Considerations for Potential Refinements to the 2014 Draft Nunavut Land Use Plan January 2016

Considerations for Potential Refinements to the 2014 Draft Nunavut Land Use Plan January 2016 Prepared for discussion at Technical Meeting # 3 on the Draft Nunavut Land Use Plan 1

Contents 1. Walrus Haul-Outs... 3 2. Polar Bear Denning Areas... 4 3. Sabine Peninsula... 5 4. Caribou Habitat... 6 5. Migratory Bird Setbacks... 9 6. Proposed National Park in the Bluenose Lake Area... 10 7. Conservation Areas... 11 8. Heritage Rivers... 13 9. Areas of Equal Use and Occupancy... 15 10. Community Drinking Water Supply Watersheds... 16 11. DND sites... 18 12. Contaminated Sites... 21 13. IQ Incorporation including Community Priorities and Values / Areas of Interest... 22 14. Transboundary Considerations... 25 15. High Mineral Potential... 26 16. Linear Infrastructure Corridors (Terrestrial)... 28 17. Linear Infrastructure Corridors (Marine)... 30 18. Existing Rights... 34 19. Direction to Regulatory Authorities... 36 20. Cumulative Impacts Referrals... 37 21. Overlapping Designations... 39 22. Accessory Uses... 40 2

1. Walrus Haul-Outs Issue: Should walrus haul-outs be designated as Protected Areas in the NLUP? 50 Walrus Haul-outs [Special Management Area] Terms: The NPC may refer a project proposal falling within Schedule 12-1 to NIRB for screening, where the NPC has concerns respecting the cumulative impact of that project proposal in relation to other development activities in the planning region. Direction: NIRB and other regulators, where appropriate, need to mitigate impacts on walrus haul-outs. QWB GOC GOC HTOs in the Baffin region have been working with the Department of Fisheries and Ocean to develop a Walrus management plan. This has been a process that has been supported for around 7 years. These meetings have included representatives from QWB and the HTOs of Igloolik, Hall Beach, Arctic Bay, Pond Inlet, Resolute Bay and Grise Fiord. It is in these meetings that the importance and vulnerability of Walrus Haul Out sites for walruses have been made very clear. The slightest disturbance has the potential to scare walruses away from the site indefinitely. Therefore, QWB recommends that these sites be uplisted to Option 1. QWB recognizes that important sites of Foxe Basin was identified as an area of community importance. This designation should be highlighted in this section for consistency. [re Cumulative Impacts] including cumulative impact referrals as a general term throughout Table 1 appears to be redundant and may actually lead to the misinterpretation that it is only with respect to those areas already noted where, due to cumulative impact concerns, the Commission might refer a project to NIRB for screening. [re: Direction to Regulatory Authorities] First, in cases where there is sufficient and specific information to justify prohibitions or conditions, the Commission should develop appropriate restrictions, and clearly identify those land use restrictions as such. Second, where available information does not justify land-use restrictions, it may still be useful for the plan to signal specific considerations or concerns. For those situations, Canada recommends changing the wording from Direction to Regulatory Authorities to Information for Decisionmakers. 1. Consider removing the Term related to cumulative impacts and the Direction to Regulatory Authorities, and replace the walrus Special Management Areas with a Protected Area designation that would prohibit incompatible uses on land and include marine setbacks, subject to safe navigation. o Implications: Would result in several additional Protected Areas that do not cover a large geographic area. 2. Consider removing the Term related to cumulative impacts and replace the Special Management Areas with a Mixed Use designation that would provide Direction to Regulatory Authorities. o Implications: Would move the areas from Schedule A to Schedule B. All uses would be permitted. 3

2. Polar Bear Denning Areas Issue: Should polar bear denning areas be designated as Protected Areas in the NLUP? 49 Polar Bear Denning [Special Management Area] Terms: The NPC may refer a project proposal falling within Schedule 12-1 to NIRB for screening, where the NPC has concerns respecting the cumulative impact of that project proposal in relation to other development activities in the planning region. Direction: Regulators, where appropriate, need to mitigate impacts on polar bear habitat. QWB GOC GOC protecting denning sites is central to respecting the integrity of Polar Bear development. Polar Bear denning, and new cub populations are important for the current research being done on polar bear, which feed into the current polar bear management regime. All these factors combined influence QWB s recommendation that Polar Bear Denning Areas should be to list at Option 1. [re Cumulative Impacts] including cumulative impact referrals as a general term throughout Table 1 appears to be redundant and may actually lead to the misinterpretation that it is only with respect to those areas already noted where, due to cumulative impact concerns, the Commission might refer a project to NIRB for screening. [re: Direction to Regulatory Authorities] First, in cases where there is sufficient and specific information to justify prohibitions or conditions, the Commission should develop appropriate restrictions, and clearly identify those land use restrictions as such. Second, where available information does not justify land-use restrictions, it may still be useful for the plan to signal specific considerations or concerns. For those situations, Canada recommends changing the wording from Direction to Regulatory Authorities to Information for Decisionmakers. 1. Consider replacing the polar bear denning Special Management Area with a Protected Area designation. o Implications: Would result in many additional Protected Areas that cover a large geographic area. 2. Consider removing the Term related to cumulative impacts replace the Special Management Areas with a Mixed Use designation that would provide Direction to Regulatory Authorities. o Implications: Would move the areas from Schedule A to Schedule B. All uses would be permitted. 4

