Post-Hearing Question Responses Phase 2 Proposal – Mary River Project

Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation Mary River Project NIRB File No. 08MN053

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Nunavut Impact Review Board ...... 3

The Qikiqtani Inuit Association ...... 18

Hamlet of Pond Inlet ...... 30

Mittimatalik Hunters and Trappers Organization ...... 31

Sanirajak ...... 62

Clyde River ...... 64

Government of Nunavut ...... 67

Government of Canada ...... 69

Oceans North...... 76

Nunavut Independent Television Network ...... 82

Question Form Responses ...... 83

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

Appendix 1 Nunavut Impact Review Board IR Attachments NIRB-1 Attachment 1: Mary River Ore Content Analysis NIRB-10 Attachment 1: Full Response NIRB-75 Attachment 1: Icebreaking Impacts on Ringed Seal NIRB-79 Attachment 1: A summary of key monitoring-related feedback/suggestions provided to Baffinland by the Working Groups since 2018 NIRB-79 Attachment 2: Overview of what Baffinland has proposed with respect to the roles of the Inuit Committee and the Environmental Working Groups will have in the monitoring and adaptive management oversight framework for Phase

Appendix 2 The Qikiqtani Inuit Association IR Attachments QIA-1 Attachment 1: Figure QIA-8 Attachment 1: Reference List QIA-9 Attachment 1: Ringed Seal Moulting QIA 26 Attachment 1: North Railway – Rail Car Covers

Appendix 3 Hamlet of Pond Inlet IR Attachments HPI-5 Attachment 1: Full Response

Appendix 4 Mittimatalik Hunters and Trappers Organization IR Attachments MHTO-2 Attachment 1: Rail Presentation MHTO-5 Attachment 1: Rail Car Covering MHTO-8 Attachment 1: Full Response MHTO-12 Attachment 1: Memo on Snow Sampling

March 2021 1

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal

MHTO-18 Attachment 1: List of References MHTO-18 Attachment 2: Pond Inlet Engagement Summary MHTO-18 Attachment 3: IQ Considered in Ringed Seal Assessment MHTO-18 Attachment 4: Summary of IQ Considered in the Ringed Seal Assessment MHTO-21 Attachment 1: Description of the Initial OITRs Proposed by Baffinland MHTO-26 Attachment 1: A List of a Scientific Studies for which the Findings are Consistent with the Impact Predictions Made for Narwhal MHTO-26 Attachment 2: additional information MHTO-28 Attachment 1: Response to Question 4

Appendix 5 Sanirajak IR Attachments There are no attachments identified for this group of responses, at this time

Appendix 6 Clyde River IR Attachments CR-5 Attachment 1: Golder Review of Paper on Cortisol Levels in Narwhal

Appendix 7 Government of Nunavut IR Attachments There are no attachments identified for this group of responses, at this time

Appendix 8 Government of Canada IR Attachments GoC-4 Attachment 1: AIS Response Protocol GOC-6 Attachment 1: Store Hellefiskebank Anchoring

Appendix 9 Oceans North IR Attachments There are no attachments identified for this group of responses, at this time

Appendix 10 NIVT IR Attachments There are no attachments identified for this group of responses, at this time

Appendix 11 Questions IR Attachments

Appendix 12 TARPs and Toolkits, AMP

March 2021 2

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Nunavut Impact Review Board

NUNAVUT IMPACT REVIEW BOARD

ID # Question Response Attachment NIRB-1 Through the Board’s assessment process parties and community members have raised Yes, a sample of ore will be brought to the April Hearings in Iqaluit. The sample will be accompanied by a colour printed pie chart NIRB-1 Attachment 1: Mary concerns regarding heavy metals concentrations in the ore. Is it possible to bring samples (Appendix 1). River Ore Content Analysis

and an analysis of their content for participants to view? Attachment 1 provides detail of the chemistry components of the ore from Deposit 1 at Mary River Mine, based on analysis of over 9,500 ore samples. Iron, silicon, magnesium and aluminum are the major components of the ore, and there are also a number of minor salts and elements, as well as some trace contaminants, which include some metals such as arsenic, cadmium, chromium and lead. These trace contaminants are present at very low concentrations and include some of the metals that the community has expressed concerns about. The presence of these trace contaminants in dustfall from operations was assessed in the country foods risk assessment, which concluded that Project-related risks related to consumption of country foods were negligible. NIRB-2 What is the pool of eligible Inuit available for hire, what kind of accreditation does 1. Pool of Eligible Inuit for Hire Baffinland require, and how long would it take to get the required accreditation(s)? There were approximately 10,500 Inuit living in the Local Study Area (LSA) communities of Arctic Bay, Clyde River, Sanirajak, Igloolik, Pond Inlet, and Iqaluit in 2017 at the time Baffinland completed its Phase 2 labour market analysis. However, not all of these people would be considered “available for hire”. Subtracting those aged 18 and under and those 60 and over reduces the number to approximately 5,700.

Taking into account key factors such as ability, accreditation required, current employment status and the desire of individuals to seek work at a mine, Baffinland’s estimate is that the pool of available, ready and able Inuit labour in the LSA communities is approximately 2,200.

Moving forward, Baffinland looked at how this pool of Inuit labour might change over the course of the next 20 years. Considering annual increases as a result of new graduates that could be boosted by an improving graduation rate, Baffinland estimated the pool of ready, able, and willing Inuit labour supply could grow to approximately 3,000 over this time frame. This growth in the number of potential new hires gives Baffinland confidence that it will increase the number of Inuit working at the Project, and importantly, the number of Inuit working at the Project in jobs that are classified as Level C or higher. Baffinland’s commitments in the Mary River Project Inuit Impact and Benefit Agreement (IIBA) and the Inuit Certainty Agreement will aim to attract more Inuit into Project employment over time. Further, Baffinland’s commitments in the Mary River Project Inuit Impact and Benefit Agreement (IIBA) and the Inuit Certainty Agreement will aim to attract more Inuit into Project employment over time. More information can be found in Technical Supporting Document (TSD) 26 Labour Market Analysis, NIRB 320570, describes the Phase 2 Proposal’s labour demands and future labour supply conditions of the North Baffin communities.

2. Accreditation Required and Time Required to Obtain Accreditation Qualifications are related to the work to be performed. Skills acquired on the job at each level can help contribute to accreditation required for promotion, if individuals have interest and ability. Jobs classified as Level D do not necessarily require any accreditation. The skills needed to perform the required tasks will be taught on-the-job, with an emphasis on safety. Level C occupations usually require secondary school and/or occupation-specific training. This level includes jobs such as heavy equipment operators, administrative support, scheduling jobs, and occupations in food and beverage services. Some of the training takes place at site, but successful applicants will have typically completed a technical training course, often delivered through a college or other post-secondary institution. Training timeframes vary, but qualifications for many Level C jobs can be obtained from courses that span a few months up to 1 or 2 years. After that, on-the-job training and experience can result in promotion into higher paying jobs within this job classification, often within the field already chosen. Examples include promotions to bigger or more complex machinery, or more responsibilities and/or a higher status within the kitchen staff. Level B and higher occupations are jobs that usually require apprenticeship training or college/university education. This level includes industrial trades, supervisors, technical occupations, managers, and professional occupations. This category also includes Level O jobs, which are defined as all management-level employment. Timelines associated with the skill sets required for these jobs

March 2021 3

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Nunavut Impact Review Board

ID # Question Response Attachment typically range from 1 to 2 years for College Diplomas to 4 to 6 years for university and graduate degrees and/or completing an Apprenticeship program. Jobs in this category are like all others in that they too require on-the-job training, and these employees are also provided training in safety, orientation, and cultural training. And, like other jobs at the Project, promotion within this job classification is based on experience and job performance, and can be enhanced through further education and training. NIRB-3 Considering QIA’s clarifying question on the changing number of ships required to 1. Summary of 2019 Historical Shipping Data transport 12 mtpa of ore and Oceans North’s intervention presentation on how the In 2019, 5,861,277 metric tonnes (mt) of iron ore was shipped with 81 vessels, for an average mt per vessel of 72,361. The number of ore carrying ships required was calculated, Baffinland is asked to provide a range of vessel sizes used spanned between Supramax and Kamsarmax, with the smallest load carrying 53,856 mt and the calculation of the number of ore carrying ships they expect will be required to transport highest 80,627 mt, respectively. 12 mtpa based on 2019 historical shipping data (i.e. assuming proportional number of 2. Application of 2019 Historical Shipping Data to 12 Mtpa ships by size and average capacity for ore carried in 2019), with an explanation of the Based on the 2019 shipping data and assuming a proportional number of ships by size and average capacity for ore, 166 difference between Baffinland’s submission that 176 ore carrying ships are required to vessels would be required to ship 12 Mt using the average mt per vessel in 2019. ship 12 mtpa and the number of ore carrying ships calculated on the basis of the 3. Why has Baffinland requested up to 176 Ore Carrying Ships to ship 12 Mtpa? historical shipping data. It should be understood that the same configuration of vessels available on the market in 2019 may not be available to Baffinland in future years – larger or smaller market vessel availability would change these numbers significantly. The 176 vessels in the Phase 2 assessment accounts for the possibility that as we exhaust the market availability of vessels available to the Project, the average size will likely get smaller, not larger (i.e. a greater proportion of Supramax/Ultramax). The additional 10 vessels forecast above what would be required using 2019's average mt has always been a contingency. While Baffinland has designed the second ore dock to be able to load cape size vessels, and has every intention of using the largest vessels possible to reduce the number of ship transits, availability of larger vessels on the market cannot be guaranteed. Further, Baffinland used the conservative (but reasonable) estimate of 176 ore carrying ships in order to form the basis for its conservative assessment. NIRB-4 "Under the existing term and condition 125(a) of the Project Certificate, Baffinland must 1. Baffinland undertook an analysis of five different potential anchoring locations within the local study area, including Eskimo demonstrate how it is preventing or mitigating vessel interference with marine mammals Inlet, South Bylot, Erik Harbour, the entrance to Baffin Bay and Guys Bite. and traditional hunting activities. The Board has heard from Intervenors and community The following criteria were used in the analysis: members about concerns that vessels anchoring/drifting in the Ragged Island area is • Is within reasonable close proximity to the Milne Port interfering with traditional hunting activities. • Where depth is no greater than 100m 1. What alternatives to anchoring in this location have been considered by Baffinland? • Where width allows for safe maneuverability 2. Has the Guy’s Bite area been further considered as an alternative? Why or why • That provides refuge during weather events not?" • Allows for 3 vessels to be safely anchored at the same • Is not considered to be of heightened ecological importance (e.g. Koluktoo Bay or Tremblay Sound). Based on these criteria, no other suitable anchoring locations have been identified other than Ragged Island. A preferable alternative would be Koluktoo Bay as it meets many of the technical criteria but is not considered suitable from a community perspective. Baffinland has adapted its practices to anchoring/drifting in the Ragged Island area based on what we had been hearing in community meetings. Baffinland remains open to working with Pond Inlet on exploring feasible alternatives or modifying current practices further for anchoring at Ragged Island to minimize interference of shipping on land users. 2. Yes, Guy’s Bite has been considered. Upon investigation it was determined that although Guys Bite appears to potentially have suitable depths for anchorage, existing nautical charts are not detailed enough to confirm the feasibility of safe anchorage in this area. From an operations perspective, anchoring from this location would also present disruptions to the loading sequence given the considerable distance to Milne Port (~120 nautical miles). This would be exacerbated in the shoulder season when transit restrictions apply. For all of these reasons it was determined that Guys Bite is not suitable for anchorage. Baffinland’s 2020 Marine Shipping and Vessel Management Report to the NIRB (NIRB Registry No. 330789) provides more detail on the above.

March 2021 4

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Nunavut Impact Review Board

ID # Question Response Attachment NIRB-5 Provide a summary of the consultation with the affected communities, HTOs and other The caribou decision framework for the Phase 2 Project rail evolved from past consultation efforts with communities (e.g., 2008 and northern mining companies on development of the Caribou decision framework for the beyond). We heard key insights such as “let the leaders pass” and suggestions that if caribou want to go somewhere, they will go there. operation of the northern railway. Based on that information and knowledge shared that caribou will cross infrastructure, the caribou decision framework was initially developed for the Tote Road based on those observations and the practicalities of truck driver observations and abilities for observing hazards on and near the road. The caribou decision framework for the Tote Road was agreed upon with QIA and was included in the Terrestrial Environment Monitoring and Management Plan (TEMMP). Consultation on the caribou decision framework related to Phase 2 and the North Railway is based on information shared among attendees in the risk workshops (ERM 2019). Communities and hunters were invited and represented at those workshops. This information informed how we adapted the framework from the road. Principally the main change was that the distances of caribou from the tracks was increased to accommodate a slower response time of the train. The other aspects of information gathered in those workshops were considered adequately represented in the remaining parts of the framework. No other mines were consulted specifically on this framework as developed, but we did have a representative from Agnico Eagle speak to linear infrastructure impacts and monitoring at the 2019 crossing workshop held at the Mine Site. Baffinland’s wildlife experts are very familiar with the caribou decision frameworks and mitigation measures in place at other mine operations in Nunavut (including Doris North, Meliadine, Whale Tail, Back River, and Meadowbank) and which are all publicly available via the NIRB registry. Baffinland’s experts took into consideration the mitigations in place at other mines as well as publicly available monitoring results in developing the updated decision framework and in considering ongoing enhancements. Baffinland has contracted a rail company that is aware of the decision framework and understands the implications on the operations. Finally, this framework was reviewed and discussed at a January 2020 workshop held at the Mine Site with representatives from all the communities, the QIA and the GN where both the road and rail decision frameworks were presented. No comments on the framework itself led to required changes. In summary, Baffinland has incorporated all of the information that it has acquired through our various consultations on the current version of the caribou decision framework. Noting that if approved, the northern railway will not be fully operational for at least two years, Baffinland anticipates that consultation on railway caribou mitigations will continue in the interim and we will continue working on adjustments if any are brought up through our construction monitoring programs or the Inuit Stewardship Plan under QIA. NIRB-6 a) Provide a comparison of the mitigative/precautionary railway design features a) The following paragraph explains why there are differences between the proposed design of the South and North Railways for the approved southern railway and the proposed northern railway, including (Table 1). slope gradient with explanations for the differences in design assumptions. Table 1 – South Railway vs. North Railway Design Parameters b) Describe Baffinland’s level of uncertainty of the impact of 300 km of railway on South Railway North Railway Length 149km 106 km north Baffin caribou and the process Baffinland will use to adaptively manage Sidings 3 3 the potential for unpredicted effects on caribou during the construction and Bridges 31 4 operation of the northern railway route, if approved. Culvert Crossings 200+ 400+ c) Provide an indication of how Baffinland proposes to carry this information and Culvert Types CSP (corrugated steel plate) CSP Plate-arch culverts at 13 selected locations adaptive management forward into the construction of the already approved Tunnels 2 (1050 m total length) 0 southern railway to minimize the potential for cumulative effects. Maximum Surface 1000 mm (Type 12) 150 mm (Type 8) Material Size Culvert/Bridge Design 1:100 year 1:200 year Flood Return Period Embankment Height Generally 1.5-3 m Generally 2-4 m • <4 m (65% of alignment) • >4 m (19% of alignment) • Cuts into existing landforms (16% of alignment) Embankment Side Slopes 1V:1.2H 1V:1.5H for embankment heights >4 m 1V:5H at selected crossing locations 1V:2H for embankment heights <4 m 1V:5H at selected crossing locations Maximum grade 1.0% (loaded ore trains) 1.5% (loaded ore trains) 2.0% (empty ore trains) 2.5% (empty ore trains) Ballast depth 250 mm 300 mm

March 2021 5

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Nunavut Impact Review Board

ID # Question Response Attachment The South Railway travels through terrain that is different than the north. In the south, caribou trails are apparent in the landscape, and the traditional knowledge shared with us was that when the caribou return to the area, they would follow each other on those trails. Those trails were viewed on the ground with Inuit, mapped and presented in figures 17 and 18 of the original Wildlife Baseline Report (EDI 2012). To accommodate this type of movement behaviour and the landscape characteristics, mitigation for the South Railway focused on putting crossing ramps where the trails occur and key crossing areas were identified based on caribou trail densities. The ramps would be built similar to those proposed for the North Railway. Only 12.9% of the southern rail may be a barrier to caribou movement based on rail structure requirements or the surrounding impassable landscape (FEIS Vol 6 Figure 6-5.3, Baffinland 2012). Caribou movement along the Northern Transportation Corridor is not as apparent as it is along the Southern Transportation Corridor. The traditional knowledge about caribou movement and mapped trail figures for the north clearly show a distinct difference in caribou movement patterns between the areas south and north of the Mine Site. Even though the surficial geology is generally similar, there are no distinctly worn in caribou trails along the Northern Transportation Corridor like those in the south — indicating either: 1) caribou did not move through the northern portion in a directional movement like they do in the south, or 2) caribou may not migrate across the transportation corridor per se in an east-west fashion. There was even a suggestion that movement in the northern part of the area may be more of a north-south direction (discussed at the contemporary knowledge workshop in 2015; Figure 11, Prno 2017). This uncertainty in the caribou movement in the north perhaps led to the Government of Nunavut first, followed by other interveners, to suggest different approaches to mitigation along the northern transportation corridor. Some of these differences from the South Railway include more gentle embankments, finer embankment material, and more crossing structures. Based on feedback from multiple discussions through the review of the Phase 2 Project, Baffinland has committed to more extensive accommodation of caribou movement on the northern rail to address the uncertainty in caribou movement in this Project area. The design accommodations for caribou movement in the north are most succinctly summarized in the Railway Alignment Summary Report (Baffinland 2019). b) Baffinland recognizes that there is some uncertainty remaining in the impact conclusions. To address that uncertainty, it has committed to extensive mitigation to accommodate caribou movement (as described in (a) above) as well as a stronger role for Inuit led monitoring and decision making about project mitigations. During the construction phase Inuit will be on-site advising on additional mitigation measures needed should caribou be present, as well as advising on if the crossing locations have been constructed in the agreed upon locations. A number of areas of the rail will be built with an even greater slope where it is expected that caribou will be present and may be more likely to cross the rail. These areas will be monitored along with the rest of the rail and if it is found that the more gentle slope is constructive to facilitating a higher degree of movement, the entire rail can be built in the same way. The adaptive management process for operations includes extensive monitoring programs on caribou movement and habitat use, collaboration with the Government of Nunavut as agreed in the Research Contribution Agreement and collaboration with Inuit on monitoring, discussion, decision making, and an adaptive management approach to address as yet unknown risks and impacts. The monitoring program will have low, moderate and high-risk triggers where Baffinland will implement either further research or cautionary changes to operations, as set out in the Adaptive Management Plan. The Adaptive Management Plan will be a living document that is re-visited and revised with input from Baffinland led monitoring as well as Inuit led monitoring under the Inuit Stewardship Plan to ensure the lessons learned are captured and responded to. c) Should Phase 2 be approved the lessons learned from the construction and operation of the north rail will be transferred to the southern rail where applicable. As noted above there are differences between the landscape and caribou movements in the north and south, therefore the most valuable lessons learned will be through developing strong partnerships with Inuit to guide our decision making in the south based on what is being observed and known at the time. The North Railway will offer different design and monitoring options that could be considered when the construction and operation of the south rail begins. The revised Terrestrial Environment Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (TEMMP) will apply equally to the southern rail as to the north, including the adaptive management components. A critical review of the Terrestrial Environment Mitigation and Monitoring Plan will occur with the TEWG and Inuit Committees before moving ahead with the South Railway construction. It is intended that similar workshops with community representatives will be held for the South Railway to determine the most

March 2021 6

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Nunavut Impact Review Board

ID # Question Response Attachment appropriate crossing locations and additional mitigation or monitoring designs based on the learnings from the north as well as inclusion of Inuit construction monitors is planned for the South Railway. References: Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation (Baffinland). 2019. Rail Alignment Summary Report. October 2019. NIRB Registry No. 327148 NIRB-7 According to the 2020 Interim Closure and Reclamation Plan, there is no mention of a Yes, Baffinland has given detailed consideration to the topics of mitigating negative socio-economic impacts resulting from a permanent socio-economic closure plan for either temporary closure or post mining closure. Has or temporary closure. Baffinland has not addressed these topics in a separate standalone plan but instead has included incorporated Baffinland given any consideration, or conducted any planning to mitigate negative socio- them withinin the Interim Closure and Reclamation Plan. For clarity, the version of the Interim Closure and Reclamation Plan (ICRP) economic impacts should the project undergo a temporary or permanent closure? submitted for the Phase 2 amendment is dated April 2019 (Revision 6) (i.e. Baffinland 2019). There are two primary sections of the ICRP pertaining to socio-economics which are Sections 3.5 and 9.10. Consideration of socio-economic impacts from closure were also included within TSD-25 (Socio-Economic Assessment) and will be included in the updated closure plan should Phase2 be approved. Baffinland acknowledges mine closure may have an adverse effect on some local populations (e.g. by removing employment and business opportunities associated with the Project), similar to the Approved Project. However, individual employment skills and experience that are gained, and business capacity that is developed as a result of the Project, are expected to ease the transition associated with mine closure. Baffinland anticipates its training programs and commitments associated with the Phase 2 Proposal will continue contributing to long- term community capacity building in the local study area. Finally, consideration to closure scenarios has also been considered within Article 7 of the IIBA of Article 7, which notes Inuit will be the last to be laid off, provided their skill levels meet or exceed job requirements. The QIA has additionally established a Legacy Fund and a Benefits Fund that are designed to provide long-term benefits to residents of the Qikiqtani Region. The Project will make substantial contributions to these funds over time.

