

covered and Arctic waters is in its infancy offering great potential for learning across all sectors – scientific,

community, and policy. We will be considering the potential for individual transformative and social learning

through the exchange of knowledge and ideas associated with this project.

John Sinclair, University of Manitoba

Meinhard Doelle, Dalhousie University

Social and Economic Impact Analysis of the GENICE Project

Other than its scientific values, the GENICE project is likely to generate certain social and economic impacts as

well, as the Arctic surface environment is one of the most easily impacted on Earth. Reports point out that the

most significant threat from ships to the Arctic marine environment is the release of oil through accidental or

illegal discharge, and that there is generally a lack of emergency response capacity for saving lives and for

pollution mitigation in the Arctic area. In the meantime, Arctic residents express concern for the social, cultural,

and environmental effects of such expansion. The possibility of oil spills is a major concern and hunters are

especially concerned about the disruption of marine species and their hunting practices. The costs and benefit

of Arctic shipping will likely be unevenly distributed among and within communities and regions. Constructive

and early engagement of local residents in planned Arctic marine development projects can help to reduce

negative impacts and to increase positive benefits. This status quo suggests that the GENICE project has the

potential to make significant contributions both economically and socially. These impacts need to be carefully

modelled and estimated, so that the economic and social values of the GENICE project can be objectively

evaluated.

16

Changmin Jiang, University of Manitoba

17

PARTICPANT LIST

Barney Aggark Mayor, Chesterfield Inlet chester_mayor@qiniq.com David Babb Research Associate, COES, University of Manitoba David.Babb@umanitoba.ca Lucette Barber CEOS, University of Manitoba lucette.barber@umanitoba.ca David Barber Professor, CEOS, University of Manitoba David.Barber@umanitoba.ca Matt Bryman Genome Alberta mbryman@genomealberta.ca Rhonda Clark GENICE Project Manager rgclark@ucalgary.ca Meinhard Doelle Professor of Law, and Associate Dean, Research, Dalhousie University mdoelle@dal.ca Nariman Firoozy University of Manitoba Nariman.Firoozy@umanitoba.ca Norah Foy POLAR Canada Norah.Foy@polar.gc.ca

18

Ashley Gaden GENICE Coordinator Ashley.Gaden@umanitoba.ca Charles Greer Adjunct Professor, Dept. Natural Resource Sciences, McGill University Charles.Greer@cnrc-nrc.gc.ca Patrick Gruben Inuvialuit Game Council igc-js@jointsec.nt.ca Charles Gruben Inuvialuit Game Council igc-js@jointsec.nt.ca Casey Hubert Associate Professor, Dept. Biological Science, University of Calgary chubert@ucalgary.ca Jimmy Immingark Secretary Treasurer, Arviq HTO repulsebayhto@qiniq.com Changmin Jiang Assistant Professor, Asper School of Business, University of Manitoba Changmin.Jiang@umanitoba.ca Kelly Kadjuk Chesterfield Inlet kellykadjuk@hotmail.com Tom Montor Deputy Commissioner, Operations, Canadian Coast Guard tom.montor@dfo-mpo.gc.ca Shauna Zahariuk Environmental Scientist, Manitoba Hydro szahariuk@hydro.mb.ca Maribeth Murray Professor, Dept. Anthropology and Archaeology, University of Calgary murraym@ucalgary.ca Ester Nagtegaal

19

Assistant Deputy Minister, Manitoba, Department of Infrastructure Esther.Nagtegaal@gov.mb.ca Amy Noël PhD Candidate, Geomicrobiology Group, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Calgary acnoel@ucalgary.ca Henry Penn Arctic Institute of North America, University of Calgary henry.penn@ucalgary.ca Simon Potter Genome Prairie, Chief Scientific Officer SPotter@genomeprairie.ca John Sinclair Professor, Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba John.Sinclair@umanitoba.ca Gary Stern Professor, Centre for Earth Observation Science (CEOS), University of Manitoba Gary.Stern@umanitoba.ca Jason Stow AMAP, AACA & EPPR, Canadian co-Head of Delegation, Arctic Council Jason.Stow@aadnc-aandc.gc.ca Christine Weise Research Manitoba, CEO christina.weise@researchmb.ca