3. Sabine Peninsula Issue: Should the Sabine Peninsula be designated as a Protected Area in the NLUP? 44 Key Bird Habitat Site - Sabine Peninsula [Special Management Area] Terms: The NPC may refer a project proposal falling within Schedule 12-1 to NIRB for screening, where the NPC has concerns respecting the cumulative impact of that project proposal in relation to other development activities in the planning region. Direction: Regulatory Authorities, where appropriate, must incorporate the setbacks in Table 2 for coastal waterfowl and seaducks during the issuance of permits, licences and authorizations. GOC Sabine Peninsula is likely to be identified as Critical Habitat for Peary Caribou in the near future, at which time prohibitions on land use will be needed that could require amendments to the plan, if the current proposed designation is used. Recommendation The Commission could consider, for efficiency, simply designating this site as a Protected Area with appropriate prohibited uses. 1. Consider replacing the Sabine Peninsula Special Management Area with a Protected Area designation in anticipation of its identification as Critical Habitat for Peary Caribou that would prohibit incompatible uses and retain the migratory bird setbacks. o Implications: Would result in a Protected Area in a location that includes existing oil and gas Significant Discovery Licenses. 2. Consider designating Critical Habitat for Peary Caribou once the process for its identification is more advanced. o Implications: Would require a plan amendment once critical habitat is identified. Because there will likely be additional areas identified as critical habitat, a plan amendment would be required either way. 5

4. Caribou Habitat Issue: How should caribou habitat be treated in the NLUP? 47 Core Caribou Calving and post-calving areas [Protected Area] Prohibited Uses: The following uses are prohibited: Mineral exploration and production; Oil and gas exploration and production; Quarries; Hydro development; All-weather roads; and Related research 48 Core Caribou Calving and Post-Calving Areas with High Mineral Potential [Special Management Area] Terms: The NPC may refer a project proposal falling within Schedule 12-1 to NIRB for screening, where the NPC has concerns respecting the cumulative impact of that project proposal in relation to other development activities in the planning region. Direction: Regulatory Authorities, where appropriate, need to mitigate impacts on calving and post-calving areas. Sea ice crossings: Direction: Regulatory Authorities, where appropriate, need to mitigate impacts of project proposals with ship traffic on spring and fall caribou sea ice crossing. Note: Due to the volume of written submissions regarding the management of caribou habitat, full comments are not included in this document. Instead, the following general summary is provided for reference: Habitat type Parties recommending restrictions in 2012-2015 submissions 1. Calving areas The Government of Nunavut, Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, Beverly and Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board, Kivalliq Wildlife Board, Kitikmeot Wildlife Board, Qikiqtaaluk Wildlife Board, Baker Lake HTO, Aqigiq HTO, Arviat HTO, Issatik HTO, Arviq HTO, Qikiqtani Inuit Association, Athabasca Denesuline Né Né Land Corporation, Fort Smith Metis Council, Lutsel K e Dene First Nation, Northwest Territory Metis Nation, Sayisi Dene First Nation, Northlands Denesuline First Nations, GNWT Department of Environment and Natural Resources, WWF, Mining Watch Canada 2. Post-calving areas GN (seasonal), Athabasca Denesuline Né Né Land Corporation, Baker Lake HTO, Issatik HTO, Arviq HTO, BQCMB, GNWT Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Fort Smith Metis Council, Kivalliq Wildlife Board, Qikiqtaaluk Wildlife Board, Qikiqtani Inuit Association, Lutsel K e Dene First Nation, Mining Watch Canada, Northlands Denesuline First Nations, Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, Sayisi Dene First Nation, WWF 3. Key access GN, Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, Qikiqtani Inuit Association corridors 4. Fresh water Athabasca Denesuline Né Né Land Corporation, BQCMB, Baker Lake HTO, Arviat HTO crossings 5. Sea ice crossings WWF, Kitikmeot Regional Wildlife Board 6