References: Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation (Baffinland). 2019. Interim Closure and Reclamation Plan. BAF-PH1-830-P16-0012. Draft Revision 6. Issue date: April 30, 2019. NIRB Registry No.324735-324739 NIRB-8 ECCC and WWF have both suggested the need to reduce black carbon emission in the Baffinland has thoroughly considered the feasibility of ECCC's proposal to require vessels to switch from Low Sulphur Fuel Oil (LSFO) to Arctic and they have indicated that a logistically feasible and affordable option to doing Marine Gas Oil (MGO) or an equivalent fuel when vessels enter Canada's Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), which would also remove the so is to introduce the use of lighter, distillate fuels in Baffinland’s ore carriers. Can need for vessels to use scrubbers. Baffinland maintains that it cannot agree to the commitments as proposed by either party for several Baffinland clarify the specific reasons why they do not plan to implement the use of reasons, described further below. However, understanding the importance of this issue to Nunavummiut, Baffinland has agreed to and distillate fuels earlier in the life of the Project rather than waiting until they are required is confident it can implement a modified version of the commitment, as follows: Should Phase 2 be approved, Baffinland will require all to do it under regulation? ore carriers, through its contracts, to use lighter distillate fuels (MGO or equivalent) within the Nunavut Settlement Area (NSA) starting in 2022. With this commitment, scrubbers serve no purpose and will also not be used within the Nunavut Settlement Area. This commitment differs only in that the requirement for the change in fuel comes into effect under Nunavut territorial waters where it is reasonable to implement Baffinland specific mitigations. Rationale for Modified Commitment: • Vessel Captains are responsible for finding the most efficient and safest path as they transit through Baffin Bay to our project area. Requiring vessels to switch to MGO at the border of Canada's EEZ requires controlling where the entry occurs, and a level of compliance monitoring that is unreasonable for Baffinland to enforce. Such a requirement could also have the effect of encouraging vessels to navigate through Greenlands EEZ as much as possible, and by association take a less efficient path towards the project area. Baffinland cannot dictate transit paths through waters open to international shipping and subject to international regulations. • Implementing the use of lighter distillate fuels oils prior to enforced federal regulation will have the effect of Baffinland carrying 100% of the increased cost of fuel premiums. There is also significant uncertainty in the price spread between LSFO and MGO between today (currently $47.50USD/tonne) and 2029. As noted above, it is also uncertain where each vessel would enter Canada's EEZ as Vessel Captains choose the safest and most efficient route to the project area. In the absence of a firm understanding of relative fuel costs, as well as a defined entry point into Canada's EEZ, this program would carry significant financial risk at Phase 2 shipping levels. Absorbing this level of cost risk is unreasonable for a single project proponent, given

March 2021 7

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Nunavut Impact Review Board

ID # Question Response Attachment that the federal government has determined that the requirement is not appropriate to generally apply to shippers in Canada until 2029. • Canada's EEZ within Baffin Bay is outside of the assessed Project area and not subject to the current NIRB review and jurisdiction. The jurisdiction over emissions within Canada's EEZ rests solely with the Government of Canada. To the best of Baffinland’s knowledge, the Government of Canada has not proposed an Emission Control Area (ECA) within Baffin Bay, or carried out any of the necessary work to support such a policy decision. Baffinland participated in the recent investigation by Transport Canada into the Heavy Fuel Oil Ban and would expect any decision to implement an ECA in the same area would be supported by the same type of due diligence. NIRB-9 Through the dust monitoring, a) Baffinland is not aware of other Nunavut mines currently carrying out dust measurements at other heights than the 2 meter a) why does Baffinland continue to measure dust at a height of 2 meters despite other standard (including ground level). Passive dustfall monitoring at the Mary River Project follows the American Society for northern mines successfully measuring at other heights, including ground level. Testing and Materials (ASTM) International Standard Test Method for Collection and Measurement of Dustfall (ASTM International 2010). To our knowledge, all other production mines reviewed and monitored by the Nunavut Impact Review b) This has also been recommended by the members of the Terrestrial Environment Board (NIRB) follow the ASTM standard 2-metre high passive dustfall sampling protocol. Those standards are identified for Working Group. TMAC’s Hope Bay Project (TMAC Resources 2019), Sabina Gold and Silver’s Back River Project (Sabina Gold and Silver Corp. 2019), and Agnico Eagle’s Meliadine Gold Mine (Agnico Eagle Mines Limited 2020). The Mary River Project’s passive dustfall monitoring detects the magnitude and extent of dustfall within and outside of the Project Development Area (PDA). The monitoring program identifies areas that produce the highest amounts of dust and the times of the year when the highest dustfall occurs. Agnico Eagle’s Meadowbank Project initially collected passive dustfall at ground-level up until 2018. However, Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) commented in 2018 that collecting dustfall samples at the ground-level was not common practice (Environment and Climate Change Canada 2018). ECCC indicated wide variability in the concentration of particles subject to settling at low heights and that both wind and snow at ground-level will unacceptably impact data. Further, they indicated a preference for methods to be consistent among sites and follow relevant quality assurance guidance, such as ASTM 2010. In response to ECCC comments and recommendations (Walker 2020) on the Meadowbank 2018 Air Quality and Dustfall Monitoring Report (Agnico Eagle Mines Limited – Meadowbank Division 2019), Agnico switched dustfall monitoring to the ASTM’s 2-metre sampling height (Agnico Eagle Mines Limited – Meadowbank Division 2020). b) Although some representatives from QIA and the GN as members of the Terrestrial Environment Working Group (TEWG) have recommended that dustfall sampling be conducted at heights other than the ASTM’s standard 2-metrestheir recommendation has not presented any clear justification for that request and its relevance to mitigation actions . Regardless, Baffinland considered the recommendation and conducted follow-up investigations to determine the necessity of deviating from the ASTM standard. As summarized above, Baffinland’s current conclusion is that there is no known reason to conduct non- standard passive dustfall sampling, and Baffinland’s methods are in-line with other Mine Sites and as recommended by the air quality experts of ECCC. Baffinland’s passive dustfall sampling program adequately informs on project-related dustfall and has triggered adaptive management responses as it was designed to do. If Baffinland were to consider placing dust fall collectors at a height other than 2 meters (including ground level), it will be in response to, and developed with, communities based on community values and insights. NIRB-10 When looking at all of the socio-economic mitigations, it appears Baffinland has many Full response attached (Appendix 1) NIRB-10 Attachment 1: Full programs aimed at compensating hunters for fuel and equipment. However, there don’t Response appear to be benefits for women, and yet if the project has effects on animals, this will impact women and their ability to make traditional clothing and eat country food. Can Baffinland explain why there are not more programs in place to support women who may be affected by the Project? NIRB-11 What is the justification for using other current Nunavut mining projects as a basis to Reference to those other Projects was for the purpose of providing a jurisdictionally relevant comparison of the standards for compare Baffinland’s shipping, when none of the other current Nunavut projects have monitoring imposed on the Mary River Project relative to others in Nunavut, where project certificates have been issued by NIRB. bulk shipping of product? Additionally, Baffinland notes that the comparison to other Projects was to highlight that inclusion of Early Warning Indicators (EWIs) is a novel requirement for an operator, and to Baffinland’s knowledge, no other Ports in Canada or large-scale shipping operations have set EWIs and monitor against these as part of environmental monitoring.

March 2021 8

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Nunavut Impact Review Board

ID # Question Response Attachment NIRB-12 On Slide 40 of the marine presentation, Baffinland refers to voluntary adherence to the 9- The point being illustrated by Baffinland on Slide 40 is that this is indeed a best practice voluntary mitigation measure. While DFO does knot vessel speed restriction with their vessels 99% of the time. Both Cruise ships and mandate speed restrictions for vessels in some Canadian waters, this has not been identified as required for waters near the Project Canadian Coast Guard icebreakers were used as comparison and it was stated that they area. Despite this, to reduce impacts that would not otherwise be mandated by regulations, or guidance documents issued by DFO, travel at 9 knots 32% and 35% of the time respectively. However, it is the Board’s Baffinland has implemented and adhered to a speed restriction. Reducing vessel speeds is a proven mitigation for reducing underwater understanding that these types of vessels have no regulated speed restrictions so their noise generated from vessels. The “compliance rate” was meant to illustrate other non-Project vessels typical speed of travel relative to “compliance rate” does not seem relevant. What is the justification to use other types of the 9 knot speed restriction adopted by Baffinland and perhaps could have been labelled as ‘comparison’ rather than ‘compliance’. vessels as a basis for comparison when the speed restrictions do not apply to them? Baffinland continues to advocate that the Canadian Coast Guard and cruise ships may also want to follow a 9 knot speed limit when they are in these waters, to help further reduce the potential for underwater noise effects. NIRB-13 On slide 47 Baffinland discussed temporary acoustic masking. And the speaker stated: Separating the biological effects of acoustic masking (i.e., interference with intraspecific communication, echolocation or acoustic prey "Biological consequences of masking remain poorly understood - to understand moving detection) from other stressors can be accomplished by comparing narwhal vocal behaviour when there are no ships around to periods forward, data collected as part of monitoring program will be studied on the effects of when ships are around. This is appropriate as it assumes that stressors are equally present in both treatment (i.e. when ships are masking, partnered with University of New Brunswick on potential masking effects on present) and control (i.e. when there are not ships present). This is already being researched through Baffinland’s present Passive narwhal using data collected from project area. “With the potential for increased Acoustic Monitoring Programs. shipping activity in the Arctic to, in combination with other factors, contribute to cumulative effects on stress levels of narwhal, how would Baffinland’s future studies separate the biological effects of acoustic masking from the biological effects resulting from other stressors (e.g., changes in ocean temperatures, ice condition, population levels of predators/prey, etc.)? NIRB-14 Through current operations and their January 2020 submission Baffinland has indicated Based on available ice data for Eclipse Sound and Milne Inlet, Baffinland understands that its commitment to not break landfast ice will that their Vessel Market Analysis estimated that as of 2019, the number of ice classed ore mean in some years it may not be possible to ship 12 Mtpa. This is a primary driver for Baffinland’s proposal for operational flexibility, carriers available for Baffinland’s operation was very limited, especially those bigger than where shortfalls below 12 Mtpa in one season can be made up in the following season (to a limit of 14.2 Mtpa), should ice conditions a Panamax class vessel. With this in mind, can Baffinland indicate their level of confidence allow, however, it is not predicted that this will be a year over year occurrence. that they would be able to ship 12MT of Iron Ore, should their shipping window be unexpectedly reduced due to Ice conditions or weather? NIRB-15 On slide 54 and in response to the Hamlet of Pond Inlet's question, Baffinland indicated The improved method used by Baffinland in the 2019 aerial surveys is also used by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) for their that they were using a standard scientific method for marine mammal aerial surveys, but abundance estimates of the Western Hudson Bay beluga stock, the Cumberland Sound beluga population, and the Admiralty Inlet also noted that these surveys typically have a large degree of uncertainty associated with narwhal stock (Asselin and Richard 2011; Marcoux et al. 2016; Matthews et al. 2017). The method developed by DFO is called an them. Baffinland further indicated that the improved methods they implemented in the adaptive sampling plan and is used to estimate marine mammal abundance by combining visual line-transect sampling of the survey 2019 aerial surveys provided a more robust estimate of narwhal population. Can area and aerial photographic surveys of designated strata. The photographic survey is flown in areas of high marine mammal Baffinland describe the improvements in their methods, and specifically identify if concentrations which would otherwise be too difficult for visual observers to get an accurate count. This method results in a greater Baffinland is introducing novel aerial survey methods to the field, if these methods have degree of certainty compared to visual line-transect sampling alone because a more robust estimate can be obtained through the been used previously and whether their efficacy is confirmed by other research groups? photographic survey component. This is not a novel method, but an enhancement in approach to aerial survey monitoring compared to what was previously done by DFO prior to 2016 and implemented by Baffinland in 2019 and 2020. NIRB-16 Will Baffinland commit to conducting Arctic Char monitoring in Phillips Creek and Baffinland is committed to conducting Arctic Char monitoring in the surrounding areas of Milne Port during the 2021 open water season Koluktoo lake during the 2021 open water season, as requested by some Intervenors and in close consultation with the MHTO. Baffinland would like to thank the MHTO for their involvement to date on the design of the community members? program, and looks forward to our future work together. On February 18, 2021 Baffinland had its first engagement with the MHTO on the design of an Arctic Char health monitoring program in the surrounding areas of Milne Port. Several water bodies were suggested for inclusion in the study, but none have been finalized. The MHTO has committed to answer a number of written questions provided by Baffinland on March 17, 2021, including the identification of target water bodies for study. It is Baffinland’s hope that it will be in a position at the public hearing to confirm to NIRB the water bodies that will be included in the 2021 open water season study. NIRB-69 Are there alternative activities or events in the region, other than shipping, which could Increased cortisol levels in whales can be caused by many different sources, including, but not limited to: cause cortisol increases in whales? • increased predation (i.e. killer whales) • decreased ice cover

March 2021 9

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Nunavut Impact Review Board

ID # Question Response Attachment • prey availability (i.e. Arctic God and Greenland Halibut) • hunting pressure – related to increase in hunting or hunting methods • noise from small boat traffic • noise from large boat traffic • entrapment or near entrapment events • live capture • temporary capture (i.e. as by-catch in fishing nets) • intraspecific competition, • contamination/disease, etc. Many of these sources are present in the regional area. The sources most likely to contribute to an increase in stress level in narwhal are most closely related to injury and/or death, such as predation, prey availability and hunting. Shipping is much less likely to be a primary contributor given there is no associated threat of death or injury with this stimuli and observed responses have all been temporary and localized in nature. NIRB-70 How does Baffinland reconcile the research presented by Josh Jones on the impact of In the Oceans North (ON) presentation, Josh Jones suggests that received sound levels associated with behavioural disturbance and sound disturbance from shipping with the sound disturbance research done by avoidance for Eclipse Sound narwhal are lower than those predicted by Baffinland. That is, Josh Jones suggests that narwhal exhibit Baffinland? In the response, please consider the impacts of ore carriers and other vessels behavioural disturbance at sound levels below Baffinland’s predicted threshold of 120 dB and that narwhal exhibit avoidance behaviour such as icebreakers, general cargo, etc., and the decibel level at which narwhal behavior at sound levels lower than Baffinland’s predicted threshold of 135 dB. These suggestions are based on Jones’ acoustic monitoring data disturbance starts, available sound measurement data and signs of disturbance measure and his interpretation of Baffinland’s 2017-18 Integrated Narwhal Tagging Data Research. To assist interveners and the NIRB in on narwhals. reconciling this discrepancy between the research presented by Josh Jones and the monitoring and assessments conducted by Baffinland, a technical review of Josh Jones report was provided to the NIRB (Public Registry ID No. 332558) on January 19 2021. There are no fundamental discrepancies between the sound level measurements made by Baffinland and Oceans North, but there are discrepancies in how those acoustic data are interpreted relative to narwhal behavioural responses from Baffinland’s monitoring programs, specifically from the narwhal tagging data. Some key clarifications and corrections to the suggestions made in the presentation by Josh Jones are as follows: • The Oceans North presentation focusses on the 5 km distance for narwhal behavioural response to vessels. This distance was derived from Baffinland’s analysis of the 2017-18 tagging data, which uses a statistical model to incorporate all of the observed responses from all Project vessel types together, to determine the distances at which statistically significant behavioural responses occurred. The model does not separate by vessel type because of the small sample size of narwhal- vessel interactions for which there were statistically significant responses. This analysis predicted that, when narwhal responded to a vessel, the behavioral response occurred at distances ranging from 1-5 km from the vessel (depending on the response variable). Because the analysis incorporates responses to all types of vessels, the response distances cannot be directly compared to the sound level measurements of any one individual vessel type. For some vessel types, the sound levels at this predicted response distance will be lower than the predicted threshold of 120 dB and for other vessel types, the sound levels at this distance will be higher than the predicted threshold. In the Oceans North presentation, Josh Jones compared the response threshold to measured sound levels for the quietest class of vessel, namely ore carriers, at the observed response distance. This is misleading and incorrectly implies that Baffinland has significantly underestimated the sound levels at which there is potential for behavioural response. If Oceans North were to do the same analysis for fuel tankers, it would show that received sound levels do exceed 120 dB re 1 µPa at a distance of 5 km and that Baffinland’s prediction is appropriate. • We acknowledge that different types of vessels emit different levels of sound. On behalf of Baffinland, JASCO has provided an analysis of the received sound levels for all vessel types measured in 2018 and 2019. Available tagging data does not have sufficient number of narwhal-vessel interactions for each vessel type to enable prediction of a response distance for each type of vessel separately. To derive vessel-specific response distances for all vessel types, we would need to collect additional tagging data to increase the sample size of narwhal-vessel interactions for each vessel type. Once this was accomplished, we would expect to see a decrease in the response distance for ore carriers (i.e. we would see that narwhal respond to ore carriers at distances less than 5km, where sound levels are higher and closer to 120 dB) and an increase in

March 2021 10

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Nunavut Impact Review Board

ID # Question Response Attachment the response distance for other louder vessels such as fuel tankers and icebreakers. This is what the raw data indicates when analyzing each individual vessel-narwhal interaction event. • It is important to note here that an acoustic disturbance threshold is not an invariant critical value above which a behavioural response is always exhibited and below which one is never observed. Instead, it is a sound level at which there is an explicit probability for a response amongst the population. For marine mammals, the established acoustic disturbance threshold of 120 dB (NOAA 2013) is based on the sound level at which > 50% of animals in the exposed population would respond in a similar manner. Variability will always exist amongst individuals in terms of their degree of response to an anthropogenic noise source, ranging from no observable responses at very high received levels (well above the established threshold) to avoidance responses observed at very low levels sometimes as low as the level of absolute detection (i.e., the point at which the sound source becomes audible over existing background noise). If we were to use the most sensitive example of behavioural response for determining a species-specific disturbance threshold, then the disturbance threshold would always be equal to the quietest level audible to that species. Not only is this impractically over cautious, it is not the intention of an acoustic disturbance threshold. • We also need to make a clarification about the distance between the narwhal and the vessel when a behavioural response first begins (i.e. the onset of a response) in comparison to the distance between the narwhal and the vessel when the narwhal returned to its pre-exposure behaviour. The specific response variable discussed in the Josh Jones presentation, that was noted to occur at a distance of 5 km, was the ‘bottom dive’ response variable. When we review the individual responses in the tagging data in detail, we note that the initial onset of this behavioural response tends to occur at closer ranges, around 1 to 2 km, in front of the vessel. The response tends to continue after the vessel has passed until the vessel has reached distances up to 5 km from the narwhal. However, there is an important distinction between the start or onset of the behavioural response, and the period over which the altered response persists. The 120 dB threshold for behavioural disturbance is a threshold for the onset of the response. The duration over which the altered response continues may not associated with a sound level. That is, the animal may no longer be reacting to the received level, but there may be a delayed return to normal behaviour while the narwhal recovers from the initial response. • The narwhal behavioural response data collected to date by Baffinland strongly demonstrates that narwhal responses to shipping noise is variable and not fully predictable with simple acoustic exposure metrics (such as received sound levels). For example, narwhal sometimes show a clear response at a set distance from the ship (this being a short-term localized reaction), and other times the same narwhal will exhibit no response at the same distance to the ship. The probability of response appears to be connected to the context of exposure and their behavioral state at the time of exposure, which is consistent with the most current scientific understanding on this subject (Williams et al. 2014; Gomez et al. 2016; Southall et al. 2007; 2019; Finneran et al. 2017). • Josh Jones also focusses on underwater sound measurements 1 km from vessels, the distance where monitoring data have indicated that narwhal may show short-term localized avoidance of vessels. He presented measurements to demonstrate that sound levels at 1 km from ore carriers are far below the avoidance threshold of 135 dB predicted by Baffinland. It should be noted that the 135 dB threshold for avoidance was only considered by Baffinland in assessing impacts from underwater noise during icebreaking. For all other kinds of vessel noise, including the noise from ore carriers (which are quieter than the icebreaker, as shown in both the Baffinland data and the data from Josh Jones), the potential for all impacts to narwhal were assessed relative to the more precautionary 120 dB sound level threshold. The presented comparison of measurements of ore carriers at 1km with the predicted 135 dB threshold is an inappropriate comparison for this threshold because the threshold was used for assessing avoidance of narwhal to icebreaking noise, not for assessing narwhal avoidance of noise from ore carriers. Furthermore, the 135 dB threshold is intended to represent the threshold for ‘large-scale avoidance behaviour’ from icebreaker operations, and not ‘localized short-term avoidance’ from this activity. This distinction is made in the icebreaker assessment (p. 45 of Golder 2019) where it is stated that the 135 dB avoidance threshold is considered ‘the threshold at which point narwhal may begin to avoid the area for a period longer than the actual exposure event’ which would be considered a moderate to high severity response (Southall et al. 2007; Finneran et al. 2017). The behavioural response data collected to date does not demonstrate any evidence of this type of response (i.e., avoidance behaviour that extends beyond the acoustic exposure event). Measurements of the underwater sound from ore carriers at 1km support the use of the 120 dB that Baffinland predicted for assessing impacts from this type of vessel.

