Application Process Gwich’in Land & Water Board WG 6 Document Review Prepared by Johnny Edwards

1. Application Process Gwich’in Land & Water Board WG 6 Document Review Prepared by Johnny Edwards

2. Work plan Events & Activities • Identify consistent and inconsistent practice / procedures by comparison with current procedures of GLWB, SLWB, WLWB & MVLWB Suggested Literature Survey Gwich’in Land & Water Board’s Application Process

3. a) Disclosure of Preliminary Screening to MVEIRB (process) Forward pre screen (signed by ED) minimum of three business days prior to board meeting b) Field Modification (process) Little experience at GLWB Some LUP/WL conditions allow INAC inspector to make field modifications Currently there is no process in place that requires INAC to inform the GLWB of filed modifications Information is forwarded at the inspector’s discretion REVIEW

4. c) Amendments (process) • Little experience at GLWB • There is no formal process in place to determine acceptable change in scope • The decision whether or not to send out for review would be made on a case by case basis by the ED d) Private land vs. Crown land (process) • Applicants are responsible for determining if the proposed activity is on crown, territorial, municipal, or private lands, and for obtaining the proper authorization from the landowner. • The process is the same for issuing LUP on private or crown land, except for: • the requirement for proof of an access authorization for private land, and • the collection of land use fees for crown land.

5. e) Use of TEK/TK (process) • Consultation Process • The Consultation Process will involve forwarding an information package, including the application and supporting documentation, to affected communities, first nations, government groups, co-management boards and other interested parties for their review. • Recommendations or concerns raised will be taken into account and maybe used in drafting up the terms and conditions of a Land Use Permit or Water Licence. • No direct requirement to collect and submit TK with an application • TK is considered: • when reviewing pre-engagement summaries submitted by applicant • when submitted by reviewers (GSCI, PWNHC etc.)

6. f) Land Claim Settlement vs. Non-settled Land Claim Areas • Not an issue at GLWB

7. g) Review of Applications, Plans & Distribution (process) • Determination of completeness – see k) • Determine category of undertaking and assign file number • Determine if application is for a type A/B LUP or WL • Inform applicant of acceptance of application as complete, the file number, and whether it is type A or type B • Send application out for review • Review application materials in detail • Receive review comments • Facilitate requests for clarification, additional information, and resolution of concerns • Prepare draft LUP/WL & draft preliminary screening report & staff report

8. g) Review of Applications, Plans & Distribution (process) cont.d Plans: • Spill contingency plan is a standard requirement for LUP and WL applications and reviewed by staff and reviewers. • Waste management plan, if required, is reviewed by staff and reviewers. If the waste management plan is not part of the application, only select reviewers, i.e. EC, ENR, DFO, that indicate an interest, will be involved in the review. • Other management plans, if part of an application, are reviewed by staff and all reviewers. • Management plans are approved by the board via permit/licence approval, or approved by staff, with consideration of review comments, if submitted under term/condition. • Final plan is typically reviewed by staff and INAC, plus the landowner for activities on private lands. Approved by staff, with consideration of review comments.

9. Distribution: • Standard review agencies include: EC, DFO, INAC, ENR, ITI, PWNHC,MVLWB, MVEIRB, GTC (Land Admin), GSCI, GRRB, GLUPB • Other review agencies are determined on a case by case basis, and may include: federal/territorial agencies (i.e. NEB, MACA etc.), local governments, DGOs, RRCs, other affected and/or interested parties • Depending on the review agency and the application, applications are distributed for review via one or a combination of the following: email, email notification of application posted on GLWB website, fax transmittal, paper copy • Public Notice for type A WL application via newspaper ad • No standard distribution list at GLWB

10. h) Land Use Plans Conformity (process) • Consult land use plan to determine if the proposed activity is permitted. • Ask the Land Use Planning Board to make a determination of conformance / non-conformance. i) Security Deposits (product) • Not currently a practice at the GLWB j) Use of Questionnaires (process) • Not currently a practice at the GLWB

11. k) Deeming Applications Complete (process) • Conformity to Gwich’in land use plan • Adequate information is provided under all sections of the application form (adequate is defined on a case by case basis, i.e. a detailed record of pre-engagement activities might be required for a larger scale project and not for an application for continued quarrying operation at an existing gravel quarry etc.) – see ‘Guide to completing a Land Use Application’ and ‘Guide to completing a Water Licence Application’ for general information requirements. • Applicable fees are included • Proof of an existing access agreement for applications including private lands.

12. l) Legislation Interpretation & Application (process) • Not typically an issue at the GLWB m) Permits/Licences/Plans Formatting (product) • No standard formatting for permits/licences • No prescribed format for plans (plans are reviewed for content only) n) Access Agreement & Benefits Plan Requirement (process) • Proof of the existence of an access agreement is required for applications on private land. This is typically in the form of a letter by the Gwich’in Land Administration, confirming that an access agreement is in place. • Copy of the actual access agreement/benefits plan not required (confidential document.)

13. o) Reasons for Decision (process & product) • RFD issued in conjunction with some water licences • No standard process for preparing RFD p) Permitting in Communities/BLT (process) • The GLWB does not accept LUP applications for lands covered under the BLT q) Name Change vs. Assignment (process) • Little experience at GLWB • Currently no formal process in place • Name changes/assignments are at times made on account of ‘local knowledge’ (knowledge by local staff re name changes of local companies) and/or the result of investigations (i.e. tracing the transfer of a ‘property’-O&G- & approaching the new ‘owner’ re outstanding responsibilities) on the initiative of staff.

14. r) Expired Security Deposit (process) • No experience at GLWB s) Water Use Fee Calculation (process) • No experience at GLWB • Calculate as per section 9 Northwest Territories Waters Regulations t) Type A or B Water Licence Process for Public Hearing (process) • No experience at GLWB • Hearings scheduled to date were cancelled due to a lack of interest; notification for hearing as well as cancellation notices posted in newspaper, bulletin boards, radio & TV) • No documented official procedure for public hearings.

15. u) Water Licence Process (process) • Review – as discussed in g) • Submit preliminary screening report to ED, forward signed copy to MVEIRB • Board decision on draft licence • Issue licence and forward to licensee and INAC v) Water Licence Renewal (process) • Same as u) water licence process, plus review of existing file

16. w) Water Licence Amendment/Modification Request (process) • Little experience at GLWB • If the amendment is ‘substantial’ (i.e. large increase in volume, change in source etc.) same as w) water licence renewal, plus review of existing file • If the amendment is minor, Board will make the decision, probably with input from select reviewers. • Decision if amendment is substantial or minor would be made on a case by case basis; currently no criteria established. x) Additional Discussion on Process and Product as required • No comments