6. Rutting areas GN (seasonal) 7. Migration corridors GN, Athabasca Denesuline Né Né Land Corporation, Baker Lake HTO, Arviq HTO (seasonal) 8. Range GN (no restrictions Mixed Use) Participant GN GN GN Comment Core-calving Areas and Key Access Corridors: Designation: Assign all core-calving areas and associated key access corridors a Protected Area land use designation where industrial development and activity are not permitted, regardless of the existence of a high mineral potential. Direction: Exceptions to these restrictions will include: 1. Research, and tourism directly related to the conservation of the species, to be considered on a project-specific basis; 2. Research, and tourism not directly related to caribou conservation, will be seasonally restricted to times when caribou have vacated the core calving areas and key access corridors. Post-calving Areas: Designation: Assign all post-calving areas a Special Management Area land use designation where seasonal restrictions on development activity apply when and where caribou are present. Direction: Seasonal restrictions apply to development activities when and where caribou are present (approximately June 15 August 1). Seasonal restrictions would apply to exploration and production projects, research and tourism unrelated to caribou conservation, and any activity with a high likelihood of disturbance to caribou when and where they are present. Assign all caribou rutting areas a Special Management Area land use designation that: - Includes a conformity requirement whereby proponents must demonstrate in their project proposal that consideration has been given to their location within a designated rutting area; - Includes direction to proponents specifying that seasonal restrictions on development activity apply when and where caribou are present (approximately Oct. 10 Nov. 10), and further specifying that the restricted activities include but are not limited to: air and vehicle traffic, loud or repetitive noise, and/or vibration disturbances. Include designated caribou rutting areas in the NLUP and O&R document, and all relevant figures, maps and tables included within these two documents. GN GN Assign caribou migration corridors a Special Management Area land use designation that: - Includes direction to proponents specifying that seasonal restrictions on development activity apply when and where caribou are present (approximately Oct. 10 Nov. 10 [Fall Migration], and April 15 June 1 [Spring migration]); - Includes a conformity requirement whereby proponents must demonstrate in their project proposal that consideration has been given to their location within a designated migration corridor, and that any linear feature proposed within a designated migration corridor will not impede the movement of caribou; - Specifies the following restricted activities when and while caribou are present (list not exhaustive): air and vehicle traffic, loud or repetitive noise, and/or vibration disturbances. Include designated caribou migration corridors in the NLUP and O&R document, and all relevant figures, maps and tables included within these two documents. Assign Seasonal Ranges a Mixed Use land use designation that: - Includes a conformity requirement whereby proponents proposing to operate within a mainland migratory caribou seasonal range must demonstrate consideration for these areas by recognizing the potential impacts of proposed activities, and identify mitigation. 7

1. Consider assigning core caribou calving areas a Protected Area designation, regardless of high mineral potential. o Implications: Would change caribou calving Special Management Areas where there is high mineral potential to Protected Areas. 2. Consider assigning caribou post-calving areas a Protected Area designation or Special Management Area, regardless of high mineral potential. o Implications: Would either change caribou post-calving Special Management Areas where there is high mineral potential to Protected Areas, or change all post-calving areas to Special Management Areas. 3. Consider assigning caribou key access corridors a Protected Area designation. o Note: all key access corridors are presently classified as being within post-calving areas. 4. Consider assigning caribou fresh water crossings a Protected Area designation. o Implications: Would result in several additional Protected Areas covering a small geographic area. 5. Consider assigning caribou sea ice crossings a Special Management Area designation o Implications: Would move sea ice crossings from Schedule B to Schedule A. 6. Consider assigning caribou rutting areas a Special Management Area designation o Implications: Would result in several additional Special Management Areas covering a large geographic area. 7. Consider assigning caribou migration corridors a Special Management Area designation o Implications: Would result in several additional Special Management Areas covering a large geographic area. 8. Consider assigning caribou range a Mixed Use designation 8

5. Migratory Bird Setbacks Issue: How should the migratory bird setbacks in Table 2 be implemented? 44 Key Bird Habitat Site - Sabine Peninsula [Special Management Area] Terms: The NPC may refer a project proposal falling within Schedule 12-1 to NIRB for screening, where the NPC has concerns respecting the cumulative impact of that project proposal in relation to other development activities in the planning region. Direction: Regulatory Authorities, where appropriate, must incorporate the setbacks in Table 2 for coastal waterfowl and seaducks during the issuance of permits, licences and authorizations. GOC Chamber of Mines 2015-06-20 setbacks required for the protection of migratory bird key habitat sites should be redefined as conditions. This could be done as follows: Condition: The Project Proposal must comply with the setbacks in Table 2 for In order for the NPC to conduct a conformity determination on whether a project proposal satisfies the setbacks in Table 2, more detailed spatial information within each key bird habitat site is required. As a general comment, mandatory setbacks may not be appropriate. Rather, the direction in the plan could be to require regulatory authorities to have regard to the setbacks set out in the Plan. While it is helpful to have guidance on potential setback distances, appropriate setback distances for the circumstances should ultimately be determined on a case by case basis. 1. Consider making the migratory bird setbacks a condition of conformity if more detailed information is provided regarding specific spatial locations within each key bird habitat site. o Implications: The NPC would determine if the setbacks are met during a conformity determination, rather than regulatory authorities. 9

6. Proposed National Park in the Bluenose Lake Area Issue: Should the Bluenose Lake area be designated as a Protected Area in the NLUP? 58 Proposed National Park - Blue Nose Lake Area [Protected Areas] Prohibited Uses: The following uses are prohibited: Mineral exploration and production; Oil and gas exploration and production; Quarries; Hydro development; All-weather roads; and Related research NTI/RIA GOC GOC The Proposed National Park Blue Nose Lake Area is contiguous area with Tuktut Nogait National Park. Our understanding is that the land withdrawal for the Blue Nose Lake Area has lapsed and that there is no proposal for a national park in the Blue Nose Lake Area. This would need to be confirmed by the Government of Canada. Regardless, there is no support from KitIA for a protected area. The DNLUP should be revised to remove the Protected Area designation for the Blue Nose Lake Area and to replace it with the Mixed Use designation. It is recommended that the Prohibited Uses for Sites # 51, 57 and 58 be modified as follows: The following uses are prohibited: Mineral exploration and production; Oil and gas exploration and production; Quarries; Hydro development; All-weather roads; and Uses of land or water for a term of more than five years, except, for greater certainty, in respect of Existing Rights; and Any use that would diminish the ecological integrity or the heritage value of the land as future park resources. During the June 2015 and July 2015 Technical Meetings on the DNLUP, GOC committed to provide additional information on the status of a proposed park in the area. A significant portion of the area has been identified as caribou post-calving habitat. 1. Consider removing the Protected Area designation and replacing it with a Mixed Use designation. Note that a portion of the area has been identified as caribou post-calving habitat by the GN. o Implications: Would remove protection for the area, but additional measures may apply in caribou post-calving habitat that occurs in the area. 2. Consider maintaining the Protected Area designation if additional information is provided by the Government of Canada on the status of the area. 10