March 2021 11

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Nunavut Impact Review Board

ID # Question Response Attachment Based on narwhal behavioural response data collected to date by Baffinland, it is it is clear that disturbance onset in narwhal occurs primarily at received levels of 120 dB or higher. Although it is acknowledged that narwhal do occasionally exhibit a response to shipping at received sound levels lower than 120 dB, these events are rare and would not justify revising the currently established disturbance threshold of 120 dB. In summary, we have confidence based on the existing data that the 120 dB threshold is appropriate and therefore that use of the 120db threshold in the assessment including for calculating noise disturbance zones and daily noise exposure periods for narwhal was appropriate. NIRB-71 Related to above, question to DFO: We have heard contradictory views on the Repeated daily noise exposure was fully considered in the FEIS (both on a Project level and in consideration of cumulative noise impacts uncertainty/level of confidence in Baffinland’s impact predictions of acoustic effects of from non-Project vessels). Animals would be exposed to up to 6 one-way transit exposures per day under normal Phase 2 operations. shipping noise on Narwhal. What is DFO’s level of confidence in the impact predictions This provides narwhal with 22.3 hours per day with noise below a level that would cause behavioural disturbance. Under Phase 2, there presented by Baffinland, and does Baffinland’s predictions appropriately consider the will be some days with increased vessel traffic (Baffinland and other) when animals would be exposed to as many as 9 one-way transits cumulative effects of multiple ships making multiple transits? In our conversation Gill per day. On those days there would be 21.5 hours when sound levels are below the threshold for behavioural disturbance. These are reminded me of the sound charts presented by Scripps as part of Oceans North’s conservative estimates because the calculation assumes that the animals are in the shipping lane, and stationary throughout the presentation late on the 5th. It would be good to point to those charts/analysis. vessel’s transit. In reality, this is an unrealistic assumption, and the exposure period would therefore be less. We would not expect to see any measurable energetic consequences from repeated, or cumulative, sound exposures given the nature of the responses we have seen in narwhal to date from shipping, ranging from no response to minor short-term localized reactions. When responses have been observed, these have been limited (i.e. no discernible response) to response distances ranging from 1 to 5 km, which is equal to a 7 to 36 min disturbance period per vessel transit. Additionally, the types of responses observed do not constitute as energetically demanding responses. For example, narwhal have been shown to respond to close ship encounters by decreasing their dive duration (which would be less energy consuming from a physiological perspective). We have also observed changes in surface movement including changes in animal orientation, and animals turning back on their tracks in close presence of ships. By definition, these are considered ‘low severity responses’ with little to no energetic consequences. NIRB-72 Recognizing that there is a current lack of scientific data on the state of blubber in the DFO has proposed modifications to existing monitoring programs, such as the expansion of the acoustic monitoring program to the floe narwhal population of Eclipse Sound, what marine monitoring programs and changes has edge and enhancements to monitoring for the current EWI as part of the Bruce Head Shore Based Monitoring Program. DFO has also DFO recommended to Baffinland to help address this gap? suggested Baffinland implement a pilot program to enhance monitoring for ship strikes, which Baffinland has committed to under DFO 3.5 (NEW). DFO has also recommended Baffinland undertake monitoring related to narwhal body condition or stress levels if other suitable EWIs for monitoring are not put forward. In response, Baffinland has made the following commitments: • Expand the Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM_ to include areas near the floe edge and to continue to work with DFO on the selection of study locations for the PAM programs in future years (see commitments made in relation to DFO 3.3.3NEW and DFO 3.4.4NEW) • Continue to work with DFO to improve monitoring for existing and additional EWIs for the marine mammal monitoring (see commitments made in relation to DFO 3.4.4NEW) • Commitment to implement remote surveillance pilot program in lieu of full time marine mammal observers (see commitments made in relation to DFO 3.4.4NEW) • Commitment to work with DFO on the development of Low (or EWI), Moderate and High, Thresholds and Responses for the Project (see commitments made in relation to DFO 3.4.4NEW and DFO 3.4.1NEW) NIRB-73 a) Does shipping create a barrier to animals moving from one side of the track to the a) Current data suggest that No, shipping does not create a barrier. This is based on a review of dive/surface movement data of other? narwhal from two years of tagging data and repetitive vessel exposure (narwhal commonly cross in front of, behind and under b) Is this observable? ships) c) Are convoys sufficient to mitigate this? b) Yes, if it was occurring we would be able to detect this. d) What proposed threshold will Baffinland use if this type of impact is seen?" c) Convoys would mitigate the frequency of exposure to noise, but would not mitigate for barriers to movement. However, as stated above, barrier to movement does not seem to be an issue for narwhal from shipping and therefore no additional mitigation would be deemed necessary. d) Understanding this is not an expected project effect, and this has been supported by our monitoring programs to date, Baffinland is not proposing this for further adaptive management planning at this time. If this impact were to be seen in the future Baffinland would work with the Inuit Committee and MEWG to determine if a tiered adaptive management approach were required, and what the parameters (objectives, indicators, thresholds and responses) would be.

March 2021 12

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Nunavut Impact Review Board

ID # Question Response Attachment NIRB-74 Does ringed seal distribution change from year to year as a result of changes in the Yes, ringed seal are highly dependent on local ice conditions in their environment and how this may change from year to year, icescape? particularly when it comes to their selection of areas for maintaining subnivean (space between ice and fallen snow) breathing holes/lairs during the winter, but also because of the stable platform they require for pupping and nursing, mating and moulting. During the late spring for example, the date in which the peak number of ringed seals occur on ice varies by demographic class, and the timing of the peak varies from year to year depending on food availability. NIRB-75 Is there any study evidence showing seal disturbance effects or delays in seal distribution There are studies from other Projects that demonstrate seal disturbance from icebreaking activities, which demonstrate that responses NIRB-75 Attachment 1: in the shoulder season? are largely short-term and localized, with animals returning to their normal behaviour shortly after the exposure. There are no studies Icebreaking Impacts on from other Projects we are aware of (following an extensive literature review) that demonstrate seal abandonment or large scale Ringed Seal displacement effects from habitat areas following exposure to icebreaking during the shoulder season. NIRB-76 What are the roles of community organizations in the proposed monitoring network and It is expected that community organizations (such as the MHTO) will be directly represented on the Inuit Committee (CRLU Monitoring what support would be provided to them? Program) and the Inuit Social Oversight Committee (Social Monitoring Program). The manner of the Committees nominations/selections procedures, intended composition, etc. are being developed through the drafting of Terms of Reference between QIA and the communities. Baffinland is currently financing this work through monthly implementation payments to QIA, as agreed to under the Inuit Certainty Agreement (ICA). The Committees will be under the Inuit Stewardship Plan which will conduct Inuit led monitoring, provide advice to QIA and Baffinland on project impacts and mitigations and will have a role in the development and monitoring of triggers and thresholds based on Inuit values which will be incorporated into the Adaptive Management Plan and any future revisions. In the future, the work of the Committee's, including the costs of Committee members participation, will be covered under a fixed annual implementation budget, again as agreed to under the ICA. Baffinland believes there is ample funding provided for in the fixed annual implementation budget and that costs should not be a concern for the successful implementation of the Inuit-led monitoring programs proposed under the ICA and the NIRB's review process. Baffinland will also continue its own engagement activities, including participatory research in the Mary River Environmental Management System. This includes the continuation of honorarium payments when the time of community representatives and organizations is required, as well as payment for direct participation in Baffinland’s monitoring programs (including training) by individuals from the communities. Baffinland has been working to achieve 50% or greater participation by Inuit in all its monitoring programs. Training and capacity building for participation in those monitoring programs has been increasing year over year and has included ‘on-site’ as well as ‘off-site’ training and mentoring programs. Baffinland will also continue funding the Wildlife Monitoring Program run by the MHTO, with up to $200,000 provided annually to support community based monitoring initiatives proposed by the MHTO. Baffinland will continue to fund the MHTO's participation in the Terrestrial and Marine Environment Working Groups, and provide administrative support in recognition of the attention Baffinland has requested of the MHTO in providing its assistance in the successful implementation of our monitoring programs. Baffinland has also committed to the purchase and delivery of a research vessel for each of the impacted communities to assist with their own priority research initiatives. The first research vessel will be delivered to Pond Inlet in 2022. NIRB-77 "a) Did community consultation inform the proposed changes to Inuit-led monitoring? a) Yes, community consultation (including comments shared within the NIRB Phase 2 process) informed Baffinland’s initial b) If so, can you explain what consultation took place and what the key findings are?" proposals towards Inuit led monitoring under Phase 2 and supported its acceptance of proposals for a modified system administered by QIA, through the Inuit Certainty Agreement. b) While Inuit led monitoring is a common subject of discussion with the communities, there were several key engagements that occurred throughout the Phase 2 review process that advanced the current work that has been submitted for approval by the NIRB. These engagements include: • Following the second technical meetings on April 10, 2019, Baffinland met with community representatives from Igloolik, Sanirajak and Pond Inlet, as well as the QIA. This meeting was primarily focused on the concept of creating an Inuit Advisory Panel (IAP), and using the results of the recently released Tusaqtavut studies to build a common approach to Culture, Resource and Land Use Monitoring, and integrating it within Baffinland’s Environmental Management System. The discussions during this meeting were eventually formalized and submitted to the NIRB as the IQ Management Framework (Sept 2019) and the CRLU Monitoring Program Preliminary Workplan (Oct 2019). • Discussion on these two items continued through Summer 2019, figuring prominently into Baffinland’s Community Direct Benefits Meetings, held in July and September of 2019, where representatives from all five North Baffin communities were present at a series of on-site workshops. Baffinland received positive feedback from all present that the IAP was an important step to address concerns about the inclusion of Inuit perspectives, and IQ into all aspects of project planning,

March 2021 13

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Nunavut Impact Review Board

ID # Question Response Attachment monitoring and reporting. These meetings, as well as their outcomes, were described in a summary report and submitted to the NIRB on October 15, 2019. • The last formal engagement between Baffinland and the communities prior to the negotiation of the ICA occurred again at the Mine Site, between January 28-30, 2020. Among the topics of discussion was research and monitoring needs, which included an activity where workshop participants were asked what model for community-based monitoring they preferred. Three broad types of models were presented, which included a regional fund for communities, individual community funds, or Baffinland-led participatory monitoring. Overall, the workshop participants emphasized that community based monitoring needs to be designed and implemented by the communities, with help as needed by third party consultants of their choosing, with funding to be provided by Baffinland. The results of this workshop were submitted to the NIRB in October 2020 as part of a request to make public the outcomes of that meeting by the Hamlet of Pond Inlet (NIRB Registry No. 331791)

NIRB-78 Are there existing Inuit-led monitoring programs that can be drawn from to inform the Yes there are a number of examples that can be drawn upon for templates or examples to inform the development of the management development the management framework suggested in the Inuit Certainty Agreement? framework suggested. A number of these are described below for reference. 1. Diavik Environmental Monitoring Advisory Board

An example from a mining project in Northwest Territories is the Diavik Environmental Monitoring Advisory Board (the EMAB). Their website includes a comprehensive public library which is updated regularly with environmental monitoring reports, technical reviews, EMAB annual reports and meeting minutes: https://www.emab.ca/. The following information is presented on that website.

Diavik and EMAB often hear that communities would like to do their own environmental monitoring at the mine. EMAB has also indicated community based monitoring would help communities better understand the interaction between the mine and environment. As well, the Diavik Environmental Agreement (EA) requires that Diavik provide meaningful involvement of Aboriginal peoples in environmental monitoring. Therefore, to address community concerns and fulfill the EA, Diavik set up a Community Based Monitoring (CBM) camp in 2003. To keep communities informed about the environment and Diavik, EMAB organizes annual public meetings in the communities.

The EA states that EMAB can create special panels when an issue calls for the knowledge of Aboriginal elders. EMAB has previously gathered ad hoc TK/IQ Panels focused on specific topics. In 2011, EMAB became more actively involved in bringing TK/IQ holders together to address issues such as caribou and closure planning. EMAB held three TK Panel sessions from 2012 to 2013 focused on mine closure. In 2013, Diavik took a greater role in facilitating the TK Panel, with EMAB assessing the results of the work and Diavik's responses. Diavik now leads the organization of TK Panel meetings. The Panel meets once or twice a year and focuses on a specific topic at the mine. The process involves a combination of presentations, semi-structured discussions, and formal talking circles. This allows for a balance of learning, self-direction and consensus-building among Panel members. Detailed transcripts of each meeting are kept to make sure everything said is accurate and complete. At the end of each session, the Panel drafts recommendations and presents them to Diavik. Diavik takes all recommendations into account, and lets the Panel know why certain recommendations cannot be implemented. The TK Panel recommendations and Diavik's responses are provided to the Wek’heezhii Land and Water Board as part of Diavik's closure reports. EMAB's public library has the full list of the TK Panel's recommendations and Diavik's responses.

EMAB holds workshops that bring together community members, regulators, experts and others to reach a better understanding of Diavik-related environmental issues. Summaries of past workshops are described here: https://www.emab.ca/what-we-do/supporting-communities/workshops. 2. Doris North Inuit Environmental Advisory Committee

An example from another mining project in Nunavut that could help inform the management structure for Inuit-led monitoring is the Inuit Environmental Advisory Committee (IEAC) established for the Doris North Project in the Kitikmeot Region. The role

March 2021 14

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Nunavut Impact Review Board

ID # Question Response Attachment of the IEAC is review environmental management and monitoring plans, discuss project related environmental issues, and obtain direct advice from Inuit on these matters. The IEAC visits site at least annually.

As an example, the 2019 Doris North Annual Report to NIRB provides a summary of activities conducted by the IEAC:

Consultations in 2019 included two workshops with the Inuit Environmental Advisory Committee (IEAC). The focus of these meetings were to advance the Fisheries No Net Loss Plan and work through viable options for caribou monitoring in relation to the Madrid-Boston Project. The workshops were successful at communicating objectives and gaining and documenting perspectives from the IEAC on potential fisheries and caribou monitoring programs. TMAC also initiated a capacity building program for Inuit Environmental Assistants working at Hope Bay. The program was successful in documenting skills learned during the field season and promoting regular coaching sessions for information exchange, with the overall objective of building a larger and sustainable Inuit environmental workforce.

Specific to monitoring results, the IEAC provided TMAC with the following information during 2019: At the time of publishing the report, the collar data from the Dolphin and Union caribou had not yet been delivered by the GN. Traditional Knowledge and land users from the Inuit Environmental Advisory Committee (IEAC) indicate that Dolphin and Union caribou now cross the sea-ice to the west of Cambridge Bay, near Wellington Bay. IEAC members also indicated that Dolphin and Union caribou are no longer wintering on the northern part of the Kent peninsula. Other than these shifts, which began before 2019, Traditional Knowledge and collar data indicate that the Dolphin and Union caribou have maintained a consistent usage of the area surrounding the Hope Bay Project area for over 20 years, with some animals transiting the area during spring and fall migration and low numbers of caribou in the area during winter. Pending submission of the data by the GN, an addendum to the WMMP Report will be submitted to the NIRB. 3. Inuit- led monitoring and management programs for Tallurutiup Imanga National Marine Conservation Area

The Inuit-led monitoring program also has precedent in the Qikiqtani Region as Inuit-led monitoring and management programs are included in the Inuit Impact Benefit Agreement for Tallurutiup Imanga and Tuvaiuittuq. In late February 2021, the IMAQ, or the Inuit advisory committee for Tallurutiup Imanga National Marine Conservation Area met for the first time (see https://www.qia.ca/blog-qia-is-making-progress-on-inuit-governance-of-the-tallurutiup-imanga-national-marine-conservation- area/). The IMAQ is currently made up of QIA Community Directors from the five communities and QIA staff and executive members, but Baffinland’s understanding is that the IMAQ will eventually consist of QIA members as well as Inuit from Hunters and Trappers Organizations, hamlet council members, Elders and knowledge holders and Community Lands and Resources committee members from each of the five communities. Their role is to advise the QIA on issues related to Tallurutiup Imanga National Marine Conservation Area. The IIBA also includes the establishment of the Aulattiqatigiit Board, a joint Inuit/Government consensus management board.

It is anticipated that lessons learned from these initiatives will help inform the development of Inuit-led monitoring and management programs specific to Phase 2. NIRB-79 a) The Terrestrial Environment Working Group (TEWG)and the Marine Environment a) Baffinland notes that the QIA has primary responsibility for establishing the Inuit committees under the ICA which is described NIRB-79 Attachment 1: A Working Group (MEWG) have been described as integral components of Baffinland’s more in NIRB-76. QIA is also a member on both the MEWG and the TEWG and can bring forward learnings on functionality or summary of key monitoring- adaptive management plan. The Board has also heard evidence of concerns with the vision during the development of the Inuit Committees. related functioning of these committees. The committees formed under the Inuit Certainty Baffinland believes the MEWG and TEWG have worked effectively as an advisory body where members can bring forward feedback/suggestions Agreement (ICA) as described appear to be even more vital to the resolution of recommendations on the outcomes and analysis of monitoring program results, design changes and mitigation development. provided to Baffinland by outstanding issues between the parties. What does Baffinland believe has worked well In Baffinland’s view, composition of the groups including members who provide regulatory and subject matter expertise will the Working Groups since with the TEWG and MEWG and what are the challenges in fulfilling the terms of continue to be important going forward. While participation is welcome, it is acknowledged that large groups can reduce 2018 reference? How will the challenges be addressed in establishing the committees under functionality. Baffinland continues to be of the view that it is important to prioritize active participation of members above the ICA? observers. Appendix 12 TARPs and Toolkits, AMP b) Both the Inuit Committee described in the ICA and the Marine Environment Working group have been described as integral components of Baffinland's Adaptive Management Baffinland believes that the Working Groups serve as a good platform to bring together parties with various regulatory or Plan. Given the ongoing challenges with the rendering of advice from those groups, does subject matter expertise who can debate and discuss Baffinland’s monitoring programs and who have the shared goal of Baffinland have plans to improve the functionality of these groups moving forward in

March 2021 15

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Nunavut Impact Review Board

ID # Question Response Attachment order to ensure effective development and implementation of the Adaptive Management protecting the environment. It can also serve as a platform for parties to share their own examples of research and monitoring Plan proposed under Phase 2? (Baffinland Only)")" that is happening in the broader area to allow for learnings and results to be shared and discussed. The combination of having both in-person and conference-call meetings has been useful to allow parties to connect more frequently than may otherwise be afforded if all meetings were in-person. Revisions to the Terms of Reference for both the MEWG and TEWG have been active throughout the Phase 2 review process, with the Government of Nunavut mostly leading the initiative. The challenges with completing the final ToR have been largely due to capacity constraints for various parties to review and return comments and in reaching agreement on the consensus based approach for generating recommendations. Baffinland will continue to progress the review of the ToR’s at regular MEWG and TEWG meetings and will work closely with QIA to ensure the final working group ToR’s align with that of the Inuit Committee. Baffinland intends for this process to be complete within 6 months of the issuance of an amended Project Certificate 005, should Phase 2 be approved.

b) Baffinland has been working with the Working Groups to improve their functionality.

A few of the challenges encountered are described below with solutions Baffinland has or intends to implement to increase the participation and satisfaction of the working group members. One challenge that has arisen relates to the expectations of working group members around the timelines related to suggestions, responses and results. Baffinland works expeditiously to analyse data and produce reports as soon as possible. We have introduced additional meetings over the years, which allows the sharing of draft results or touch-points in advance of the release of the DRAFT reports. Baffinland considers requests from members in the most expedited and feasible manner available. Baffinland believes that expectations of some members with regards to response timelines may sometimes be unrealistic and unfeasible to plan and implement within the same season (e.g., budgetary and logistical constraints, health and safety planning and oversight, etc.). Going forward, Baffinland hopes to improve its own communication on these constraints to support adjustment of expectations.

Another challenge is the perception by some members and observers that recommendations made by working group members are not considered or responded to by Baffinland. Baffinland assures all parties this is not the case. Baffinland has already adjusted its reporting practices to increase transparency which Baffinland has considered useful. Going forward, Baffinland plans to improve documentation of its consideration of recommendations and has, in fact, incorporated a number of suggestions from the working groups. A review of recently implemented program modifications demonstrates Baffinland’s willingness to consider and incorporate the numerous suggestions provided through working groups on program design modifications, data analyses and interpretation of results. When a change is not implemented, Baffinland has provided rationale as to why the modification cannot immediately be implemented and/or that additional information is required before it can make an informed decision and/or has provided its reasoning for not pursuing specific requests further. A summary of key monitoring-related feedback/suggestions provided to Baffinland by the Working Groups since 2018 is provided in Appendix 1, along with a statement on the change Baffinland made in response, or the rationale if Baffinland has not (or not yet) followed through with specific requests (including if discussions are ongoing). However, it can be challenging to implement suggestions or recommendations which are broad/sweeping in nature and do not necessarily reflect 1) the parties mandates or expertise; 2) evidence or rationale to support the request or modification or 3) offers solutions or suggestions that would aid Baffinland in responding to the request. Baffinland supports a participatory working process and expects that parties will bring to the discussion a view for constructive improvements. Baffinland has heard concerns by some members and observers looking for a consensus based decision making approach at the Working Groups. Baffinland views healthy debate as essential and does not believe that a lack of agreement on certain items indicates dysfunction or a willingness to respond. However, this is being addressed through the updated Terms of Reference where Baffinland has suggested that a more formal mechanism can be developed where parties provide recommendations with voting and when consensus is not reached the recommendation would be included in the annual report to NIRB for determination on the path forward.

Under Phase 2, Baffinland has proposed that recommendations made from Environment Working Groups will go through the Inuit Committees to provide an Inuit lens before recommendations are addressed by Baffinland. Because QIA has approval authority over the Adaptive Management Plan (AMP) any recommendations made by the ICs that fall within the scope of that

March 2021 16

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Nunavut Impact Review Board

ID # Question Response Attachment plan MUST be implemented by Baffinland or QIA has the ability to take Baffinland to arbitration. For items that fall outside the AMP, Baffinland must provide a rationale for not implementing and an alternative solution for the ICs to consider.

With the introduction of the Inuit Committees, we expect that the Environment Working Groups will continue to serve as advisory bodies, with clear provisions for consensus based recommendation development written into the ToR’s. .Project Monitoring will continue to be overseen by the expertise of the NIRB to ensure Baffinland is meeting all requirements under its Project Certificate. It would not be appropriate to delegate NIRB’s decision making authority on mitigation and monitoring under the NuPPPA and the Nunavut Agreement to an advisory working group. None of the above will interfere with regulatory obligations by any party.