7. Conservation Areas Issue: Should Conservation Areas be designated as Protected Areas in the NLUP? (For National Wildlife Areas, Migratory Bird Sanctuaries, Thelon Wildlife Sanctuary, and Historic Sites) Example: 75 Qaqulluit National Wildlife Area [Protected Area] Prohibited Uses: The following uses are prohibited: Mineral exploration and production; Oil and gas exploration and production; Quarries; Hydro development; All-weather roads; and Related research Direction: Regulatory Authorities, where appropriate, must incorporate the setbacks in Table 2 for northern fulmar (marine), and all seabirds (aerial and terrestrial) during the issuance of permits, licences and authorizations. NTI/RIA NTI/RIA NTI/RIA Section 3.1.2.2 Migratory Bird Sanctuaries assigns a Protected Area designation to existing Migratory Bird Sanctuaries that prohibits various uses. It is not clear how these prohibitions relate to the legislative direction under the Migratory Birds Convention Act and Regulations. Nor is it clear whether the proposed DNLUP prohibitions would interfere with the federal permitting process for Migratory Bird Sanctuaries and the implementation of the IIBA By adding new prohibitions, the DNLUP would create a competing set of rules that would add confusion and complexity to the regulatory system. The DNLUP should highlight areas that are protected through legislation and indicate that the existing restrictions as set out in legislation and regulations apply. Section 3.1.2.3 National Wildlife Areas assigns a Protected Area designation to existing National Wildlife Areas that prohibits various uses. It is unclear how these prohibitions would relate to the legislative direction under the Canada Wildlife Act and Wildlife Area Regulations. Nor is it clear whether the proposed DNLUP prohibitions would interfere with the federal regulation of National Wildlife Areas and the implementation of the IIBA By adding new prohibitions, the DNLUP would create a competing set of rules that adds confusion and complexity to the regulatory system. The DNLUP should highlight areas that are protected through legislation and indicate that the existing restrictions as set out in legislation and regulations apply. Concerns arise regarding Section 3.1.2.4 Historic Sites (National Historic Sites and Territorial Historic Sites) and the Protected Area designations that are assigned to these sites. According to Section 9.3.5 of the Nunavut Agreement, land use planning no longer applies to the Erebus and Terror National Historic Site In cases where the new Protected Area designation impacts on IOLs in the Kivalliq region there is no support for this designation at the regional level. The new Historic Site designation incurs on 34,654 hectares of IOLs in Nunavut. The vast majority of these incursions are in the Kivalliq where 30,863 hectares of surface area are impacted and 3,785 hectares of subsurface IOLs. Additionally, the Government of Canada and Government of Nunavut should indicate their views on the impact of the Protected Area designation on the management of these sites as we understand to date the government focus has been on commemoration of the sites and not protection. Obligations to conclude Inuit Impact Benefit Agreements are outstanding with respect to Historic Sites, which is a concern to Inuit organizations. 11

GOC It is recommended that the following be provided in respect of all MBSs and NWAs: Notwithstanding any prohibition or condition in the Plan, land uses connected with activities that are permitted or may be permitted pursuant to the Migratory Bird Sanctuary Regulations or the Wildlife Area Regulations and are conducted under Articles 4 and 5 of the Inuit Impact and Benefit Agreement for National Wildlife Areas and Migratory Bird Sanctuaries in the Nunavut Settlement Area, as this agreement may be amended from time to time, conform to the Plan. 1. Consider removing the Protected Area designation and creating a new Conservation Area designation that notes the appropriate regulations that apply and does not include prohibited uses or terms. o Implications: All project proposals would conform to the NLUP in these areas, but would be subject to existing regulations. 2. Consider maintaining the Protected Area designation, but developing a list of prohibited uses that are consistent with regulations. o Implications: Project proposals that are inconsistent with existing regulations would be prohibited by the NLUP. Would require additional consideration to translate regulations into specific land uses. 3. Consider maintaining the Protected Area designation, recognizing that NLUP may impose prohibitions that exceed standards and protections provided by regulations. 12

8. Heritage Rivers Issue: How should Heritage Rivers be designated in the NLUP? 87 Soper Canadian Heritage River Management Area [Protected Area] 88 89 Prohibited Uses: Kazan Heritage River Thelon Heritage River The following uses are prohibited: Mineral exploration and production; Oil and gas exploration and production; Quarries; Hydro development; All-weather roads; and Related research [Special Management Area] Terms: The NPC may refer a project proposal falling within Schedule 12-1 to NIRB for screening, where the NPC has concerns respecting the cumulative impact of that project proposal in relation to other development activities in the planning region. Direction: The NWB, where appropriate, needs to mitigate the impacts of the following project proposals on the waters flowing into the heritage river to ensure that the integrity of the river system is maintained: Mineral exploration and production; Oil and gas exploration and production; Quarries; Hydro development; All-weather roads; and Related research GN BQCMB KivIA GOC Include the Coppermine River as a nominated Canadian Heritage River in the DNLUP and O&R document, and all relevant figures, maps and tables included within these two documents. Shapefiles are available upon request. Assign Option 2 - Special Management Area land use designation to the Coppermine Heritage River to support the conservation and management objectives outlined in the Coppermine River Management Plan. The Thelon and Kazan Heritage Rivers have been formally recognized as providers of many important water crossings for caribou through their heritage river designation, however, this value is not recognized in the DNLUP. - The Thelon and Kazan Heritage Rivers are designated as SMA with direction to the NWB to mitigate the impacts of specified project proposals to ensure that the integrity of the river system is maintained, with no terms to guide land use to protect caribou habitat. - The BQCMB suggests that one of the following options should be chosen to ensure that the integrity of the key caribou crossings on these rivers is maintained: i) apply PA designation and prohibit the specified project proposals; or ii) apply SMA designation and provide direction to the NIRB to mitigate impacts on caribou crossings. it is recommended that the NLUP incorporate existing information contained in the Heritage River Management Plans where relevant. This should be used to provide projects and regulatory bodies with direction and ensure a level of protection consistent with the goals of the Canadian Heritage Rivers System conservation program. [re Cumulative Impacts] 13

including cumulative impact referrals as a general term throughout Table 1 appears to be redundant and may actually lead to the misinterpretation that it is only with respect to those areas already noted where, due to cumulative impact concerns, the Commission might refer a project to NIRB for screening. GOC [re: Direction to Regulatory Authorities] First, in cases where there is sufficient and specific information to justify prohibitions or conditions, the Commission should develop appropriate restrictions, and clearly identify those land use restrictions as such. Second, where available information does not justify land-use restrictions, it may still be useful for the plan to signal specific considerations or concerns. For those situations, Canada recommends changing the wording from Direction to Regulatory Authorities to Information for Decisionmakers. 1. Consider removing the Term regarding cumulative impacts referrals. o Implications: Would replace the Special Management Areas with a Mixed Use designation that would provide Direction to Regulatory Authorities. All uses would be permitted. 2. Consider developing NLUP Special Management Areas designations to support the Heritage River Management Plans. Given that the management plans generally do not provide specific land use recommendations, consider including setbacks from the rivers that would be eligible for minor variances. 3. Consider including the Coppermine River as a nominated Canadian Heritage River. 14

9. Areas of Equal Use and Occupancy Issue: Should Areas of Equal Use and Occupancy be designated as a Protected Areas in the NLUP? 96 Areas of Equal Use and Occupancy [Protected Area] Prohibited Uses: Makivik 2015-06-17 NTI/RIA The following uses are prohibited: Mineral exploration and production; Oil and gas exploration and production; Quarries; Hydro development; All-weather roads; and Related research it is our position, one which NTI may well share, that the current designation of Protected Area may prejudice the rights of Nunavik Inuit to these overlap areas in that it could diminish the value of the land by severely limiting potential future alternate uses including economic development Furthermore, we feel that there may have been a misunderstanding in the definition and limitations of Protected Areas during the community consultations in 2013. Makivik will be consulting with NTI and the Qikiktani Inuit Association in regards to this matter and will be refining its position based on the outcomes of these discussions. Section 4.1.4 Areas of Equal Use and Occupancy assigns areas under joint ownership by QIA, NTI and Makivik Corporation a Protected Area designation. The proposed Protected Area designation incurs on 183,110 hectares of land held by QIA and NTI. QIA and NTI did not request that NPC place these lands under a Protected Area designation and it is not clear that communities requested that these lands be placed in a protected area designation. A letter from the NPC to QIA and NTI in 2013 suggests that communities had questions regarding the development of the islands and revenue sharing. We are aware that the Makivik Corporation has recently corresponded with NPC expressing concerns regarding the limitations created by the Protected Area designation, and about misunderstandings during the community consultations. NTI and QIA share these concerns and will be providing further comments to NPC on this designation. 1. [Potential refinements pending further input from Makivik and NTI] 15