Please See Appendix 12 for a full overview of what Baffinland has proposed with respect to the roles of the Inuit Committees and the Environmental Working Groups in the monitoring and adaptive management framework for Phase 2. Deferred Could Baffinland provide in percentage terms the estimated reduction in project dust The estimated reduction in project dust that would result from the operationalizing of the indoor Milne Port secondary crusher occurs Question that would result from one the operationalization of the Milne Inlet crusher and two the at the Mine Site, where the activity is removed from. To provide, in percentage terms, the estimated reductions in project dust we can north railway”? compare current data against the Phase 2 model predictions. • Mine Site (close to crusher) – The closest dust monitoring station to the crusher site is DF-M-02. In 2020 DF-M-02 measured annual dust fall at 68.36 g/m²/year and Phase 2 modelled dust fall at that site is at the border of the 25 – 55 g/m²/year and > 55 g/m²/year model options. Using a conservative assumption, if Phase 2 dust fall decreased from 68.36 g/m²/year to 55 g/m²/year, that is a decrease of 20%. • Mine Site (general) – For a larger picture of the Mine Site, DF-M-01 is located near the Weatherhaven, airstrip and road. In 2020 DF-M-01 measured annual dust fall at 107.2 g/m²/year. Phase 2 model predictions indicated that that annual dust fall at this site should be approximately 25 g/m²/year. Therefore, an estimated reduction at this site could be 77%. The estimated reduction in project dust that would result from the operationalizing of the North Railway will occur within the Northern Transportation Corridor. To predict decreases in dust fall associated with the North Railway we can use actual data, comparing dust fall associated with the Tote Road in 2014 (average of 53.2 operational vehicle transits per day, zero OHT transits) with dust fall associated with the Tote Road in 2019 (average 42.9 operational vehicle transits per day and 238 OHT transits per day). This method assumes that vehicle use of the Tote Road post-railway construction will return to 2014 levels. • There are four dustfall monitoring stations located at 30 m distance from the Tote Road, the site with the smallest difference between 2014 and 2019 dustfall is DF-RN-04, located at Tote Road km 28, on the west side. Dustfall at this site in 2014 was 24.12 g/m²/year, and in 2019 was 101.07 g/m²/year. This indicates an increase in dustfall from 2014 to 2019 of 76%, which can be largely attributable to OHTs. Therefore, a conservative estimate of the estimated reduction in project dust along the Tote Road using 2014 and 2019 data is 76%.

March 2021 17

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal The Qikiqtani Inuit Association

THE QIKIQTANI INUIT ASSOCIATION

ID # Question Response Attachment QIA-1 Please provide a copy of this figure that shows the lower detection limits for iron in each year. Requested Figure has been provided in Appendix 2 QIA-1 Attachment 1 – Figure QIA-2 Has Baffinland conducted a sensitivity analysis to assess the trade-offs, in terms of noise The numbers and sizes of vessels that will be used under Phase 2 would be dependent on which vessels are available for disturbance, between using a smaller number of large vessels or a larger number of small vessels to use. The limited market availability of larger vessels means that Baffinland does not have the flexibility to use fewer large transport the proposed ore tonnage and, if so, what were the results? vessels rather than a larger number of small vessels to transport the proposed ore tonnage under Phase 2. A sensitivity analysis is not required to make the determination as to whether or not it is more beneficial from a noise disturbance perspective to use fewer, larger vessels to transport the ore. The existing model results already allow for an assessment of the expected daily noise exposure estimates under Phase 2 for various combinations of vessel classes that are expected to be available for Baffinland’s use. Baffinland’s effects assessment considered the total noise disturbance, on a daily basis, for the most realistic combinations of vessels that would be used on a typical day and on a busy day of shipping under Phase 2. QIA-3 How, specifically, will the Proponent link underwater noise to changes in the proportion of juvenile First, it is important to correct the statement that the early warning indicator (EWI) monitors the proportion of juvenile narwhals? In other words, how does excessive underwater noise lead to changes in the proportion, narwhal. The EWI monitors the proportion of immature narwhal relative to the sampled population. Immature narwhal are what are the mechanisms in play, and how will these linkages be monitored and assessed? How will defined as calves and yearling, but do not include juvenile. By monitoring for calves and yearling, the EWI informs on both the Proponent conclusively determine that changes in the proportion of juvenile narwhal are (or are reproductive output and calf survival. not) a result of vessel noise? To tease apart the effects of shipping on the proportion of immature narwhal from other potential explanatory factors, Possible Follow-up Questions depending on Response (Optional)The Proponent indicated that they Baffinland looks to evaluating behavioural responses of narwhal to shipping. If observed behavioural impacts are shown to will be tracking changes to the reproductive output of narwhal. How does monitoring the be negligible while narwhal reproductive output has changed, it is reasonable to assume that the cause of the change is Proportion of juvenile narwhal in the sampled population provide direct information on likely driven by an external factor (e.g. increased predation, decreased prey availability, climate change). It is important to reproductive output? How are other explanatory factors, for example increased predation, assessed note that monitoring for the EWI is only one of many response variables included in the marine mammal monitoring and eliminated as causal factors? program. This monitoring program also includes marine mammal aerial surveys, shore-based monitoring from Bruce Head, a narwhal tagging program, a marine mammal ship-based observer program and a passive acoustic monitoring program. As a whole, the marine mammal monitoring program is used to monitoring for potential project impacts on marine mammals, and inform future monitoring and mitigations, as required. QIA-4 How is monitoring changes in the proportion of juvenile narwhals in the sample population a better Additional information regarding why reproductive output is a more reliable indicator is available in the literature review indicator? How will the Proponent determine if population effects are caused by Project shipping section (Section 2.2) of the EWI technical memo. A brief summary of what is contained in that memo is as follows: and not other factors? Proponent should provide fulsome discussion to substantiate the statement Population dynamics are controlled by four fundamental demographic parameters: survival, fecundity (the ability to that there are better indicators for identifying and tracking project changes and the general lack of produce an abundance of offspring), immigration, and emigration. One or more of these must decrease (or increase in the detail, and to the responses provided to the above two questions. case of emigration) for a population decline to occur. Measuring these parameters may be preferable than waiting for a What issues has the Proponent identified in the methodology and study design, and the statistical detectable change in population size. It is typically infeasible to monitor all of these parameters, so prioritization will be analyses, in the Watt et al. (2021) study of cortisol concentrations? required (NAMES et al. 2017). Ecological theory suggests that reproductive-age adult females evolve strategies that enable them to delay breeding or abandon investment in young when conditions are harsh to prioritize their own survival and maximize their future reproductive output when conditions improve. In a fluctuating environment, it would be expected that adult female survival will remain high and relative constant while fecundity and calf or pup survival fluctuates. As such, from an early warning perspective, fecundity and calf or pup survival, would be parameters to target (NAMES 2017). Although Booth et al. (2020) indicated that body condition is a potentially useful measure of health, but that observed changes in body condition may be the result of a change in environmental quality rather than a result of exposure to disturbance.

Behavioural response studies carried out for the current Project and proposed for Phase 2 include studies conducted through the Bruce Head Shore Based Monitoring Program and Narwhal Tagging Studies. These studies allow for comparison of behaviour of narwhal prior to, during, and after an encounter with a vessel. By studying this, it can be determined the extent to which narwhal have biologically meaningful (i.e. those that would result in significant disruption to critical life functions such as foraging, resting, migration, etc.) responses to Project vessels. If behavioural responses

March 2021 18

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal The Qikiqtani Inuit Association

ID # Question Response Attachment continue to be localized and temporary, then it reasons that Project impacts would not meaningfully affect the overall health of narwhal, or have population level consequences (i.e. such as affecting fecundity). Therefore, if changes to the population occur, attribution to the Project can be assessed with greater certainty relative to the behavioural responses of narwhal observed through these studies. The Study (Watt et al. (2021)) does not appear to meet the Canadian Science Publishing Guidelines ‘FAIR Principles’ on Data Availability. Specifically, the Data as presented in the Study does not allow for ‘Reproducibility’ because the data has only been presented as post-processed pooled data sets, and pertinent details regarding inter-annual variation in cortisol levels amongst individually sampled narwhal is not presented, nor is an appropriate level of detail or comparative analysis provided regarding other well-known narwhal stressors which are known to have changed in magnitude over a similar time scale as that considered in the Study (e.g., increased killer whale predation, changes in prey availability, sea-ice conditions, climate change, changes to harvesting). Further, pertinent information regarding the study’s data screening and data management procedures is lacking, including specifics on the decision framework applied for data inclusion/exclusion in the pooled datasets, and how data quality verification was systematically undertaken for this purpose. Without further analyses by the authors, and additional information being supplied or corrected for in the study, it is impossible to determine if any correlating relationship or trend exists between cortisol levels in narwhal samples and Project shipping as the authors have suggested. There are numerous study limitations but these are consistently understated by the authors. Baffinland continues to advocate for a regional approach towards health and body condition monitoring to be led by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and relevant community-based organizations, with contributions provided by Baffinland at a level consistent with the scope of the Project activities. QIA-5 How is the selection of the proportion of juvenile narwhal as an Early Warning Indicator supported Inuit knowledge has been shared about the importance of the Regional Study Area (RSA) as a calving area for narwhal. by Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) and the observations of Inuit in the impacted communities? Have CR-5 Attachment 1: Golder Narwhal give birth during Upirngaaq (i.e., between mid-June and September) in fiords and inlets, even along the floe edge. Inuit suggested other Early Warning Indicators that they consider important? How has IQ been Review of Paper on Cortisol integrated into the Early Warning Indicators development process, and does the Proponent have Narwhal calving is known to occur in Navy Board Inlet, Eclipse Sound, Baffin Bay, Home Bay, and Cumberland Sound. They Levels in Narwhal evidence that this integrated has been effective for Inuit? have also observed mating while in their summering grounds. (p.50 of QIA 2018).

Given that this information has been brought forward, Baffinland understands that Inuit view the RSA as being critical habitat for this calving. “While in the region, narwhal give birth and mate. Given the various ages of calves, Inuit think narwhal breed in any season. Narwhal take advantage of the rich food supplies in Milne Inlet, Eclipse Sound, Tay Sound, and Koluktoo Bay. Young whales tend to stay in the inlets while older ones travel between inlets. The whales leave the inlets for Baffin Bay in Ukiassaaq (i.e., September/October) when ice starts forming. Narwhal take advantage of shallow areas in inlets to avoid killer whales. Killer whales follow narwhal only after the ice has cleared in fiords. During Ukiuq, narwhal can be found in open water beyond the floe edge, as well as, in Tremblay Sound and occasionally Milne Inlet where they are at risk of entrapment.” (p.52 of QIA 2018).

Subsequently, Baffinland identified a need to ensure that the narwhal would not be inhibited from continuing to use the RSA for that purpose. To support this, Baffinland introduced the 9 knot speed limit and established restricted shipping zones within the RSA where Inuit have identified that narwhal are known to congregate (Tremblay, Koluktoo Bay, Western shoreline of Bruce Head). Baffinland prioritized the selection of this EWI because it provided a measurable metric for understanding whether or not narwhal continue to use the RSA in a way that is consistent with how Inuit have previously described narwhal behaviour within their summering grounds. To-date we have not seen changes in the proportion of immatures narwhal observed from Bruce Head since Project operations began. Through Phase 2, the concept of Early Warning Indicators will be replaced by a tiered adaptive management system, with low, moderate and high risk thresholds set against selected indicators. The purpose of low risk thresholds is to provide the same precautionary approach to monitoring as Early Warning Indicators, where monitoring observations approach but do not exceed agreed upon limits of unacceptable change provide an opportunity to prevent that change from occurring. Under this system QIA will lead the development of Inuit objectives, indicators, thresholds and responses through extensive community engagement, facilitated by newly

March 2021 19 Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal The Qikiqtani Inuit Association

ID # Question Response Attachment developed Inuit Committee’s and additional studies funded by Baffinland to support Inuit led monitoring for the life of the project. QIA-6 How exactly was IQ integrated into the effects assessment? We request that the Proponent work Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) was integrated in the marine environment effects assessment from the early stages of the through an example of how IQ was applied to effects characterization of shipping impacts to marine Project prior to development of the 2012 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). Information collected from mammals, specifically narwhal and ringed seals? How did IQ inform the characterization of effects interviews with community members, including elders, dating back to 2006 was used to characterize marine baseline as Non-significant? conditions in the Regional Study Area (RSA), including detailed information on animal distribution, timing of animal movement and migratory patterns, important life cycle stages and sensitive marine ecological areas for marine mammals and marine fish. This information also helped Baffinland understand where to focus efforts for its marine baseline data collection programs. Information shared as part of these interviews helped towards identifying valued ecosystem components (VECs) for the marine environment and provided critical Inuit perspectives on ‘key issues’ for the marine environment as a result of the Mary River Project. A number of focused ‘invite’ workshops were held with the communities of Pond Inlet and Arctic Bay in 2015 and 2016, to discuss community concerns specific to Baffinland’s Phase 2 Proposal (amendment to the existing FEIS) and potential mitigation measures to minimize and/or avoid any adverse impacts on the marine environment (JPCS 2017 / TSD 03).The workshops focused on five main themes: open-water shipping, shipping through ice, contemporary Inuit land and sea ice use in the Eclipse Sound and Navy Board areas, the Phase 2 Proposal and Arctic Bay, and caribou. A number of discussions were held during these workshops and opportunities were provided for local residents to learn more about the Phase 2 Proposal, share comments and concerns, and provide suggestions on how the proposed project could be improved. More recently in 2019, as part of ongoing consultation for the Phase 2 Proposal, Baffinland hosted several community risk assessment workshops in the North Baffin Communities which focused on identifying potential Project effects and protection measures (mitigation and monitoring) for the Phase 2 Proposal, in addition to documenting community perspectives on risk assessment and management (ERM 2017). Risk assessment and mitigation planning was undertaken with respect to shipping impacts on narwhal (displacement, injury), aquatic invasive species/ballast water discharges, construction of the new ore dock, oils spills in the marine environment, and vessel management practices. In many cases, Inuit knowledge has aligned closely with other lines of evidence used in the assessment (e.g., consistent understanding that narwhal are very sensitive to noise and that Project shipping will result in behavioural changes in narwhal while on their summer calving grounds). Since the start of the Project, Baffinland’s mitigation and management measures have very much been shaped through dialogue with Inuit. For example, in direct response to IQ identifying Koluktoo Bay as a key calving area for narwhal, and concerns raised by community members regarding potential shipping impacts in that area, this area was designated as a no-go zone for shipping operations. This also led to additional ‘no-go’ zones along the west coast of Milne Inlet near established hunting camps and narwhal movement corridors along the shoreline. Inuit perspectives on the existing project are continuously integrated into Baffinland’s marine-based monitoring programs, which directly involves Inuit in all aspects of the monitoring including study design and implementation, field data collection, data processing and analysis, and reporting of the data. QIA-7 How is the Proponent monitoring narwhal fitness at the individual level? What evidence does the Under a Phase 2 scenario, animals would be exposed to up to 6 one-way transit exposures per day under normal Phase 2 Proponent have to support this expectation? operations (e.g. two ore carriers leaving, two ore carriers arriving, and a freight and fuel vessel all come on the same day).). This provides narwhal with 22.3 hours per day with noise below a level that would cause behavioural disturbance. Based on historical vessel traffic in the area from tourism and community resupply, the cumulative total of vessels in the area on some days could expose narwhal to as many as 9 one-way transits per day. On those days there would be 21.5 hours when sound levels are below the threshold for behavioural disturbance. These are conservative estimates because the calculation assumes that the animals are in the shipping lane, and stationary throughout the vessel’s transit. In reality, this is an unrealistic assumption, and the exposure period would therefore be less as narwhal temporarily move away from vessel paths. We would not expect to see any measurable energetic consequences from repeated, or cumulative, sound exposures given the nature of the responses we have seen in narwhal to date from shipping, ranging from no response to minor short-term localized reactions. When responses have been observed, these have been limited (i.e. no discernible response) to response distances ranging from 1 to 5 km, which is equal to a 7 to 36 min disturbance period per vessel transit. Additionally, the types of responses observed do not constitute as energetically demanding responses. For example, narwhal have been shown to respond to close ship encounters by decreasing their dive duration (which would be less energy consuming from a physiological perspective). We have also observed changes in surface movement including

March 2021 20

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal The Qikiqtani Inuit Association

ID # Question Response Attachment changes in animal orientation, and animals turning back on their tracks in close presence of ships. By definition, these are considered ‘low severity responses’ with little to no energetic consequences. To address any uncertainty, many conservative assumptions have been built into the assessment and modelling and mitigation measures have been developed that exceed industry and regulatory standards. Baffinland has proposed to continue to expand on its extensive monitoring programs to validate impact predictions and will implement adaptive management measures if results show we are seeing impacts beyond those predicted. QIA-8 What evidence (i.e., sources) are there in the peer-reviewed scientific literature that provide A comprehensive list of references to peer reviewed literature and IQ studies that support the idea of marine mammal QIA-8 Attachment 1: empirical support for habituation of Arctic marine mammals, including narwhals and ringed seals, to habituation to industrial activities is included as Appendix 2. Some highlights are provided below for quick reference: Reference List underwater noise from industrial disturbance? • Some beluga populations may become habituated to vessel noise and traffic—particularly frequent passages by large vessels travelling in consistent directions (Burns and Seaman 1985 in Baffinland 2012; Pippard 1985). • Reports of habituation to vessel traffic for sperm whales and harbour porpoises (Richter et al. 2006; Evans et al. 1993 in Baffinland 2012) • Belugas may be habituated to aircraft, as they did not react to repeated overflights by a fixed-wing aircraft (Rugh et al., 2000). • Ringed seals were observed at nearly identical rates with no airguns, one airgun, or when a full airgun array was firing (Harris et al. 2001) • Harbour and grey seals at some haul-out sites appear to have habituated to close approaches by tour boats (Bonner 1982 in Baffinland 2012) • Bowhead whales tolerate increases in seismic survey noises depending on time of the year and the pursued activity (ie: summer feeding vs fall migration) (Weilgart, 2007) • Cuvier’s beaked whales demonstrate habituation to moderate vessel traffic noise levels in Savona and Genova ports, and show unusual deep-diving patterns when encountering ships up close (Soto et al. 2006) • Right whales exhibit strong reaction to alert signals, mild reaction to social cue playbacks, but no reaction to recorded ship sounds or actual ships (Nowacek et al. 2003) • Sperm whales off in Kaikoura area do not seem to experience severe disturbance or harassment from whale- watching activities, further studies needed (Richter et al. 2003) • Aquatic mammals’ behavioural responses shaped by principles of habituation and sensitization (Southall et al. 2007) QIA-9 What consideration has the Proponent given to the potential health impacts of moult interruption? During the ringed seal moulting period in July, no mortality would be expected to occur from seals entering the water QIA-9 Attachment 1: What scientific knowledge and IQ been used to reach the conclusion that it is not a critical period marginally more than they normally do at this time of year, noting that ringed seals are already in the water for a large for ringed seals and that moult interruptions due to vessel disturbance will not cause impacts? proportion of the day at this time of year (see literature sources below). In all the marine risk workshops conducted to date and the IQ reports available, Baffinland is not aware of any examples where the ringed seal moulting period was identified as a critical life cycle period. Additional Information is provided in Appendix 2.

Heide-Jorgensen, M.P., B.S. Stewart and S. Leatherwood. 1992. Satellite tracking of ringed seals Phoca hispida, off Northwest Greenland. Ecography. 15(1) 56:61 Born, E.W., J. Teilman and R. Riget. 2002. Haul-out activity of ringed seals (Phoca hispida) determined from satellite telemetry. Marine Mammal Science. 18(1) 167-181. Carlens, H., C. Lyderssen, B. A. Krafft and Kit M. Kovacs. 2006.Mairne Mammal Science. 22(2) 379-393. Kelly, B.P., O. H. Badajos, M. Kunnasranta, J.R. Moran, M. Martinez-Bakker, D. Wartzok and P. Boveng. 2010. Seasonal home ranges and fidelity to breeding sites among ringed seals. 2010. 33: 1095-1109. QIA-10 What are the impact predictions for Project shipping on ringed seals, and what monitoring has been The residual environmental effects of shipping through acoustic disturbance, hearing impairment, auditory masking, and conducted to confirm the accuracy of these impact predictions? mortality on ringed seals are all predicted to be “Not Significant” (i.e., no effects at the population level either through mortality or large-scale avoidance of displacement effects) (see Sections 2.6.6.2 to 2.6.6.5 of TSD 24).