10. Community Drinking Water Supply Watersheds Issue: Should the DNLUP include additional conditions for the protection of Community Drinking Water Supply Watersheds? 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 Community Water Source Watershed Pangnirtung Community Water Source Watershed - Grise Fiord Community Water Source Watershed - Coral Harbour Community Water Source Watershed Arviat Community Water Source Watershed - Repulse Bay Community Water Source Watershed - Chesterfield Inlet Community Water Source Watershed Kugaaruk Community Water Source Watershed - Arctic Bay Community Water Source Watershed - Pond Inlet Community Water Source Watershed Kugluktuk Community Water Source Watershed - Baker Lake [Special Management Areas] Terms: The NPC may refer a project proposal falling within Schedule 12-1 to NIRB for screening, where the NPC has concerns respecting the cumulative impact of that project proposal in relation to other development activities in the planning region. Direction: The NWB, where appropriate, needs to mitigate impacts on community water drinking supplies to ensure that the integrity of the drinking water is maintained. GOC NTI KivIA [re Cumulative Impacts] including cumulative impact referrals as a general term throughout Table 1 appears to be redundant and may actually lead to the misinterpretation that it is only with respect to those areas already noted where, due to cumulative impact concerns, the Commission might refer a project to NIRB for screening. Section 4.4.1.2 Community Drinking Water Supplies outside of Municipal Boundaries assigns a Special Management Area designation to these areas. There are concerns that the Special Management Area designation for Community Water Source Watersheds does not provide enough protection to community drinking water supplies. A preliminary review of the Special Management Areas indicates that not all inputs into watersheds have been considered. Accordingly, we ask the NPC to provide the scientific basis for watershed boundaries generally and for not creating Special Management Areas for the communities of Gjoa Haven, Iqaluit, Igloolik and Clyde River. Additionally, there are concerns that where community water sources are adjacent or overlap with areas of High Mineral Potential that direction should be provided to ensure that water quality standards are applied for water entering Community Water Source Watersheds. The NLUP does not consider all inputs into watersheds providing the communities with freshwater. No scientific basis is provided in the NLUP to indicate if the community source water watershed land use designations are sufficient to ensure community drinking water supplies are adequately protected. The NLUP should consider and include discussion on: appropriate intake protection zones for each community, minimum water quality standards for water entering Community Source Water Watersheds o This should include guidance to the NWB similar to that used for Land Use Designations 88 and 89. This could read: The NWB, where appropriate, needs to mitigate the impacts of the following project proposals on waters flowing into the 16

Community Source Water Watersheds to ensure the integrity of the drinking water supply is maintained: Mineral exploration and production; Oil and gas exploration and production; Quarries; Hydro development; All-weather roads; and Related research. rationale for why some communities have Community Source Water Watershed Special Management Areas while others do not, If this recommendation does not alleviate concern for communities currently not specifically protected under the Draft NLUP, Community Source Water Watershed Special Management Areas should be established to ensure long term protection of the drinking water supply from resource related exploration activities and development activities within the sub-watersheds of all Nunavut communities. 1. Consider removing the Term related to cumulative impacts. o Implications: Would replace the Special Management Areas with a Mixed Use designation that would provide Direction to Regulatory Authorities. All uses would be permitted. 2. Consider developing general conditions that would provide protection for community drinking water supplies. Would need to identify appropriate conditions for land uses, and/or identify incompatible uses that should be prohibited. 3. Planning partners may consider committing to a process to develop specific, potentially quantitative water quality/quantity conditions for community watersheds, for inclusion in NLUP in the future through plan amendment. 17

11. DND sites Issue: How should DND sites be treated in the NLUP? Includes Remediation sites, Contaminated sites, NWS sites, and other establishments 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 PIN-4 Byron Bay Distant Early Warning System Site Land Remediation CAM-5 Mackar Inlet Distant Early Warning System Site Land Remediation [Special Management Areas] Prohibited Uses: All uses are prohibited except Government of Canada activities and activities associated with the remediation and monitoring of the sites. PIN-C Bernard Harbour Contaminated Site FOX-D Kivitoo Contaminated Site CAM-C Matheson Point Contaminated Site FOX-E Durban Island Contaminated Site CAM-E Keith Bay land Contaminated Site ROBERTS BAY MINE Contaminated Site PIN D - ROSS POINT Contaminated Site PIN B - CLIFTON POINT Contaminated Site CAM F - SARCPA LAKE Tier II Contaminated Site CAM F - SARCPA LAKE Non-haz Contaminated Site FOX C - EKALUGAD FIORD Contaminated Site CAPE DORSET 2 (NOTTINGHAM IS.) Contaminated Site PADLOPING ISLAND Contaminated Site ENNADAI LAKE Contaminated Site Prohibited Uses: All uses are prohibited except remediation and monitoring of the sites. Canadian Armed Forces Station Alert DND Establishment - Fort Eureka Nanisivik Naval Site High Arctic Data Communication System - Blacktop Ridge High Arctic Data Communication System Yankee High Arctic Data Communication System Whiskey High Arctic Data Communication System Grant Prohibited Uses: All uses are prohibited except Government of Canada activities. [Special Management Areas] [Special Management Areas] 18

137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 BAF-2 Cape Mercy North Warning System Site BAF-3 Brevoort Island North Warning System Site BAF-4A Loks Land North Warning System Site BAF-5 Resolution Island North Warning System Site CAM-1A Jenny Lind Island North Warning System Site CAM-2 Gladman Point North Warning System Site CAM-3 Shepherd Bay North Warning System Site CAM-4 Pelly Bay North Warning System Site CAM-5A Cape McLoughlin North Warning System Site CAM-A3A Sturt Point North North Warning System Site CAM-B Hat Island North Warning System Site CAM-CB Gjoa Haven North Warning System CAM-D Simpson Lake North Warning System Site CAM-FA Lailor River North Warning System Site CAM-M Cambridge Bay North Warning System Site DYE-M Cape Dyer North Warning System Site FOX-1 Rowley Island North Warning System Site FOX-2 Longstaff Bluff North Warning System Site FOX-3 Dewar Lakes North Warning System Site FOX-4 Cape Hooper North Warning System Site FOX-5 Broughton Island North Warning System Site FOX-A Bray Island North Warning System Site FOX-B Nadluardjuk Lake North Warning System Site FOX-CA Langok Fiord North Warning System Site FOX-M Hall Beach North Warning System Site PIN-1BG Croker River North Warning System Site PIN-2A Harding River North Warning System Site PIN-3 Lady Franklin Point North Warning System Site PIN-DA Edinburgh Island North Warning System Site PIN-EB Cape Peel West North Warning System Site [Special Management Areas] Prohibited Uses: All uses are prohibited except Government of Canada activities and activities associated with the remediation and monitoring of the sites. DND 2015-05-08 DND 2015-05-08 The first finding centres upon the definition of Special Management Areas (SMAs) in the current draft Nunavut LUP in that the current definition is somewhat rigid and prohibitive towards any development occurring in the SMAs. At no time did DND intend to prohibit all development from occurring. The intent was to ensure that development, prior to NPC approval, gave consideration to DND and its need to protect against development contrary to its mandate and mission. The Real Property Management Areas provided to the NPC by DND were defined as follows: 1. Radome Setback Zones - established to minimize the impact of electromagnetic interference upon its facilities. The setback around the radar towers has been set at a distance of 8 km. 2. Aerodrome Safety Zones -established around DND airfields and landing pads to ensure the continued safe operation of aircraft. The radii have been set at 4 km, 2.5 km and 1 km intervals applicable to runway, helipad and refuel points respectively. DND will agree to redefine those lands currently termed as SMAs in order to displace the restrictions on development. However, DND requires that the above zones remain in effect and remain part of the Nunavut LUP. Moving forward, it is important that DND remain a stakeholder in the management of Real Property and in its care and direction for the territory. The second finding is regarding the Joint Seismic Research Facility (JSRF) located in Cambridge Bay, Nunavut and its absence from the draft Nunavut LUP. 19

GOC DND requires that these lands be secured in order to uphold the provisions of the International Agreement that Canada has entered into with the United States of America. As such the JSRF and its reserve, Reserve 1853, will need to be incorporated and recognized in the draft Nunavut LUP. In doing so, the ongoing obligations of the Federal Government can be recognized and upheld. It is recommended that, for Special Management Areas # 130-136 and 137-166, the following condition be added: It is a condition of conformity with the Plan that proponents demonstrate that the Department of National Defence has been notified of the Project Proposal, in order to ensure that development and activities near these sites do not negatively impact the ongoing operations of the sites. 1. Consider removing prohibitions and including setbacks from existing infrastructure that would be identified as being eligible for minor variance in order to allow DND to provide input. o If the prohibitions are treated as setbacks that are eligible for a Minor Variance, when a project proposal was received within an identified area, a minor variance process could be initiated that would allow for input during the consideration of the proposal. This would allow DND to provide input to determine if the use would interfere with existing infrastructure. 2. Consider adding the JSRF to the DNLUP. Pending further input from DND/INAC. o Implications: Would result in a Special Management Area within a municipal boundary. 20

12. Contaminated Sites Issue: How should contaminated sites be treated in the NLUP once they are remediated? 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 PIN-C Bernard Harbour Contaminated Site FOX-D Kivitoo Contaminated Site CAM-C Matheson Point Contaminated Site FOX-E Durban Island Contaminated Site CAM-E Keith Bay land Contaminated Site ROBERTS BAY MINE Contaminated Site PIN D - ROSS POINT Contaminated Site PIN B - CLIFTON POINT Contaminated Site CAM F - SARCPA LAKE Tier II Contaminated Site CAM F - SARCPA LAKE Non-haz Contaminated Site FOX C - EKALUGAD FIORD Contaminated Site CAPE DORSET 2 (NOTTINGHAM IS.) Contaminated Site PADLOPING ISLAND Contaminated Site ENNADAI LAKE Contaminated Site Prohibited Uses: All uses are prohibited except remediation and monitoring of the sites. [Special Management Areas] GOC Section 4.4.3 (Contaminated Sites) should reflect the Northern Contaminated Sites Program s open use of land intent, and clearly state that remediated sites even though still listed as contaminated sites would be open to future uses, with use restrictions only on landfills, i.e. prohibition of direct drilling, camps or large landing pads. These changes should be reflected in Table 1. 1. Consider removing prohibitions and including setbacks from contaminated sites that would be identified as being eligible for minor variance as a way to revise the management of contaminated sites in the DNLUP once they are remediated. o Implications: In general, changing the provisions of the plan would require a plan amendment once a site is remediated. However, if the prohibitions are treated as setbacks, they could be identified in the NLUP as being eligible for a Minor Variance once the site is remediated. If a project proposal was received within an identified area, a minor variance process could be initiated that would allow for input during the consideration of the proposal. The plan could then be updated during a periodic review to reflect the remediation and remove the need for a variance. 21