March 2021 21

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal The Qikiqtani Inuit Association

ID # Question Response Attachment Baffinland’s extensive marine mammal monitoring program includes monitoring of ringed seals through the Marine Mammal Aerial Survey Program and the Ship-based Observer Program. The Marine Mammal Aerial Survey Program runs during the early shoulder and open water seasons and collects data on all marine mammals observed, including seals. In light of recent concerns expressed by the MHTO and the QIA with regards to the potential impact of shipping activities on seals, the 2020 Marine Mammal Aerial Survey Program will include a summary of sighting rates (number of seals observed per km of survey trackline) as an indicator of relative abundance. This can be compared from year to year. The 2020 Marine Mammal Aerial Survey Program report will include a comparison of seal sighting rates from 2019 and 2020 during the early season shipping season (a Draft version of this report will be submitted to the MEWG in the coming weeks). The Ship-based Observer Program monitors for marine mammals from the icebreaker during the early and late should seasons, this includes monitoring for vessel strikes and recording seal observations by the Inuit Marine Wildlife Observers on the vessel. Sighting rates (number of seals observed per km of vessel trackline) are also calculated from these observations. The sighting rates from the 2018 and 2019 Ship-based Observer Programs are presented in the 2019 Ship-based Observer Program Report (Golder 2020). Between the two years slightly less ringed seal and harp seal were observed in 2019 compared to 2018, although this was likely associated with the large number of unconfirmed seal species recorded in 2019 (n=1,225) compared to 2018 (n=760). When considering all seal categories (confirmed and unconfirmed species), a similar number of seals were observed in both years. Baffinland is proposing to conduct seal aerial surveys, starting in 2021. The objective of the seal aerial survey is to document ringed seal density and distribution in the RSA in early June, using a survey design and data collection methodology previously developed by Fisheries and Oceans Canada. The data collected during these surveys will be compared to previous results obtained in 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2014 by Baffinland and in 2016 and 2017 by Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Because seals continue to be observed in large numbers in the presence of vessels during the Ship-based Observer Program, because no seals have been observed to have been struck by the a project vessel since the start of the marine mammal monitoring program, and because icebreaking only affects a very small proportion of the available ice habitat in the RSA (0.33% of available ice habitat), Baffinland is highly confident in its assessment predictions with regards to the impact of the proposed Phase 2 shipping operations on seals. QIA-11 What options for mitigation or noise abatement measures are available? Baffinland is continuing to investigate potential noise abatement measures for the ice-breaker. The outcomes of this investigation will be presented to the MEWG as part of the regular meeting cycle, prior to the 2021 shipping season. QIA-12 Does waiting until the floe edge has closed eliminate any potential impacts to Inuit use of sea ice, or Closure of the floe edge is a good indicator that the ice is no longer safe for long distance travel, however, it does not is additional work required to clarify how the start and end of the shipping seasons could interact eliminate any potential risk of continued use of sea ice at the beginning of the season. Baffinland acknowledged this in a with harvesting and travel? The Proponent also stated that it would ensure that shipping does not letter to the Hamlet of Pond Inlet on January 23, 2021, which proposed additional steps to communicate directly with the disrupt critical harvest periods. How were the critical periods for harvesting activities determined by community to avoid any potential conflict between continued community use of the sea ice and our early season shipping the Proponent? How was the IQ collected through the Proponent’s workshops considered here? activities. These steps include the provision of daily updates on vessel movements upon arrival of first vessels in Baffin Bay, TSD-03 clearly indicates how sea ice is used after the floe edge harvesting period has ended. the issuance of notice of shipping commencement at least 72 hours before landfast ice is expected to break up, and a request of confirmation from the MHTO and Hamlet of Pond Inlet if and how the ice around Pond Inlet is being used by the community. Under the proposed system, Baffinland will not commence shipping before 1) landfast ice has broken along the entire shipping route, 2) the MHTO has confirmed the floe edge is no longer being used by hunters, and 3) Baffinland Shipping Monitors, in consultation with the Hamlet and MHTO, have confirmed that any sea ice use around Pond Inlet does not overlap with planned shipping activities. Further details on this can be found in Baffinland’s January 27, 2021 submission to the NIRB summarizing its responses to the Hamlet of Pond Inlets Announcement with regard to Support for Baffinland's Phase 2 Expansion (NIRB Registry No. 332819). Critical harvest periods were determined from several sources, including the original IQ study and the Phase 2 workshops completed in 2015 and 2016. A calendar of marine mammal harvesting activities in Eclipse Sound and Navy Board Inlet areas was presented in TSD-03 (Figure 6) and has generally guided Baffinland’s understanding what types of harvesting are generally occurring at different times of the year. Baffinland supplements this knowledge with early and ongoing consultation with the MHTO each year leading up to and during our annual shipping activities.

March 2021 22

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal The Qikiqtani Inuit Association

ID # Question Response Attachment QIA-13 Is Baffinland in support of a PC Commitment that covers this topic as proposed by QIA above, and if Baffinland is supportive of a term and condition on this subject and will work with the QIA to put forward suitable so, is Baffinland committed to funding it for the life of the Project and how would it be tied into the language for consideration by the NIRB in a consolidated package of suggested terms and conditions. Baffinland notes Project management system? though that such a condition would have to be clear on the party responsible for administering the program, which Baffinland suggests is QIA through the CRLU Monitoring Program. Funding for the implementation of such programs is covered under the Inuit Certainty Agreement and not appropriate for NIRB to determine via a term and condition. Regardless of which Party ultimately administers this program, there are two certainties, 1) it will be implemented, and 2) it will tie into adaptive management in the same way any other monitoring program would, through the establishment of adaptive management objectives, indicators, tiered thresholds, and responses. QIA-14 a) will Baffinland agree to an approach that estimates the Zone of influence and disturbance a) Yes. Baffinland welcomes input from the QIA on study design and monitoring, including IQ and science. This is part of coefficients exerted by the Project on caribou, taking into account differences in caribou behaviour Baffinland's commitment no. 65 where Baffinland … 'undertake research to estimate the Zone(s)-of-Influence (ZOI) and at lower and higher population levels, using an appropriate method (such as a Bayesian belief disturbance coefficients (DC) exerted by the Project on caribou. network) that allows for an equal consideration of both IQ and science and that is agreed to and supported by both the TEWG and the Inuit Committee? Suggested Modified Commitment 65. BIMC will update the Terrestrial Environment Mitigation and Monitoring Plan to reflect that it will undertake research to estimate the Zone(s)-of-Influence (ZOI) and disturbance coefficients (DC) exerted by the Project on caribou, and shall provide to NIRB updated estimates of cumulative habitat losses for caribou, at least every 5 years. This research will take into account differences in caribou behaviour at lower and higher population levels in a manner that allows for equal consideration of IQ and science. QIA-15 Considering our inability to assess the proposed pilot project, will Baffinland consider an approach Baffinland is committed to using an approach with the pilot project that calculates the total amount of fill required under that calculates the total amount of fill required under the design currently being contemplated (i.e., the design currently being contemplated (i.e., 1:2 slopes for all areas 4 m and under in height), and redistributes this total 1:2 slopes for all areas 4 m and under in height), and redistributes this total fill to ensure that as fill to ensure that as much of the railway as possible will be constructed using the 1:3 embankment slopes. Baffinland looks much of the railway as possible will be constructed using the 1:3 embankment slopes?Would forward to working with Inuit and the Terrestrial Environment Working Group (TEWG) to identify the priority areas to Baffinland consider using more fill if needed to increase the amount of embankment at the 1:3 apply the pilot 1:3 embankments. Baffinland believes the above is consistent with Baffinland’s commitment to GN-03. slope, assuming harm to freshwater within the project area can be avoided? Baffinland is committed to modifying the railway over time to include greater lengths at 1:3, as necessary. The drivers of these extensions will include the results of regional monitoring programs led by the Government of Nunavut, local programs led by Baffinland and/or QIA (through the CRLU monitoring program), and the lived experience of Inuit that travel the area and observe caribou interacting with the railway. Baffinland, working with Inuit and the TEWG will develop a Caribou Crossing Construction Decision Matrix to define the exact process that will be used to make additional modifications to the railway for the purpose of caribou crossings. This would be similar to the Additional Level Crossing Construction Decision Matrix submitted in October 2019, describing the process to add additional land use crossings. QIA-16 a) how much confidence does Baffinland have in the monitoring programs being contemplated to a) Vigilance for caribou is not limited to railway observations. Railway monitoring is not done in isolation from other detect caribou in close proximity to the northern railway? What other options are being considered monitoring programs (e.g., Height of Land Surveys, snow tracking, and incidental observations through monitoring to reduce uncertainty? programs for other environmental components). If caribou are observed in the project area by any program/incidental observation, there will be site-wide notification of caribou locations. It is unlikely that caribou will surprisingly appear at the railway without earlier warning from local harvesters and observations from all other Project monitoring initiatives. Uncertainty is reduced by using multiple methods of detecting caribou. Other monitoring tools can be considered as the technology and methods develop. Baffinland expects that through guidance from the Inuit Committee, and collaboration with local harvesters and input from the TEWG, practical solutions will be identified to address potential negative interactions with the railway. QIA-17 a) will Baffinland commit to adhering to input from the Inuit Committee and the TEWG regarding a) Baffinland has committed to slow or stop train and truck movements based on the road and rail caribou decision the number of caribou required to stop the railway, acknowledging that this trigger may need to be frameworks (TEMMP). One caribou within 100 m (328 ft) triggers a response by trucks, and within 250 m (820 ft) triggers a revisited annually based on caribou population status? response by rail, up to and including stopping trucks and trains. Baffinland agrees that considerations for closures to accommodate large regional caribou migrations are another issue that must be discussed with the TEWG, local harvesters, and the Inuit Committee. Characteristics of North Baffin Island caribou and large regional movements is a future condition that we do not entirely understand currently. However, Baffinland has measures in place to readily facilitate large herd movements across the transportation infrastructure when that time occurs in the decades to come. Whether this requires

March 2021 23

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal The Qikiqtani Inuit Association

ID # Question Response Attachment us to determine "the number of caribou required to stop the railway" would be part of the discussion with the Inuit Committee and the TEWG. In the meantime Baffinland has made the following commitment in response to a similar request from the GN, which will be included in the next updated commitment list:

Baffinland will work with the TEWG and Inuit Committee to develop a preliminary threshold for caribou group size that would trigger the temporary suspension of road and/or rail traffic. The threshold will be based on monitoring outcomes, operating experience, community input, and further discussion with the TEWG and Inuit Committee. QIA-18 a) How will these special management zones be identified? a) Section 2 of the QIA and Baffinland's Joint Statement identify how Project Protection Zones will be identified. b) What is the link between identifying these special management zones and the caribou protection "Project Protection Zones shall be based upon the predictability of project encounters with caribou through measures? identification of low, moderate or high probability areas for caribou encounters based on available information This includes IQ, local knowledge, and results from Baffinland monitoring programs and regional surveys." c) How will IQ be used in identifying these special management zones? d) What types of rules or (Qikiqtani Inuit Association and Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation. 2014. Joint Statement of the QIA and mitigations would apply within these zones, beyond lower speed limits for trains? Baffinland to the Nunavut Planning Commission and the Nunavut Impact Review Board regarding Appendix I of the North Baffin Regional Land Use Plan.).

b) The link between the Special Management Zones (SMZs) and mitigation will depend on what feature is identified for protection. It is possible that the SMZs have nothing to do with Project effects and associated caribou protection measures. Given that the SMZs are identified in a process jointly developed between the QIA and Baffinland, it is the QIA's role to collaborate and incorporate IQ into the identification process.

c) Should Phase 2 be approved, Baffinland commits to funding a caribou-focused IQ study with invite to the HTOs and supported by the QIA within 6 months of the issuance of an amended Project Certificate 005. These timelines are contingent on the QIA forming the Inuit Committee at least 6 months’ prior the date of agreement. The results of this study will be used by QIA, the HTOs, the Inuit Committee and Baffinland to, among other things, develop a Caribou Protection Map and project protection zones. QIA-19 How will instances of caribou mortality be investigated? What specific steps will be taken? What Baffinland will investigate any instance of caribou mortality following the currently established incident investigation assurances can Baffinland provide that there will be no circumstances under which instances of methods used for investigating safety and environmental incidents including wildlife mortalities. caribou mortality are considered acceptable? Wildlife mortality associated with railway use is The Baffinland department or contractor company responsible for the incident will lead an incident investigation with notoriously difficult to detect, particularly along stretches of rail with steep terrain. How will wildlife oversight from the Environment Department. Relevant details for the incident will be assessed to identify actions and mortality be monitored by Baffinland? Will Baffinland commit to using cameras to record all conditions that may have affected the circumstances that caused the incident. Relevant details for an incident instances of mortality associated with the railway, and provide this footage to QIA and the Inuit investigation include time of day, location, weather conditions, visibility, fit for duty status of persons involved, and Committee for analysis and consideration? Will Baffinland commit to reporting on all instances of environmental features and terrain at the incident scene including snow conditions, ground conditions, and presence of caribou mortality associated with the railway annually to the NIRB? water bodies, steep slopes, features that obstruct visibility, and vegetation. Photographs of the incident scene will be assessed as part of this process. Based on the incident findings, corrective actions will be assigned and implemented to address the circumstances of the incident to prevent a similar incident from re-occurring. Baffinland is committed to preventing harm to wildlife and complying with all regulatory and permitted requirements relevant to protecting and minimizing Project effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat. Baffinland's ore hauling practices adhere to these commitments. Baffinland will monitor the railway using a combination of visual observations by railway personnel and images recorded by outward facing video cameras mounted on the ore haul trains. Baffinland is committed to installing outward facing video cameras mounted on the ore haul trains to record the presence of caribou and to record a caribou mortality incident. Video footage of a caribou mortality and photographs from the incident scene will be assessed as part of Baffinland's incident investigation process. Baffinland will report the incident to the QIA, the Hunters and Trappers Organization, and the Department of Environment for the Government of Nunavut following the currently established steps detailed in Baffinland's Reporting Procedure for Wildlife Incidents. Baffinland is committed to reporting on all instances of caribou mortality associated with the railway annually to the NIRB.

March 2021 24

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal The Qikiqtani Inuit Association

ID # Question Response Attachment QIA-20 Can you confirm that this would fit within your understanding of the Inuit Committee's mandate? Baffinland agrees that the Inuit Committee should contribute to the development of a threshold for caribou group size Are there any operational constraints that would limit your response? Are you willing to have the that would trigger the temporary suspension of road and/or rail traffic. This is also a matter where the Terrestrial train run less than 300 working days / year if the number of caribou crossings require the train to be Environment Working Group should have equal weighting towards a decision. This is recognized in a commitment made to stopped for longer than 65 days? If yes, are you willing to accept that less than the total permitted the Government of Nunavut during the most recent Public Hearing, that follows: amount of ore may be hauled on the northern railway over that year? What is the maximum Baffinland will work with the TEWG and Inuit Committee to develop a preliminary threshold for caribou group size that capacity of the rail system, and does the system have the capacity to handle more than 10 train would trigger the temporary suspension of road and/or rail traffic. The threshold will be based on monitoring outcomes, trips / day for the two train / 90 rail car system? Will Baffinland agree to set a maximum amount of operating experience, community input, and further discussion with the TEWG and Inuit Committee. ore to be transported by train each day to ensure that your assessment of potential impacts to For the remaining questions, Baffinland must first clarify that during the Public Hearing it gave an incorrect number of caribou is adhered to? operating days expected for the North Railway. The Pit to Port simulation models 339 working days in order to transport 12 Mtpa, not 300. Baffinland is committed to stopping operations during caribou migration periods, and consistent with its suggested approach to operational flexibility, accepts that environmental mitigations may lead to years where less than 12 Mtpa can be transported. The maximum capacity of the rail system, based on the Pit to Port simulation, is 12 Mtpa, and requires a 3 train x 64 car system integrated with the existing design of the rail loading and unloading systems. The system is designed for an average of 5-6 train trips/day (annualized). As this is an average, some days will require a higher number of round trips and some days will be lower. Baffinland has committed to a maximum of 10 round trips in a single day but the proposed 3 train system does not have the capacity to handle this (or higher) on a daily basis. Baffinland does not see the value in setting a maximum amount of ore to be transported by train each day. Baffinland has assessed a certain number of daily transits and will remain within those limits. Further, Baffinland has proposed a targeted approach to caribou protection, where design (lower slopes, alternative crossings) and operating procedures (speed limits) will be implemented in special management areas where caribou are expected to be present. Adding a general limit on the daily quantity of ore to be transported would only create the potential to complicate and lower Baffinland’s ability to respond to a greater number of shut down days in a year, should they be required. QIA-21 BIMC is requested to clarify if it is more correct to state that QIA had "observer" status at these Baffinland developed and consulted with QIA on its community workshop methodology proposals before commencing the community workshops only, and that QIA raised concerns with the adequacy of the structure of the workshops outlined in TSD-03, in order to provide QIA with an opportunity to comment on and approve all Phase 2 community workshops and role of Inuit in verification in Technical Comment #3?If so, please community workshop plans. The methodology approval process that was followed is outlined in Article 16.3 (Collection Baffinland clarify why it continues to rely on the suggestion that QIA (likely represented by and Use of IQ) of the 2013 Inuit Impact and Benefit Agreement (IIBA) between Baffinland and QIA (Baffinland and QIA individual QIA staff) had a role in developing methodologies and verifying the results of BIMC 2013). This Article provides guidance on how Baffinland and QIA are to work together in the design, conduct, and final workshops? Does Baffinland also acknowledge that given the passage of time and lessons learned storage of Inuit knowledge collected in support of the Project. Article 16.3.11, in particular, notes “all questionnaires, through experience, that resting or relying on a long-past statement or decision is not adequate and guides, workshop formats and other methods of collecting IQ are to be developed with the involvement and approval of that there is a need to adapt and improve based on feedback and knowledge gained? [QIA and Baffinland]”.Various suggestions were made by QIA during their review of these workshop documents, which were considered and incorporated by Baffinland as appropriate. As noted by Baffinland throughout the Phase 2 review, QIA provided formal approval of the final workshop methodology proposals before any of the workshops proceeded. There was no indication provided either during or immediately following these workshops that QIA had concerns on how they were executed. In fact, the first formal comments made on this topic to Baffinland occurred during QIA’s November 2018 Information Request submission to NIRB, some 2.5 years after the final verification workshop was completed. As described in TSD-03, multiple QIA representatives participated in these workshops, including: • Justin Buller • Peter Autut • Jeff Higdon (Consultant to QIA) • Kim Poole (Consultant to QIA) QIA was also asked to nominate individual community participants in Workshops #1-3 held in Pond Inlet, which they did. Furthermore, QIA representatives were not passive ‘observers’ in these workshops. As the meeting notes in Appendix D of TSD-03 show, QIA representatives often had several questions, comments, and observations to share during these workshops. QIA representatives also assisted Baffinland with engaging members of the public during the Public Open Houses, by providing information to community members and recording any feedback that was shared. The Public Open House meeting notes presented in Appendix D of TSD-03 were developed using the notes and observations provided by both QIA and Baffinland representatives in attendance. These notes were also shared with QIA representatives for comment prior to their finalization. In accordance with Article 16.4.4 of the QIA-Baffinland IIBA, Baffinland has paid for the

March 2021 25

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal The Qikiqtani Inuit Association

ID # Question Response Attachment costs of collecting, recording, analyzing, assembling and delivering to QIA all Inuit knowledge collected/developed during these workshops. All relevant workshop materials have now been returned to QIA by Baffinland. While these clarifications are important to make, Baffinland also acknowledges the evolving nature of community-based research in Nunavut and changing expectations around the conduct of IQ studies in the Qikiqtaaluk Region, specifically. We will continue to seek IQ-related feedback from QIA and the North Baffin communities moving forward, adapt our approach and methods as required, and seek improved and mutually beneficial paths forward. QIA-22 What role did Inuit have in developing and verifying these findings? What community-specific data This information is provided in Baffinland's 2019 Food Security Assessment. Section 6 of that study summarizes Inuit and was relied on regarding trends in harvest? What data, if any, did Baffinland have on Inuit harvest community perspectives on food security generally, including harvesting and access to country food. Section 7.5.1 per unit of effort and cost and how and why this may have changed over time in the impacted describes some Inuit perspectives on the significance of effects on food security. Baffinland would have considered communities? What is Baffinland’s understanding of what factors are influencing Inuit not information on Inuit harvest per unit effort if such data existed. A lack of wage income is the main barrier to overcoming harvesting to the narwhal tag allocation level in recent years? The Qikiqtani Inuit Association has the financial barriers to harvesting. Section 3.7 of the Food Security Assessment notes that NTI's original Nunavut supported the Hamlet of Pond Inlet in its desire for a Pond Inlet Country Food Baseline and Harvesters Support Program provided up to $15,000 to 180 families a year in Nunavut to purchase a snowmobile, supplies toxicological study to be completed, to assist with verifying current food security issues and and fuel to harvest, until the program was cancelled in 2014. Based on the proportion of the population residing in the examine in a deeper way how the Mary River Project may be contributing to effects on food North Baffin LSA communities in 1996, the program would have awarded at least 34 households with this funding each security. This work is now in the planning stages with Pond Inlet. How will Baffinland integrate the year. The program as reinstated in 2016 does not provide close to this level of support. The Food Security Assessment results of the Pond Inlet Country Food Baseline into Project Monitoring and Adaptive Management described the level of caribou harvest in 1996 to 2001 to represent approximately 53% of Pond Inlet's country food harvest systems, and what role does Baffinland commit to have Inuit play in that process? (by weight) at that time. In all five years of that study, at least one caribou per person in the community was harvested, and in 1997-98, two caribou were harvested for every person in the community. Section 3.6 describes the cyclical nature of the caribou harvest and how this source of country food has almost disappeared because the caribou is at a low in its cycle. Several elders have commented that each full circle occurs over the lifetime of an elder. Table 4.8 of the Food Security Assessment provides a rough comparison of country food harvest quantities during the 1996-2001 Nunavut Wildlife Harvest Study, and it suggests the near absence of caribou has likely reduced country food intake into the community by about half. It is not known if ringed seal and arctic char harvests have increased in recent years to partially offset the loss of caribou as a primary country food source. Regarding the narwhal harvest, the tag allocations and landed catches of narwhal up to and including 2019 was filed as Exhibit 12 at the Jan25-Feb6 hearing. The table in that submission shows how the tag allocation increased year-over-year starting in 2013 when 50% of the remaining tag allocation of the previous year could be carried over. The tag allocation therefore has increased from 130 narwhal each year between 2005 to 2012 to 380 narwhal in 2019. The community of Pond Inlet has not reached its tag allocation in recent years because the tag allocation has continued to increase, not because Pond Inlet is harvesting fewer narwhal. Five of the seven highest harvest years have occurred since 2013. Baffinland notes that the final request to explain how Baffinland will integrate the results of the Pond Inlet Country Food Baseline into Project Monitoring and Adaptive Management systems, and what role Inuit play in that process is responded to under QIA-23. QIA-23 How will Baffinland integrate the results of the Pond Inlet Country Food Baseline into Project Depending on the timing of the completion of the Pond Inlet Country Food Baseline Study, the results will either be Monitoring and Adaptive Management systems, and what role does Baffinland commit to have included in the initial updates to the Adaptive Management Plan and related monitoring and mitigation plans, or to Inuit play in that process? The Proponent to work with QIA and the impacted communities to build subsequent revisions. Regardless, the outcomes of the study will inform the final Inuit objectives, indicators, thresholds Inuit Objectives, Indicators, Thresholds and Responses, into the Project's Adaptive Management and responses that will apply to the operation of the project. Baffinland believes the best forum for this work to occur is Plan, integrating the findings of Inuit studies into Culture, Resources and Land Use and Country through the standing Adaptive Management Plan Working Group, with QIA's input informed by the Inuit Committee’s. Food Security, and inputs from the Inuit Committee and Inuit Social Oversight Committee. Other working groups (socio-economic, marine, terrestrial) would also provide input based on the nature of the findings and required updates to the Adaptive Management Plan. QIA-24 Should the Project proceed, what specific new Project Certificate Conditions does the Proponent As part of the Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2, submitted to the NIRB on January 25, 2021, Baffinland support to deal with these two types of uncertainty for impacts on culture, resources and land use? proposed a new term and condition 185 to address uncertainty related to the accuracy of Baffinland's predictions, and uncertainty that impacts, should they occur, will be identified and acted on appropriately in a manner that meaningfully involves the communities. See proposed wording below. Objective: To address concerns associated with monitoring to ensure that Project monitoring captures the Inuit experience and Inuit monitoring is used to support further operational decision making by the Proponent if monitoring results trigger the need for adaptive management actions. Term or Condition:

March 2021 26

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal The Qikiqtani Inuit Association

ID # Question Response Attachment (a) The Proponent and QIA are strongly encouraged to support the development of an Inuit Social Oversight Committee (ISOC), to be comprised of members nominated from the North Baffin communities. The ISOC is encouraged to help develop an enhanced, Inuit‐driven, social monitoring program related to the Project focused on indicators related to community wellbeing. (b) The Proponent and QIA are strongly encouraged to support the development of an Inuit Committee, to be comprised of members nominated from the North Baffin communities. The Inuit Committee is encouraged to help develop monitoring programs based on observations by Inuit of potential culture, resource and land use impacts from the Project and to help develop related adaptive management objectives, indicators, thresholds and responses. The above described Programs are intended to be in addition to and to complement other monitoring required by this Project Certificate. The Proponent is strongly encouraged to use the information gathered through these monitoring programs to help support operational decision making. QIA-25 Does Baffinland agree that the resolution status for QIA Technical Comments related to impacts on Consistent with Section 5.6 of the Inuit Certainty Agreement, resolution of QIA Technical Comments related to CRLU are Yes CRLU should be considered resolved only upon completion of the updated CRLU Assessment? If not, conditional on Baffinland respecting and complying with agreements in respect of the resolved Technical Comments. On please provide a supporting rationale. August 21, 2020 Baffinland and QIA agreed to a joint work plan to develop the CRLU Assessment described under Schedule If the ongoing CRLU Assessment identifies additional types and different magnitudes of impacts on 6 of the Inuit Certainty Agreement. Since that time Baffinland has executed all work as described and expected of it to culture, resources and land use not captured in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, how will date, and has also provided all requested financial support for QIA's responsibilities under the work plan. That being said, the Project's Monitoring and Management systems be adjusted, and what role does Baffinland Baffinland does not agree that the resolution status for QIA Technical Comments related to impacts on CRLU should be envision Inuit playing in that process? considered resolved only upon completion of the updated CRLU Assessment. The possibility that the CRLU Assessment identifies additional types and differences in magnitudes of impacts on CRLU is planned for in the ICA and in in the joint CRLU Work Plan from August 21, 2020. At Step 15 QIA and Baffinland will engage directly with impacted Inuit communities on any new mitigation, monitoring, and compensation prior to final selection, as required. At Step 17 the CRLU Assessment is jointly approve and released and at Step 21 Baffinland and QIA will jointly approve the final Adaptive Management Plan, inclusive of the CRLU Assessments results. It is important to note that under the work plan all steps identified as “QIA” are recognized to be QIA working with and in support of the impacted Inuit communities. QIA-26 What other adaptive management responses is Baffinland contemplating, beyond the changes To address ongoing concerns related to dust, Baffinland will fund an independent audit of all present and future (Phase 2) QIA 26 Attachment 1: outlined to ore crushing (i.e., larger pieces of ore will be transported to the port and crushed under dust sources across the Project to ensure the proper dust controls are in place. This will include an evaluation of existing North Railway – Rail Car covered facilities)? Given the current situation (i.e., ore dust levels that clearly exceed acceptable and proposed dust controls for the purpose of identifying where improvements or additional measures are required. To Covers levels for Inuit), will Baffinland commit to using covers on all railcars until ore dust within the ensure the audit fully considers the knowledge and concerns of Inuit, Baffinland will seek to establish a joint Project environment has been reduced to acceptable levels? Will Baffinland consider also performing Charter with the QIA and designated representatives from the impacted communities. The Project Charter will outline the primary crushing at the Mine Site in a new enclosed facility prior to being placed in train ore cars? audit goals, roles and responsibilities, approach to the use of IQ, major milestones, timelines, risks, etc. Any onsite inspections by the auditors will be attended by designated community representatives to provide their insights at each audit location. Should the audit indicate that covering the open boxes of ore haul trucks and/or rail cars, or enclosing the primary crushing facility at the Mine Site would lead to meaningful reductions in dust, they will be implemented. Should the outcome of the audit not require the pre-emptive application of these mitigations, they will be integrated into Baffinland’s Adaptive Management Plan as response to passing moderate or high level thresholds, as agreed to with the QIA, and by extension the Inuit Committee.

Covering of Ore Haul Trucks and/or Rail Cars as a Dust Mitigation Measure The covering of ore haul truck boxes as a dust mitigation tool was considered during a 2016 site visit and inspection by Golder Associated Ltd. (Golder). Based on the professional opinions of a Senior Air Quality Specialist and Senior Geotechnical Engineer, supported by extensive interviews with the operations team and visual observations, dust from ore haul truck boxes was determined to be a negligible source of dust, and that wheel-entrained dust was actually the single most significant and important source of dust (see relative sources below). The finding by Golder in 2016 are consistent with the results of our dust monitoring program implemented by Environmental Dynamics Inc. (EDI). A recent statistical evaluation of the proportion of iron in the dustfall over time up to and including 2020 has been carried out. This exercise found that dustfall deposition along the Tote Road is likely

March 2021 27

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal The Qikiqtani Inuit Association

ID # Question Response Attachment associated with the roadbed itself, which has changed in composition over time, rather than with the iron ore in the ore haul vehicles. This technical memo will be shared in an information package on dust Baffinland is preparing to submit with its response to questions through the Phase 2 review. Baffinland believes there is ample rationale to support the Phase 2 FEIS Addendums conclusions that dust from open rail car boxes will not be significant. The ore inside the rail cars will not have been crushed into lump or fines, and the specific gravity of the product should withstand weather and wind erosion during transport. The most significant source of dust along the Tote Road comes from wheel entrainment, where truck tires kick up dust from the eroding road. A railway removes that pathway, where both contact points between the railway and rail cars is steel. The covering or rail cars is a significant undertaking and should only be executed if it will have the intended outcomes. The difficulties of adding coverings to rail cars designed to transport iron ore is further outlined in the attached memo (Appendix 2). QIA-27 Will Baffinland commit to having the Inuit Committee designate specific members of the Inuit Prior to the January-February 2021 Hearing, Baffinland provided the QIA with a proposed structure for the relationship NIRB-79 Attachment 2: Committee to chair each of the Working Groups, and to have the Inuit Committee play a role in between the Working Groups and the Inuit Committees. Baffinland notes that the QIA is still advancing the formation of Overview of what building recommendations from the Working Groups into the Adaptive Management system for the the Inuit Committee or a Terms of Reference for the Inuit Committee, and therefore it may be premature to make the Baffinland has proposed Project? If so, is Baffinland in favour of a revised Term or Condition enshrining this structure? If not, commitment to have Inuit Committee members chair the Working Groups without first completing those procedural steps. with respect to the roles of what rationale does Baffinland have for not adopting QIA's proposed structure, and how does As an alternate, Baffinland has proposed that recommendations made from Environment Working Groups will go through the Inuit Committee and Baffinland envision issues reaching resolution where the working groups and Inuit Committee may the Inuit Committees to provide an Inuit lens before recommendations are implemented. Baffinland envisions a Phase 2 the Environmental Working not be in alignment on a decision or topic?Specific language for PC term or condition to be project where IQ and western science are fully represented – and that our monitoring programs and management Groups will have in the developed prior to the closing of the public record. measures prioritize the knowledge and perspectives of Inuit. With the introduction of the Inuit Committees and ISPs – we monitoring and adaptive expect that the Environment Working Groups will continue to serve as advisory bodies to the Inuit Committee as decision management oversight makers where it makes sense to do so. Other recommendations for monitoring will be evaluated by BIM and overseen by framework for Phase the expertise of the NIRB to ensure Baffinland is meeting all requirements for monitoring the Project. See Appendix 1 for a full overview of what Baffinland has proposed with respect to the flow of decision making through the Inuit Committee and the Environment Working Groups in monitoring and adaptive management oversight for Phase 2. QIA-28 Can Baffinland clarify if adjustments to the Adaptive Management Plan would be subject to joint Baffinland’s understanding is that any adjustments to the Adaptive Management Plan will require the joint approval of Qikiqtani Inuit Association-Baffinland approvals like the original Adaptive Management Plan; and if QIA. Baffinland believes the best forum for this work to occur is through the standing Adaptive Management Plan Working so- In what forum is Baffinland proposing that those adjustments would be made; and- Will the Group, with QIA's input informed by the Inuit Committee's. Other working groups (socio-economic, marine, terrestrial) Inuit Committee be able to trigger this process of re-evaluation of existing thresholds and responses would also provide input based on the nature of the adjustment. Section 3 of the Adaptive Management Plan outlines the at any time during the Project’s life span? circumstances where updates can be made through annual review, and include: • Project Changes are proposed • QIA proposes changes to actions based on new evidence • New technologies or science becomes available and will improve impact monitoring and mitigation • Unpredicted impacts are being observed • Baffinland’s view is that the Inuit Committee, operating through the QIA, would be able to recommend changes based on any of the circumstances outlined. QIA-29 Using that example, about reduced narwhal requiring a reduction in shipping, or using another The rationale for joint agreement on the Adaptive Management plan is to avoid the circumstance which is being referred Appendix 12 example of Baffinland's choice, can you describe how substantial project alterations would be to in the question. By joint agreement to objectives, indicators, thresholds and responses in the Adaptive Management TARPs and Toolkits, AMP required, and how that would work, if project effects exceed Inuit-determined thresholds of Plan before Phase 2 operations begin, there should be objective measures in place to understand if a threshold is passed in acceptable change? Should Inuit indicate a reduction in shipping is a required response at a lower the future, whether it is based on Inuit-led or scientific monitoring. The objectives, indicators and thresholds (OIT) included impact threshold than Baffinland proposes, how will these differences be dealt with in the updated in the Adaptive Management Plan will include both scientific and Inuit based thresholds. Therefore, through joint project management system? agreement on the plan, Baffinland will have already accepted any areas where Inuit thresholds are lower than scientific thresholds put forward by Baffinland. Monitoring will be used to determine if ANY threshold within the plan has been exceeded, which will trigger pre-determined response(s). Prior to the January-February 2021 Hearing, Baffinland provided the QIA with an example of how adaptive management would be implemented if thresholds (such as a decrease in the narwhal population) were met. See Appendix 12, which provides an example of how objectives, indicators, thresholds, responses (OITRs) would be implemented in the adaptive management process as requested by the QIA. Schedule 2 of the ICA outlines that both Inuit and scientifically-driven OITRs will be established and enshrined in the Adaptive Management Plan.

March 2021 28

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal The Qikiqtani Inuit Association

ID # Question Response Attachment QIA-30 Is the Proponent in support of a Project Certificate Condition which requires Baffinland to work with Yes. Baffinland will provide the following commitment in the next update to the Phase 2 Commitment List: QIA and the impacted communities to develop a final IQ Management Framework, subject to co- Baffinland will work with QIA and the impacted communities to develop a final IQ Management Framework, subject to co- approval by the Inuit Committee for the Mary River Project (or similar Inuit Institution). The approval of QIA and the impacted communities. If the communities agree, their approval could be facilitated through the proponent will work with the Qikiqtani Inuit Association, and impacted communities, through the Inuit Committee for the Mary River Project. Inuit Committee, on a co-approval process for the Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit Management It is not clear what information the QIA is suggesting putting forward before the close of the Hearing, but given the Framework. (further specific information to be provided prior to the closing of the public record) commitment above Baffinland does not feel it is not necessary to receive this information before the close of the public record. QIA-47 Recognizing that Inuit, not Baffinland, stand to directly bear considerable risk associated with the In recognition of the conditional support issued directly by the Hamlet of Pond Inlet and concerns raised by Inuit in regards Phase 2 proposal is Baffinland willing to modify the Adaptive Management Plan in a manner that to the increased level of shipping, Baffinland has been responding to and working with the Hamlet of Pond Inlet on will restructure the way in which decisions to increase shipping are made. Specifically, is Baffin land agreements to a gradual increase to shipping. In the response to the Hamlet of Pond Inlet's proposal, Baffinland has willing to agree to a commitment to not increase shipping activities and/or intensity beyond current agreed to a commitment that will restructure the way in which decisions to increase shipping will be made. Baffinland is project shipping level until QIA, working with the Inuit Committee, and the Marine Environmental continuing to develop the specific details of the system but will provide an update to the NIRB as available to help inform Working group have each confirmed confidence that the project monitoring and mitigation the NIRBs recommendations on project shipping levels. Further it is important to note, that while the groups described in measure and implementation of the Adaptive Management Plan. QIA’s question all may have important roles to play in advising NIRB in making such decisions, the Marine Environment Working group remains an advisory body and it is inappropriate to provide decision-making authority to such a body over Project activities. Ultimately, Baffinland wishes to satisfy the Hamlet of Pond Inlets intent when the conditional support for the Project was issued so will continue to work on commitments that are considered agreeable to the Hamlet and the community most directly impacted by shipping. QIA-48 Is Baffinland prepared to revise its position on how decisions related to reductions in iron ore Baffinland has already agreed to a revised position in terms of how decisions related to reductions in iron ore production production and transportation levels will be made? Specifically, is Baffinland willing to commit to and transportation will be made. These positions were negotiated directly with the Qikiqtani Inuit Association under the maintaining a lower rate or decreasing ore production and transportation in responses to Inuit Certainty Agreement and reflect the acceptance of both parties by that signed agreement. Baffinland confirms it will monitoring conducted through the Adaptive Management Plan, Inuit Stewardship plan or the follow the measures agreed in the final Adaptive Management Plan, which we anticipate will be based on monitoring Marine Environmental Working Group? collected through BIM’s monitoring programs under the Project Certificate, and monitoring conducted through the Inuit Stewardship Plan reflected in the Adaptive Management Plan. It should be noted that the Marine Environment Working Group does not conduct any monitoring directly for the Mary River Project although any monitoring conducted by parties that can provide information on regional or project specific impacts would be considered by Baffinland and worked on collaboratively with that party. QIA-49 Can Baffinland please confirm what their understanding is as to why the Hamlet of Pond Inlet has Baffinland would not presume to speak on the Hamlet’s behalf. The Hamlet provided its response to Baffinland’s not accepted Baffinland's proposal? counterproposal (dated February 8, 2021) and it was posted to the NIRB Public Registry on Feb. 23. Discussions are ongoing and we hope to update the NIRB should new information become available.

March 2021 29

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Hamlet of Pond Inlet

HAMLET OF POND INLET

ID # Question Response Attachment HPI-1 In stating that the current operation at 6.0 (or if it were increased to 6.5) Mtpa is not sustainable, Only sustaining capital costs have been included. No growth capital or capital costs related to Phase 2 are included within what is included in this calculation? Is money borrowed or credit extended and already spend in this evaluation. During this same period, 62% CFR China pricing for iron ore averaged $73.45/dry tonne and even averaged anticipation of the approval of Phase 2 included in looking at the profitability and viability of the as high as $93.80/dry tonne in 2019 current operation? HPI-2 a) Why have no formal (formative of summative) evaluations have been undertaken of a) Evaluations of training programs are done on a continual basis between QIA and Baffinland through the Mary River existing training programs for prospective mine employees, including, but not restricted to Inuit Impact and Benefit Agreement (IIBA) Employment Committee. The Company and QIA routinely discuss the the Q-step program? effectiveness of training programs and potential changes to programs that may improve training outcomes. For b) Why have no interviews been done with employees who have left – for any reason – example, Q-STEP training programs have seen durations changes, class sizes made smaller, and curriculum Baffinland’s employ, in order to better inform policies and practices affecting Inuit improved based on the feedback of Inuit trainees. employees and to better understand the difficulties and challenges that Inuit employees b) Baffinland offers to conduct “exit interviews” with each and every employee who voluntarily or involuntarily leaves face in working for Baffinland? employment with the Company. It is within each employee’s discretion as to whether to participate in an interview. We also work with the QIA to conduct an annual “Inuit Workplace Conditions Review” which includes an employee survey aimed at providing Baffinland with more information about successes and challenges Inuit may experience in the workplace. HPI-3 Seals are the primary country food consumed by Mittimatalingmiut. In assessing effects on the Baffinland did undertake an extensive and comprehensive assessment of Project impacts on ringed seal and on their marine environment, given the importance of seal to the food security of Mittimatalingmiut, why importance as a country food to Mittimatalingmuit. Assessment materials are presented in the following documents: did Baffinland not undertaken a more extensive and comprehensive assessment of the effects of shipping, and especially ice-breaking on ringed seals? • Technical Support Document (TSD) No. 24 (Golder 2019; NIRB Registry No. 320584) • Biophysical Assessment of Icebreaking Operations during the shipping shoulder seasons (Golder 2019; NIRB Registry No. 325033-325047) • Socio-economic Assessment of Icebreaking Operations during Shipping Shoulder Seasons (Knight Piesold Ltd. 2019; NIRB Registry No. 325031). • Food Security Assessment (Knight Piesold Ltd. 2019; NIRB Registry No. 327147).

HPI-4 Baffinland has listed an Inuit training center as one of the benefits of the Phase 2 Proposal for the A training center to be built in Pond Inlet will be a benefit to the community, and to other Qikiqtani Inuit. The ability to Hamlet of Pond Inlet. However, the $10M contribution of Baffinland is only that – a contribution. offer more advanced training programs within affected communities is a significant benefit to support the goals of Whether or not this is in fact, a benefit to the Hamlet depends on agreements yet to be reached maximizing Inuit employment at the Mary River Project. with other parties that, as far as the Hamlet knows, have not been reached and are not certain at Baffinland understands that the Qikiqtani Inuit Association (QIA) is working with the Qikiqtaaluk Business Development this time. Please clarify. What is the current state of these negotiations? Who, for example, will be Corporation (QBDC) to continue advancing this project. Baffinland is currently engaged with QBDC in a needs assessment providing accommodation and services for trainees and ongoing operating and maintenance costs connected to the planning of the training facility. Baffinland understands that the plans for this facility will include for such a facility? What demands would such a training center place on services for which the accommodations and all facilities needed to offer a suite of training programs. Hamlet is responsible – power, water and sewer delivery and pick-up, fire protection, etc.? Why is Further, Baffinland understands that QBDC was in Pond Inlet February 18-19, 2021 to provide an update directly to Pond this listed as a benefit when negotiations have presumably not been completed and such a facility, Inlet residents on the project, seek feedback on facility design, as well as land selection for the building site. Baffinland and even if Phase 2 were approved, is not a certainty? QIA are also planning joint work to discuss potential funding partnerships with the Governments of Canada and Nunavut. As QIA is leading design and management of this initiative, detailed questions about the progress of the initiative are best posed to the QIA.

HPI-5 In its 2018 Addendum application for the Mary River Phase 2 Expansion Project, Baffinland claimed Full response attached (Appendix 3) HPI-5 Attachment 1: Full that the income received by Mittimatalingmiut and Inuit of other mine-involved communities Response would create a local market for goods and services. What was this prediction based upon, given the reality of the average annual income received by Inuit employees in mine-involved communities, and income that, on average, barely replaces what a family of 4 would have as disposable income if it were on social assistance?

March 2021 30

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Mittimatalik Hunters and Trappers Organization

MITTIMATALIK HUNTERS AND TRAPPERS ORGANIZATION

ID # Question Response Attachment MHTO-1 a) What is the maximum number of ore cars each train can haul within the currently proposed infrastructure (sidings, a) The feasibility study modelled 2 trains with 72 cars each (up to a maximum of 80 cars/train). track limits etc)? After reviewing the tractive effort of the locomotives with the future rail operator, concerns b) How many cars and locomotive engines has BIM procured to date? were raised that the locomotives may not have sufficient tractive effort to haul 80 cars on the proposed grades through all weather conditions. During detailed engineering a full Pit to Port c) BIM has requested authorization for 176 ore vessels each year, and up to 10 train trips per day to achieve 12 MTPA simulation determined that a 2 train/80 car system could not achieve 12 Mtpa. The simulation production and shipping rates. It has been demonstrated that 12MTPA could be achieved using fewer ore vessels, determined that 3 trains with 64 cars each was required due to blockages that would occur in and likely fewer train loads as well. the system at the rail car dumper due to the size of the conical stockpile and at the primary What is the configuration that would result in the fewest number of daily train trips and annual ore vessel transits to crusher due to the train loadout stockpile capacity. achieve 12 MT per year of ore production and shipment? b) BIM has procured 8 locomotive engines (6 operational + 2 spares). No rail cars have been Specifically, we are asking for the most conservative numbers, being those which would cause the least amount of procured to date. BIM plans to procure 212 rail cars (192 operational + 20 spares) should environmental disturbance. Phase 2 be approved. c) The present proposed train configuration of 3 trains with 64 cars each is required to achieve 12 Mtpa. This is based on an average of 5-6 train trips per day on an annualized basis (some days will be higher and some days will be lower). This is currently the configuration that would result in the fewest number of daily transits.