13. IQ Incorporation including Community Priorities and Values / Areas of Interest Issue: How should the DNLUP reflect community priorities and values and community areas of interest? During consultations, communities identified numerous priorities and values that have been taken into account in all areas considered in this plan. The Commission believes that further consideration of these priorities and values in the regulatory process will enhance decision making and support communities. Direction is given to regulatory authorities, where appropriate, to mitigate impacts on the priorities and values identified by communities. [See Table 3 and 4] Direction is given to regulatory authorities to mitigate impacts on community land use. [See Table 5] 90 Community Area of Interest - Hiukitak River [Protected Area] 95 Prohibited Uses: The following uses are prohibited: Mineral exploration and production; Oil and gas exploration and production; Quarries; Hydro development; All-weather roads; and Related research 91 Community Area of Interest - Duke of York Bay [Protected Area] Prohibited Uses: The following uses are prohibited: Mineral exploration and production; Oil and gas exploration and production; Hydro development; and Related research 92 93 Community Area of Interest - Foxe Basin Community Area of Interest - Moffett Inlet [Protected Area] Prohibited Uses: The following uses are prohibited: Mineral exploration and production; Oil and gas exploration and production; Commercial shipping; Cruise ships; Hydro development; and Related research 94 95 Community Area of Interest - Nettilling Lake Community Area of Interest - Walrus Island [Protected Area] Oceans North Oceans North suggests that community-based planning be upheld in the new process and that past community input be incorporated. This includes public planning discussions that occur outside of NPC processes. In developing its position regarding the Lancaster Sound NMCA, the Qikiqtani Inuit Association conducted extensive consultations with High Arctic communities regarding present day perspectives on regional land use. These views should be incorporated in the current process. 22

Oceans North GN NTI, QIA Arviq (Naujaat) HTO 2015-10-20 Arviq (Naujaat) HTO 2015-10-20 Aqigiq HTO 2015-09-18 KWB Applicable information in NBRLUP needs to be carried forward to DNLUP, particularly essential areas, important areas, and marginal areas. State in the DNLUP and O&R document the methodology used by the NPC to analyze and incorporate community priorities and values to inform the Plan and land use designations. Seeking better description of how IQ and community input used to inform the NLUP. Community Land Use Area The Arviq HTO recommends the major area of community land use be designated as a protected area. The HTO recommends mining, mineral exploration activity, and oil/gas activity be banned in this area, for the following reasons: This entire area is used for caribou hunting by hunters from Naujaat. Caribou hunting is very important economically to our community, both for local consumption and for sale of caribou meat to Qikiqtani Inuit. Caribou are present in different parts of this area throughout the year. Caribou migrate through different parts of this area in different seasons. Caribou give birth and feed their calves throughout this area. Naujaat is surrounded by caribou calving and post calving grounds. Our hunters have observed the impacts of mineral exploration on caribou. We have had our hunting disturbed by low-flying helicopters that scared away the caribou we were carefully pursuing. Most of the lakes and rivers in this area contain fish. The rivers and streams are important spawning grounds for char. All the lakes that do not freeze to the bottom in the winter contain fish (land locked char, lake trout, and whitefish). Fishing from these lakes and rivers is a very important source of food for our community. Our community would also like to develop a local commercial fishery in the future. This entire area has many heritage sites (including tent rings, graves, and sod houses). We do not want these important heritage resources disturbed. This is consistent with the information the Nunavut Planning Commission (NPC) gathered during its community visit to Naujaat, contained in the NPC s community visit report. A map of the community land use area recommended for protection is included in Appendix A. Community Marine Use Area The Arviq HTO recommends the major area of community marine use be designated as a protected area. The HTO recommends offshore oil/gas activity (including seismic surveys) and ice-breaking shipping be banned in this area, for the following reasons: This entire area is used for hunting seals, walrus, narwhal, beluga whale, and bowhead whales. Marine mammals are a very important source of food for our community. Marine mammals are present in different parts of this area throughout the year. This area contains a lot of char. Char fishing in this area is a very important source of food for our community. Our community would also like to see a local commercial fishery in our community in the future. This area contains clams and mussels, which our community harvests for food. This area contains smaller animals (krill and phytoplankton) which are the basis of the entire food-chain. If these animals were harmed by an oil spill, it would harm all the larger fish and mammals Inuit eat. This is consistent with the information the NPC gathered during its community visit to Naujaat, contained in the NPC s community visit report. A map of the community marine use area recommended for protection is included in Appendix B. Community Areas of Interest There are many areas of importance to our community that require special management. Our community is still greatly dependent on traditional harvest, and our hunters travel and harvest over vast areas of land, water, and sea ice. We need a land use plan that will protect essential harvesting areas and essential wildlife habitat. We request the NPC commit to conducting extensive and thorough community mapping and planning workshops in the future. These mapping workshops should be used to amend the land use plan, to give our community the protection we deserve. WHEREAS the Arviat Hunters and Trappers Organization has requested selected water crossings be 23

2015-10-28 designated protected areas, due to their ecological, harvesting, and heritage values; WHEREAS the Arviq Hunters and Trappers Organization has requested their core land use and marine use areas be designated protected areas, due to their ecological, heritage, and harvesting values; THEREFORE be it resolved That the KWB recommends the Nunavut Planning Commission designate these areas of community interest protected areas under the Nunavut Land Use Plan [Additional comments regarding the impacts of icebreaking on community travel routes and harvesting activities in Section 17. Linear Infrastructure Corridors (Marine)] 1. Consider including additional Community Areas of Interest as Protected Areas. 2. Consider including specific land use conditions regarding Community Priorities and Values. 3. Consider including better definitions for IQ and statements on Inuit values in the DNLUP. Also consider including in the O&R document a section detailing how past consultations have contributed to the DNLUP, especially Table 1, and Schedules A and B. 4. Consider including a requirement in the DNLUP for all land users to agree to a Code of Good Conduct, similar to that in the NBRLUP and KRLUP. 24