. Rail capacity is not a mathematical calculation of number of train transits and the amount of ore hauled by each train. It is a system model and all aspects of the system from the rail loadout to the rail dumper and stockpiling activities have to work together. It also incorporates planned and unplanned maintenance and outages. A delay in any part of the system has an effect on the entire system and the ability to move 12 Mtpa through that system. This equally applies to shipping, which is at the receiving end of this system, but has a further constraint with respect to the market availability of consistently sized vessels.

For shipping, the configuration that would lead to the fewest number of annual transits is dependent on the size of available vessels that can be chartered. The 176 ore carriers put forward to date is a reliable number Baffinland can provide, and was used in the environmental assessment to ensure a conservative approach to impacts was considered. However, as larger vessels with the appropriate ice class become available Baffinland will use those to offset the total number of vessels required to come to Milne Port in a season. For shipping, Baffinland has been and will continue to investigate other methods such as convoying ships, restricting daily transits etc. that will be used to limit environmental disturbance. Like rail, the entire system from port to port must be examined to ensure the operationalizing of any changes can maintain the most efficient/viable approach. MHTO-2 What is the rationale for selection of Route 3 as determined in the context of the feasibility criteria set out in the FEIS Baffinland disagrees with many of the statements included in this question. Specifically, we believe MHTO-2 Attachment 1: Addendum? that we have technical feasibility complete to a level appropriate to environmental assessment and to Rail Presentation Despite having incomplete technical feasibility considerations, incomplete information about the economic costs a level that gives Baffinland the necessary level of comfort regarding economic feasibility, and further (feasibility), and not conducting any further community engagement on the preferred route, or rail project overall - BIM is engagement has been conducted on the rail and route (including via the NIRB process). asking the MHTO, NIRB and regulators, to accept a preferred option for which BIM itself has incomplete information regarding feasibility? Following the July 2019 Crossing Workshop at the Mary River Mine Site where alternative Routes 2 and 3 were identified, Baffinland investigated their feasibility and throughout September 2019 held several follow up meetings with the MHTO and Hamlet of Pond Inlet. This is described in Section 8 of the Rail Alignment Summary Report, submitted to NIRB in October 2019 (NIRB Registry No. 327148-327149). Following the initial Public Hearing where Baffinland committed to build Route 3, regardless of the cost, Baffinland met with the MHTO and an additional alternative route was provided, and again

March 2021 31

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Mittimatalik Hunters and Trappers Organization

ID # Question Response Attachment Baffinland investigated the feasibility. This alternative route was similar to Option B from the Phase 2 Alternatives Assessment (TSD-01), and was the subject of a dedicated discussion with representatives from all 5 North Baffin communities during an EA Workshop held at the Mine Site in 2020. An unverified summary of this workshop was submitted to the NIRB in October 2020, and the specific Rail Presentation is attached to this response for reference (Appendix 4). The decision to move forward with Route 3 over Routes 2 and the additional route provided by MHTO labelled Option B+, as determined in the context of the feasibility criteria set out in the Alternatives Assessment is as follows: • Technical feasibility - The basic objective in any rail line is to have gradients as flat as possible and curve radii as large as possible to ensure safe train handling. The route was reviewed for operability and safety by professional engineers and rail operators and is considered acceptable. Route 2 would have required steep embankments and cuts that presented an added safety risk to the maintenance and operation of the North Railway Baffinland and the proposed future operator, Genesee and Wyoming, to be unacceptable. Option B+ is in an entirely new valley with unknown technical hazards and complications. • Cost effectiveness - Route 3 has similar topography and estimated earthworks quantities compared to Route 1 and is therefore considered acceptable from a cost effectiveness perspective. Geotechnical programs are planned to support detailed engineering design and the risk of any increased cost requirements identified has been accepted by Baffinland. • Environmental acceptability - Given the proximity of Route 3 to Route 1, it falls within the spatial scope of assessments already conducted and does not change any previous residual effects determinations. The steep embankments and cuts required to build Route 2 would have presented significant barriers to crossing for wildlife. Option B+ was in an entirely new valley and would have expanded the projects zone of influence substantially. • Community acceptability - Baffinland understand that Route 2 and Option B+ may be preferred by communities, however, Route 3 objectively removes an identified overlap with a known travel route between Igloolik and Pond Inlet and is an improvement on Route 1. MHTO-3 In a response to Dr. Tester during the January-February Hearing, Lou Kamermans stated that IQ material was available to 1. Yes, Baffinland agrees that the EIS Guidelines require Baffinland to integrate IQ into the Final BIM experts to “consider” as part of their assessments. EIS. Baffinland experts considered IQ and integrated it in their assessments, as outlined on 1. Does BIM agree that the NIRB EIS Guidelines require specifically that IQ be integrated, and not simply several occasions by Baffinland, including within the EIS and supporting TSDs itself, in considered?BIM said during the January-February Hearing that it has incorporated statements and best practices presentations provided by Baffinland during Technical Meetings and the Hearings in support from its 2019 IQ Management Framework as these relate to the ongoing collection, consideration, and of Phase 2, and in supplementary information provided by Baffinland (see for example incorporation of IQ and its work with Inuit, including “considering IQ and other forms of knowledge from Inuit with Appendix 13 to Baffinland’s responses to March 2019 Technical Comments). an equal weight to other information inputs.” Yet during the proceedings, BIM staff made statements about 2. The referenced comment was made by Mr. Kamermans in response to a question relating to impacts of the project and how these are to be considered as "independent of IQ.” monitoring. For clarity, the statement was intended as an acknowledgment that it is possible 2. Can BIM clarify how, and which, impacts specifically it considers independent of IQ and provide justification?BIM’s that scientific monitoring may provide different results from IQ in some circumstances. IQ TSD-3 states “The Phase 2 Proposal will continue to provide sustainable and durable social and economic benefits and scientific monitoring can also be complementary and all available information should be to Inuit without compromising the integrity of the ecosystem or the right of future generations to the sustainable considered and integrated in monitoring. use of renewable and non-renewable resources”. 3. The EIS Guidelines are based on several factors that the NIRB considers directly associated 3. How does BIM define “the right of future generations to the sustainable use of renewable resources”? Please also with sustainable development, including “the capacity of renewable and non-renewable indicate which renewable resource(s) this statement is referring to. resources that are likely to be significantly affected by the Project to meet the needs of the present and those of future generations”. As set out in the EIS Guidelines, the EIS must 4. While it may not be a specific VEC or VSEC, given BIM’s statement, how was the right of future generations to the contain a “sustainability analysis”, which is an analysis of the ability of renewable resources sustainable use of renewable resources considered or assessed? How is this definition different from the ability of affected by the Project to sustain current and future generations in Nunavut and Canada. See Inuit to exercise their harvesting rights, and if a distinct consideration, how was the assessment specifically geared Section 11 of the Main Document of the Final EIS. Examples of "renewable resources" are to address each of these? provided in the EIS Guidelines at section 8.2.3.1 – “subsistence and commercial hunting and fishing”. 4. Baffinland confirms that the capacity of renewable/non-renewable resources was not a stand- alone VEC/VSEC. However, a sustainability analysis for each of the VECs/VSECs was included

March 2021 32

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Mittimatalik Hunters and Trappers Organization

ID # Question Response Attachment in Section 11 of the Main Document of the Final EIS. As outlined in the effects assessment for each VEC, the Project is not expected to affect the overall integrity of the ecosystem and key indicator species populations. Project monitoring will be conducted regularly throughout the life of the Project to ensure these effects predictions are not exceeded. Should Project monitoring identify that thresholds established through the Adaptive Management Plan are exceeded, additional mitigation/management measures will be taken. Therefore, Baffinland is of the view that the assessment and proposed mitigation and monitoring (including adaptive management) support the conclusion that future generations will be able to have access to renewable resources. With respect to Inuit harvesting rights protected under the NA, per the definition of “significant” in the EIS Guidelines, significance determinations included regard to the potential extent of the effects of the project on other regional human populations and wildlife populations, including the extent of the effects on Inuit harvesting activities. Harvesting activities were also considered when establishing spatial boundaries for the assessment, in accordance with section 5.4.1 of the EIS Guidelines, and considering cumulative effects in accordance with Section 7.8 of the EIS Guidelines. With respect to Project design, the EIS Guidelines required Baffinland to describe how project design (particularly project infrastructure and site preparation) has been influenced by sites used for harvesting of wildlife.

The VECs and VSECs for the Mary River Project are set out in the NIRB's Guidelines for the Preparation on an Environmental Impact Statement for Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation's Mary River Project (2015). Guideline development is an iterative process administered by the NIRB and designed to incorporate IQ through written correspondence, community scoping tours, and if necessary, in-person workshops. For the Mary River Project Guidelines specifically, the NIRB solicited feedback from Hunters’ and Trappers’ Organizations (HTO) and Hamlet offices of 11 communities in Nunavut, relevant Federal and Territorial Agencies, Inuit Organizations and interested parties regarding the issues to be included in the environmental review. The NIRB also conducted public scoping sessions in the following potentially-affected communities in the Nunavut Settlement Area (NSA): Pond Inlet, Arctic Bay, Resolute, Grise Fiord, Igloolik, Hall Beach, Coral Harbour, Cape Dorset, Kimmirut, Clyde River and Iqaluit. The objective of these meetings was to allow NIRB staff to effectively engage the public and interested parties on the proposed scope of the assessment, while soliciting their advice on VEC's and VSEC's that should be addressed in the EIS. For a full understanding of the EIS Guideline Development process for the Mary River Project please see Section 1.2 of the NIRB Guidelines. MHTO-4 1. When were the last QSEMC and SEMWG meetings held, and please identify which past QSEMC and/or SEMWG 1. The last meeting of the SEMWG was 2020/6/24 and the last meeting of the QSEMC was meetings the MHTO has attended. 2019/05/14-15. Baffinland is not aware of the MHTO having attended any SEMWG meetings. 2. Recognizing BIM funds the attendance of MHTO members’ attendance at working group meetings, you will agree As the Chair and organizer of the QSEMC it is most appropriate for the Government of the MHTO notified BIM that it does not have adequate resources to participate effectively in MEWG and TEWG Nunavut to confirm attendance of the MHTO at any QSEMC meetings. meetings beyond member attendance at the meetings themselves? 2. It is unclear what is being defined as adequate resourcing to participate at these meetings. 3. Has BIM consulted with the MHTO to confirm the meeting format(s) and structure(s) are acceptable means to MHTO participation has included, in the past, Board representatives from the MHTO as well collect IQ? Please provide evidence or records of these consultations and results. as their technical advisor. Baffinland notes that it has made offers to provide additional support to MHTO for their participation in the Project, including offering to discuss ongoing 4. Has BIM consulted with the MHTO ahead of specific meetings to confirm the topics, spatial areas, or other financial resourcing for technical and legal support for the MHTO and has already agreed to particular details that would be discussed, and/or clarified what specific IQ might be sought during the sessions - fund two new positions (which includes a training budget) for the organization. questions that may be posed, or areas for which BIM was specifically seeking Inuit perspective? Please provide evidence or records of these advance notifications, specific consultations related to this question, and results. 3. No, Baffinland has not directly consulted with the MHTO on whether or not the Marine and Terrestrial Working Group meeting format and structures are in the view of the MHTO

March 2021 33

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Mittimatalik Hunters and Trappers Organization

ID # Question Response Attachment 5. Has BIM followed up with the MHTO after each meeting specifically to validate what was shared and considered to ‘acceptable means’ to collect IQ. However, as has been previously stated, Baffinland represent IQ, to verify what was said and to confirm how it would be applied to BIM’s recognizes that different definitions of IQ exist. When the term ‘IQ’ is often used by operations/monitoring/mitigations? Please provide evidence or records of these consultations and results. Baffinland, it is typically used in a broad and inclusive manner akin to the NIRB’s definition of 6. Why have no other HTOs been invited to participate in the working groups? Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit. Baffinland seeks to gather ‘IQ’ through frequent and ongoing community engagement, where community members have the opportunity to share their unique knowledge and values in relation to the Project but is open to incorporating IQ shared via any formal or informal forum, including through the NIRB process. While it acknowledged that all community engagement cannot be considered IQ (e.g. general comments, clarifications, and questions asked about Project activities or how to access Project benefits and programs), it would not be appropriate to fully separate it from IQ either. In other words, although not always classified as IQ gathering activities, engagement activities do provide important opportunities for Baffinland to acquire IQ and community-based knowledge perspectives relative to the operating Project and future phases. Through community engagement and research, residents have often used their knowledge to share observations about the land, wildlife, and their communities; describe insights and concerns related to Inuit livelihood effects; and suggest ways these issues might be addressed. These valuable comments haven’t been dismissed simply because they weren’t collected under the auspices of a formal IQ study; rather, Baffinland has used this information to develop a more comprehensive assessment of socio-economic and environmental issues related to the Phase 2 Proposal and the Project as a whole. 4. A copy of the draft agenda for each working group meeting is provided to the MHTO that outlines what topics will be discussed at each of the meetings. The MHTO and their technical consultant would have all records of this, as they were the recipients of the copies of English and Inuktitut versions of draft and final agenda’s shared, as well as the presentation materials. Baffinland wishes to note that in addition to MHTO participation in the Working Groups, separate topic-specific meetings with the MHTO are held regularly throughout the year, and the Working Group does not represent a sole opportunity for dialogue on the monitoring programs or the Project more generally. For topic-specific meetings including workshops that have been held Baffinland does engage in advance of the meetings to discuss what specific items are of most importance to the communities. For example, in advance of the series of workshops that were to be held in 2020 Baffinland met with MHTO Board members to discuss what topics were of priority for those workshops as well as to develop a mutually agreeable schedule. This process was explained in the Community Engagement Update, submitted February 21, 2020 (NIRB Registry No. 328634-328635). 5. Yes, BIM follows up with the MHTO after each meeting to validate what was shared and considered and to verify what was said and to confirm how it would be applied to BIM’s operations/monitoring/mitigations (if that was the outcome of the meeting). Two examples of how this is typically carried out and provided on the NIRB public registry for public review are provided below: Example #1 – Baffinland is responsible for maintaining meeting minutes for all environmental working group meetings, which the MHTO and its technical consultants are in receipt of. A copy of these meeting minutes are also available in Baffinland’s Annual Report to the NIRB. All members of the Working Groups are provided the opportunity to verify draft meeting minutes before they are finalized. Additionally, responses to all comments provided by Working Groups on each of the monitoring program reports and how these comments have informed monitoring or operations is appended to the marine and terrestrial monitoring reports. Example #2 - Following a series of two Phase 2 focused meetings that occurred on October 14th and 21st, 2020, Baffinland recorded meeting minutes and action items, which were then

March 2021 34

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Mittimatalik Hunters and Trappers Organization

ID # Question Response Attachment shared with the MHTO on October 30th for verification. On January 5th Baffinland followed up with MHTO to confirm whether the notes had been reviewed and accurately captured what was discussed. On Jan 15th the MHTO confirmed the notes were reviewed and did not require amendments. A copy of these notes were submitted with Baffinland’s questions to Interveners on March 2, 2021 as part of an update to the MHTO consultation record current to February 6, 2021. The meeting minutes can be found at page 282 of 329 (NIRB Registry No. 333680-333682). 6. Baffinland has operationalized the Working Groups in accordance with Project Certificate No. 005. As the MHTO is a named member in the Project Certificate they are invited and resourced to be an active member of the Working GroupMoving forward, Baffinland has committed to funding the establishment of an Inuit Committee as outlined in the ICA. The Inuit Committee will provide an alternate forum for representatives from all five potentially impacted communities with complementary objectives to that of the current Working Groups for the Project. MHTO-5 1. Does BIM believe that its meetings met a threshold for adequate community engagement and input given that a 1. Yes, Baffinland is confident appropriate opportunities for community engagement were MHTO-5 Attachment 1: total of only 120 people attended across all five public events and in both Pond Inlet and Arctic Bay combined? offered during the workshops discussed in TSD-03 and the Project planning stage they Rail Car Covering 2. Is there a record of comments received from these open house meetings? If so, please direct reviewers to the pertained to. location of this record, and if not, please explain why no record was kept? Different engagement methods were used to ensure participation from throughout the 3. Has further IQ collection and community consultation been undertaken to inform BIM’s effects assessment, and community could occur during these workshops (i.e. both invited persons workshops and proposed mitigation and monitoring plans, in addition to the public consultation completed in 2015, 2016 and public open houses). For example, invited persons workshops included HTO, Hamlet Council, 2019? High School, and QIA representatives nominated by those organizations to attend. Public 4. Did Inuit offer during any engagement sessions that moving from road to rail was a preferable option? If so, where open houses were also open to all community members and were advertised throughout the are those comments documented? community in advance (e.g. using radio announcements and posters in the Co-op and 5. During public engagement and consultations, or IQ collection workshops, were any participants specifically asked Northern Stores, Hamlet and HTO offices), with interpreters available at all events. Public about the preference for a railway over truck haulage of ore? If so, where are those questions and responses open houses were also offered during both afternoon and evening time periods, to provide documented? If not, why not? additional opportunities for the public to attend. 6. During public engagement and consultations, or IQ collection workshops, did BIM at any time present the option of covering trucks to prevent dust? If so, where are those questions and responses documented? If not, why not? Furthermore, the meetings referenced by MHTO are not the only meetings that are to be taken into account when considering the question of community engagement. As noted in the 7. Has BIM hosted any workshops to specifically engage with Inuit regarding their perspectives and/or to solicit or “Public Consultation, Inuit Qaujimanituqangit (IQ) and Alternatives Assessment” presentation learn from IQ with regard to shipping during the shoulder seasons? What about workshops regarding railway delivered during the technical sessions of the January-February 2021 Public Hearing, the shipment of ore since introducing the proposed northern railway? If not, why not? If so, please provide details Company has conducted over 218 distinct engagements related to the Phase 2 Proposal. including invitees, questions asked, presentation materials given, and a record of all comments and questions Overall, Baffinland believes that its efforts to engage with the community as documented in raised by participants. Please also provide evidence of consultation with residents of Pond Inlet to discuss meeting TSD-3 as well as the more recent engagement updates (most recent filed with NIRB in format and questions to be asked ahead of any session(s) held, any changes made based on those consultations, December 2020 and January 2021) as well as the opportunities for communities and and evidence of verification work that was conducted following the session(s). community organizations granted through the NIRB process (including three technical meetings, a community roundtable, and Public Hearings in addition to opportunities for written comments) meet the threshold for adequate community engagement. 2. Yes, records of comments from the public open houses have been provided in Appendix D of TSD-03. Please see report pages 173-174, 186-188, 209-210, and 223-224. Baffinland’s Geographic Information System (GIS) records, which have additionally been provided to QIA, also included any spatial information provided during the public open houses. 3. Yes, every opportunity Baffinland has to engage with community members is an opportunity to discuss proposed mitigations, monitoring plans, and other aspects of the Phase 2 Proposal. Baffinland held meetings throughout 2020, including at least 10 meetings with the MHTO, to discuss the Phase 2 Proposal including mitigation and monitoring plans. This does not include any working group meetings the MHTO may have participated in.

March 2021 35

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Mittimatalik Hunters and Trappers Organization

ID # Question Response Attachment Further, Baffinland engages Inuit through the IIBA Annual Project Review Forum which is jointly conducted annually with the QIA. This forum results in a public report and provides an opportunity for Inuit from North Baffin communities to share information, ask questions, and receive information from Baffinland and QIA. A wide range of environmental and socio- economic topics are typically discussed at these meetings. 4. Community representatives have shared that there are several benefits from moving from a trucking to rail operation mainly related to the reduction in dust and the reduction in fuel consumed (i.e. GHG reduction) on a per tonne basis.

Baffinland organized and held three Community Risk Assessment workshops and one verification session in 2019. Workshop 1 was held at the Mary River Mine Site January 14-17, Workshop 2 was held in Trois-Rivieres Quebec February 12-14, Workshop 3 was held at the Mary River Mine Site May 7-9, and the verification session was held on the land in Igloolik August 19-21. Workshops had the participation of the Qikiqtani Inuit Association, and Elders and knowledge holders from each North Baffin Community. The outcomes of the Risk Assessment Workshops have been summarized in the “Community Risk Assessment Workshop Report” (NIRB ID 327148). Baffinland also held a rail alignment workshop (Rail Alignment Summary Report, NIRB Registry No. 327148-324149) at the Mine Site in 2019 and additional workshop at the Mine Site in 2020 where the rail alignment, monitoring and mitigations were a large component of the discussions (NIRB Registry No. 331791).

The Tusaqtavut Studies carried out by QIA in 2019 have also strengthened Baffinland’s understanding of community views on the Project and its potential effects. Inuit have clearly stated to Baffinland that dust generated from the current trucking operation needs to be addressed in a substantial and meaningful way. This feedback is documented in the Public Consultation Report (TSD 4), the Tusaqtavut Study (QIA, 2019), and Baffinland’s IQ risk workshops (ERM, 2019). Through the design of the Phase 2 Proposal, Baffinland is offering the most comprehensive solution to reducing dust from overland ore transportation, by switching to rail operations. The Tote Road has been identified as a barrier to travel that has been impacting land use, and feedback on this is similarly documented in the Tusaqtavut Study (QIA, 2019), Baffinland’s IQ risk workshops (ERM, 2019), and summarized in Section 6.6 of the Food Security Assessment (Knight Piésold, 2019). Additionally, Inuit have expressed a desire to resume use of the Tote Road to travel on, which Baffinland has agreed to once ore is no longer being hauled by truck over the Tote Road and it is then safe to do so. 5. Baffinland requested feedback on the railway option because a railway was determined to be required to ensure the long-term viability of the Project. Road haulage of ore during the Early Revenue Phase was always intended to be short-term and is not a sustainable operation. Further, feedback from communities regarding road operation has not been favourable, as described above. In addition to what is provided in response #4, during the Risk Assessment Workshops held in 2019, the rail alignment workshop in 2019 and the workshop in 2020, Baffinland had detailed discussions with Inuit about its rail proposal, the existing trucking operation, and the overall design of Phase 2 to address concerns Inuit had expressed about dust and dust deposition from Project activities. The outcomes of the Risk Assessment Workshops have been summarized in the “Community Risk Assessment Workshop Report” (NIRB ID 327148). 6. Some discussion on ore haul truck covers occurred during the community workshops discussed in TSD-03 (i.e. Invited Persons Workshop #4 and in the Verification Meeting). Notes

March 2021 36

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Mittimatalik Hunters and Trappers Organization

ID # Question Response Attachment from those meetings are provided in Appendix D of TSD-03. The question of covering trucks as well as rail cars transporting ore was also asked by various stakeholders. Once instance where the question and response were documented is when the Government of Nunavut asked at a Terrestrial Environment Working Group meeting on February 14, 2019. Appendix 4 presents an explanation of why covers are not necessary on rail cars carrying ore, and the same would apply to haul trucks. A review of the geochemistry of dustfall collected at the mine, along the tote road and at the port is presented in TSD 11t suggests that the chemical signature of dustfall at the mine is predominantly ore and the dustfall generated along the road is not ore. 7. Workshop #1 discussed in TSD-03 collected information on contemporary Inuit land use activities in the Eclipse Sound and Navy Board Inlet areas throughout the entire year (e.g. a seasonal land use calendar, a series of seasonal land use maps, and textual descriptions of these activities were produced). Workshops #2 and #3 also identified potential Project-land use interactions and concerns community members expressed relating to a proposed June- March shipping season. Following the community workshops discussed in TSD-03, Baffinland organized a data verification meeting in May 2016 with participants from the invited persons workshops in Pond Inlet. Summaries of information collected during previous workshops were presented by Baffinland to the participants, and participants were provided an opportunity to edit, remove, or add new information. This served to help verify the workshop data that had been previously collected.

Workshop #2 discussed in TSD-03 focused on the shipping through ice component of Baffinland’s Phase 2 Proposal. Baffinland identified a number of potential Project-land use interactions for the seasons when shipping through ice would, including: Ukiaksaaq (October to mid-November) and Upirngaaq (late May to July). Further information on this topic can also be found in the Baffinland document “Socio-economic Assessment of Icebreaking Operations during Shipping Shoulder Seasons” (NIRB Registry No. 325031).

During the 2019 Risk Assessment Workshops outlined in response #5, marine shipping in Eclipse Sound was also discussed. The details and outcomes of the Risk Assessment Workshops are outlined in the “Community Risk Assessment Workshop Report” (NIRB Registry No. 327148). Baffinland also held one workshop in 2020 where the rail and shipping season including shoulder season were discussed in detail (Draft Workshop Report, NIRB Registry No. 331791). In addition, Baffinland has had a number of meetings directly with the MHTO to understand their views on the Projects interactions with the marine environment. A meeting held between the MHTO and Baffinland on May 13th, 2020 focused on the MHTO’s marine related technical submissions and led to discussions around the end of the shipping season (Oct 31st was first proposed), ice thickness and conditions of Inuit use, shipping schedules, anchorages, floe edge harvesting and monitoring, use of ice bridges, community based monitoring and ballast water management. A copy of these meeting minutes were submitted with Baffinland’s questions to Interveners on March 2, 2021 as part of an update to the MHTO consultation record current to February 6, 2021. The meeting minutes can be found at page 202 of 329 (NIRB Registry No. 333680-333682). Throughout Baffinland’s ongoing engagement efforts, the Company is always soliciting feedback on its operations and the Phase 2 Proposal as well as sharing information and asking questions about what it can do better. To ensure that as the Project moves forward Inuit have a leading role to play in how Baffinland conducts engagement in the North Baffin, the Company has committed to the development of community-specific community engagement guidelines. The Company is confident that a collaborative approach to the development of

March 2021 37

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Mittimatalik Hunters and Trappers Organization

ID # Question Response Attachment these guidelines will make meaningful changes and improvements to how Baffinland and affected communities discuss issues and engage one another on the Project.

MHTO-6 Slide 35 of the 2020 Hearing presentation references Culture, Resources and Land Use Monitoring. 1. The currently proposed CRLU monitoring program will be responsible for issues and 1. What is the purpose of the Culture Resource and Land Use monitoring program, and what would such a program monitoring activities related to Inuit use of the land and harvesting, and how they are altered entail? The 2019 IQ Management Framework notes that the CRLU Monitoring program would be detailed within by Project-related activities. The CRLU monitoring program referenced in the 2019 IQ one year of the revised project certificate, in consultation with the QIA - does this mean the monitoring program Management Framework was the version to be administered by Baffinland. The timelines would be finalized one year following possible Phase 2 approval? provided in that document no longer apply. 2. The framework also states that BIM’s intention is to conduct the first CRLU Monitoring Program three months after 2. QIA now has primary responsibility for developing and administering the CRLU monitoring commissioning the railway. What baseline information is available to date regarding culture, resources and land program, as such questions around work planning should be directed towards QIA. In addition use - specifically what will be used in comparison for trends from future monitoring? What are the thresholds and to Baffinland’s available baseline information, the QIA is also undertaking additional studies to indicators to identify acceptable levels of change, and to measure whether changes are occurring? supplement to CRLU monitoring program. 3. What strategies would be employed by BIM if the impacts of the railway or other activities are determined to be so 3. Baffinland will act in accordance with the parameters of the Adaptive Management Plan unacceptable to Inuit, perhaps irreversible and permanent, that the activity, or entire project, is unacceptable to agreed to with QIA, inclusive of direction from community representatives participating in the Inuit? Inuit Committee. It would also be open to parties to take further steps under the Nunavut 4. The application for Phase 2 was submitted in 2014, the scope was significantly modified in 2017 and the FEIS Agreement and regulatory process, including initiating a reconsideration of the terms and Addendum was submitted in 2018; why was an updated assessment of culture, resources, and land use not conditions of Project Certificate No. 005 with the Nunavut Impact Review Board. included in the FEIS Addendum? 4. The Phase 2 Culture, Resource and Land Use Assessment was not finalized until just before submission of the Phase 2 FEIS Addendum in September 2018. There was no previously finalized or submitted assessment to update. MHTO-7 1. How have these “stringent” shipping measures been informed by IQ, with specific reference to each measure? 1. The implementation of transit restrictions are voluntary mitigation measures adopted by 2. How has BIM addressed the stated opposition of the community of Pond Inlet to shipping during the shoulder Baffinland for shipping during the shoulder seasons (i.e. when ice is present). The 9 knot seasons and the request to suspend shipping on October 15? speed limit and limit on the number of vessels anchored is also a voluntary measure that Baffinland imposes on vessels under charter and applies to the entire shipping season. 3. Has BIM introduced any project description changes that would address the impacts that its shipping has had, or Additional stringent mitigation measures applied by Baffinland include not shipping when will have, on narwhal and harvesting? landfast ice is present, and requiring vessels to wait for escort 40km outside the Nunavut 4. Does BIM propose further reducing the speed of ships travelling in the Regional Study Area for Phase 2 (i.e. to Settlement Area when transit restrictions are in place, even if there is ice free conditions travel at speeds less than 9 knots)? If not, does BIM consider the same speed limit in place for existing operations, along the shipping route available to the vessels (i.e. near Pond Inlet). Each of these and implementing a caravan rule of 4-5 ships plus ice breaker to meet the definition of a stringent measure? mitigation measures provides the benefit of reducing the spatial and temporal underwater 5. We also note that Slide 32 "Project Description Changes” lists the installation of acoustic monitoring devices at the noise effects associated with icebreaking activities on marine mammals. IQ collected for the floe edge, developing community specific engagement guidelines, and integrating relevant community based Project has detailed the sensitivity of marine mammals to underwater noise. Feedback monitoring into Phase 2 adaptive management planning. Please clarify if these are examples of changes, or provided by Inuit has also shared concerns about but not limited to interference with land commitments, that are based on what BIM has heard from the community and/or based on IQ in respect of Phase users from the presence of multiple vessels in one area, waves being created, and disturbance 2? to animals at the floe edge. These mitigations demonstrate Baffinland’s recognition of this information shared. An exhaustive list of references has not been provided, but some examples include: From TSD 03 (pg. 57) When the ships start entering the area, the narwhals listen to the noise. After the ship continues on, the narwhal return. That’s how they behave. It’s not like they are scared. Narwhals tend to move faster from cruise ships and merchant vessels. Iron ore vessels move a lot slower, so the narwhal seem to tolerate them more. Seals know when the ships are coming before the narwhals do. When the ships are travelling, you see more seals on the shoreline. That is something that we can clearly see. One thing that was evident two years ago, when they were building a dock at Milne Port, is that they would swim away when there were no ships in the area and also when there were no hunters in the area. They seem to tolerate the ships. I don’t want to say bad things about hunters, but narwhals move away from hunters when they hear shooting. When the iron ore carriers move through here, the narwhals always return. [Workshop #3 Participant] Ships don’t bother narwhal much anymore. When a ship is louder and starts its engine, the narwhals run away. They are more afraid when it’s leaving than when it’s coming in. That’s how we see them from Bruce

March 2021 38

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Mittimatalik Hunters and Trappers Organization

ID # Question Response Attachment Head. When the work started on the dock, the narwhal would run away because they were putting boulders in the water. The narwhals would come back in the evening. They are more afraid of rocks then ships. I guess they are used to ships now. Seals are braver than narwhal as long as they have distance between them. They will go underwater when the ship comes and then rise up again when it leaves. Narwhals take the newborn calf between them and force it to dive. As they grow they get left alone. [Workshop #2 Participant] From QIA Pond Inlet Tusaqtavut Study (pg. 55). If there were too much shipping like there were ships going in or ships staying way out here waiting to be going in, that would cause a lot of noise and disturbance because the narwhals tend to go in when there’s a breakup because that’s their feeding grounds. (P15, 07-Feb-19) They’re [narwhal] very sensitive [to sound]. I usually bring a hydrophone with me to the floe edge every year to see how far the narwhals are. And I can hear snowmobile from about a couple miles out, even before it’s showing – from the hydrophone. Yeah. So, they’re very sensitive to noise. (P09, 05- Feb-19) 2. A copy of Baffinland’s response to the Hamlet of Pond Inlet’s proposal, including commitments related to the shipping season has been posted to the NIRB Public Registry. In summary, Baffinland has committed to the establishment of transit restrictions at the end of the shipping season and to plan each shipping season to complete by October 31, which is a change from the original proposal to ship until November 15 of each year. Baffinland also remains open to working with the MHTO to identify additional triggers for the end of the shipping season. 3. Yes. Key Project Description changes include the removal of winter shipping, the commitment not to break landfast ice, which ultimately limits Baffinland’s ability to ship for the full duration of the shipping season proposed in the FEIS Addendum (i.e. July 1 to November 15), planning the shipping season to end on October 31 (see response to Question No. 2), introducing transit restrictions at the start and end of the shipping season, limiting the number of vessels anchored at Ragged Island, establishing restricted shipping areas along the nominal shipping route, holding vessels 40km east of the Nunavut Settlement Area at the start of the shipping season. All of these aspects of shipping operations were not originally captured in the 2018 FEIS Addendum and have been introduced through the review process based on feedback provided by several interveners, including community members on the need for Project Description changes to lessen potential impacts to marine mammals and harvesting. 4. No. Baffinland has not contemplated further reducing the speed restrictions on vessels lower than 9 knots – this is primarily because Project monitoring has not indicated the need to do so, nor has any IQ been provided that suggests a further reduction in vessel speeds would have any additional benefits to marine mammals. As has been stated elsewhere by Baffinland, this speed limit has proven benefits for reducing the potential for ship strikes and the spatial zone of underwater noise disturbance. To further reduce vessel speeds without an identified benefit in doing so would unnecessarily restrict the operations and vessel efficiency. Convoying vessels, as well as travelling at the 9 knot speed limit is a stringent measure because it reduces the spatial and temporal underwater noise effects associated with shipping, so yes, this is considered a stringent approach to vessel management. 5. What is being referred to is a list of commitments that have been made through the Phase 2 review process. For a list of Project Description changes, please refer to response to Question No. 3. MHTO-8 BIM hosted community risk and EA workshops in 2019. Did BIM intend to rely on these as opportunities to collect IQ, and if Full response attached (Appendix 4). MHTO-8 Attachment 1: so, had it clarified with invited organizations and/or participants ahead of time that the goal was to collect IQ, and to Full Response

March 2021 39

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Mittimatalik Hunters and Trappers Organization

ID # Question Response Attachment confirm participants were selected based on expertise and the focus of the workshop(s)? If so, where are references and evidence of those communications provided? BIM indicated that risk workshops provided input on proposed management measures and that this would be supplemented by information from the Tusaqtavut studies to form the basis for how the project would be monitored going forward. Where is that information compiled and documented? Was verification of the IQ collected during risk workshops undertaken? If so, where is evidence of the verification work? 1. Have any workshops held since 2018 collected IQ that has been used to inform the identification and assessment of indirect impacts in affected communities, specific to harvesting. If so, please give details of which workshops these were, and what direct and indirect impacts were discussed and considered. Please provide references to where that information is provided. Please also confirm that verification of IQ collected was undertaken after the workshops/sessions, and provide references to where that information is provided. 2. Why has Baffinland not hosted IQ workshops to specifically understand hunters’ perspectives on the current operations, and on proposed Phase 2 activities? 3. Is it BIM’s opinion that it has collected adequate IQ specific to this project scope? How does the effort level compare to those undertaken to collect IQ in 2015-16 for Phase 2, and prior years related to the ERP and original Mary River applications? 4. Did BIM consider that its absence from consultations with communities would impact its credibility with communities who have been stressing the need for BIM to undertake further consultation and do engagement to inform its incorporation of community concerns regarding Phase 2? MHTO-9 1. When does BIM project it may be in a position to increase production at Mary River beyond 12MT per year? 1. Baffinland remains uncertain that increasing production and transportation beyond 12 Mtpa Specifically, if Phase 2 is approved, how soon after ramping up operations to 12 MT per year does BIM anticipate per year (14.2 Mtpa inclusive of operational flexibility) is possible through the Northern achieving greater efficiencies in its operations? Transportation Corridor so it is not possible to project a date this could be achieved by. 2. What what would be required in addition to the current infrastructure and proposed activity levels to “plan the Further, Baffinland has committed throughout the Phase 2 review process to a number of operation for up to 18 Mtpa through the North”? measures that may further impede Baffinland’s ability to reach maximum efficiencies which cannot be predicted at the current time. 3. What “additional applications to regulators” and “appropriate approvals” does BIM understand would be required to increase from 12 to 18 MT per year? 2. To increase to 18 Mtpa through the Northern Transportation Corridor would require a complete reevaluation of the system proposed under Phase 2. Bottle necks in that system 4. Would BIM oppose having specific tonnage limits in a potential Phase 2 approval? could extend to available mine trucks, crushing capacity at the Mine Site and/or Milne Port, railway design (additional sidings), railway configuration (# of locomotives and cars), stockpiling space, ship loading capacity, availability of sufficiently sized vessels on the market. 3. Any proposal to do more than what is approved under NIRB Project Certificate 005 requires the NIRB to determine the significance of the modification. From there the NIRB can recommend the proposal go back to the Nunavut Planning Commission for a conformity check against the North Baffin Regional Land Use Plan. Should an additional reconsideration process be required by the NIRB, that would follow before any additional post environmental assessment modifications or applications for new certificates would be possible. Baffinland has also agreed under the ICA to additional process steps with advance community notification and consultation prior to submitting certain changes of scope, including any application to transport more than 14.2 Mtpa via the Northern Shipping Route. 4. Baffinland continues to maintain that tonnage limits are not an effective means of managing project effects, when the source of those effects is in the activities required to maintain the operation. Ultimately it is at the NIRB's and Ministers discretion to determine what limits to include within an amended Project Certificate. MHTO-10 1. Slide 43 of the Overview Presentation indicates that development of the Inuit Stewardship Program, Inuit Water QIA has the primary responsibility for developing the listed programs and is better placed to provide Quality Monitoring; Culture, Resources and Land Use Monitoring Program; and Pond Inlet Country Food Baseline the requested updates and any drafts that they are ready to share with the public and NIRB at this Study are all under way. Can BIM confirm that these are not yet finalized, and provide draft versions of any time. Baffinland’s understanding remains that the programs are under development. materials prepared at this point? If not, please indicate where in development these programs and studies are?

March 2021 40

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Mittimatalik Hunters and Trappers Organization

ID # Question Response Attachment 2. Similarly, on Slide 50 of its IQ presentation, BIM confirmed that the CRLU, Inuit Committee and Inuit Social Oversight Committee have yet to be developed. Can BIM provide details around the actual parameters and terms of each of these initiatives and provide draft versions of materials prepared at this point? If not, please indicate where in development these initiatives are? MHTO-11 1. What is the maximum sized vessel the current ore loading dock at Milne Port can currently accommodate? 1. In 2020 Baffinland was able to charter baby capes with a capacity of 101 ,000 dry weight 2. What is the average tonnage loaded to BIM’s ships during the last 4 years of operations? Note that the MHTO tonnage. This is the largest vessel expected to be able to load at Ore Dock #1. The average requested the average loaded per ship in 2020 during the January-February Hearing and BIM was unable to provide tonnage loaded/vessel size during the last 4 years of operation (2017 – 2020) was 73 a response. thousand metric tonnes. 3. During the 2019 Hearing, BIM said that it would require substantial lead time and preplanning to secure ice class 2. Baffinland does not charter specific vessels for multiple seasons. Baffinland does not know vessels, that is, any vessels that would be calling on the project in the shoulder seasons, and it deferred a response what the vessel mix will look like in a single season until May or June of that year. Baffinland to the MHTO's request for details around the vessels that BIM contracted to call for port over the next five years, has not provided the requested information to the MHTO's question because it does not exist. the sizes of each 1. No response was provided to that question. During the recent January-February Hearing, BIM Accordingly, Baffinland has not yet chartered any capesize vessels to come to Milne Port. was again unwilling to provide an answer when asked how many cape-sized vessels it has contracted for the 3. Baffinland presented the industry range of dead weight tonnages that fall into the coming years, and insinuated the questions were irrelevant. The MHTO asks again, considering BIM plans for a 2 classification of 'capesize' vessels. Older capesize vessels tend to be smaller while newer year construction season before it would be shipping at increased rates under Phase 2, how many, and of what builds tend to be larger. sizes are the ore carriers BIM has contracted for the coming years (2022-2026)? Specifically, how many cape-sized 4. As Baffinland has previously indicated, there are limited capesize vessels available on the vessels does BIM currently have contracted for the coming years (2022-2026)? market today that can operate in the Milne Port area due to their ice ratings. In the future 4. The FEIS Addendum includes different sizes (DWT) of cape sized vessels for the Phase 2 scope (150,000 and Baffinland expects that a typical capesize vessel serving the project could have a dry weight 230,000) - please confirm the anticipated dead weight tonnage(s) of cape sized vessels to be employed by the tonnage of 205,000. Phase 2 project and explain where and why different tonnages were employed throughout the impact assessment. MHTO-12 1. Has BIM taken samples and assessed snow, ice, and freshwater samples from areas Inuit use for travel, harvesting, 1. Baffinland did take snow samples in December 2020, as part of an exploratory pilot sampling MHTO-12 Attachment and camping (on both terrestrial and marine routes), and confirmed that their consumption, including where dust program to develop a sampling protocol and approach for a future community-based 1: Memo on Snow is observed on these resources, does not pose any human health risk? program of snow sampling. The results of the snow sampling are attached (Appendix 4). The Sampling program involved collecting snow samples in different locations in the Milne Port area, which 2. Where are the results of this work? If this assessment has not occurred, how does BIM justify the medium-high represent areas being used in land travel and hunting activities, as well as areas near the certainty that this is an unlikely impact as identified in the 2019 Food Security Update? operating facility. The areas sampled include the Milne Port HTO cabin, as well as a sampling 3. Also, without empirical data or IQ confirming that Inuit are able to access necessary freshwater sources to support location on the west side of Milne Inlet. These snow samples were sent to an independent their activities and that these do not pose a risk to health, how can BIM assert that the impact is related only to analytical laboratory for analysis of metals, and the results were compared to Canadian community perceptions and not to Inuit experience? Drinking Water Quality Guidelines, or, where there were no Canadian Drinking Water Quality Guidelines, potable groundwater guidelines were used.

The results of the snow testing indicated that concentrations of metals in sampled snow meltwater meet health-based Canadian Drinking Water Quality Guidelines or potable groundwater water guidelines in areas that were sampled. In some samples, with slightly higher levels of dust, the measured concentrations of iron or manganese could result in snow tasting different or slight colour changes when compared to areas with lower or no dust. These taste and color changes are not associated with an elevated health risk.

Baffinland has proposed an Inuit led community-based study which will provide greater insight and understanding into Inuit concerns and perspectives of risk related to dust on the snow. In addition, Inuit based thresholds will be developed as part of the Adaptive Management Plan. The community-based study, in conjunction with the Inuit thresholds, visual observations and additional sampling in areas around Milne Port and the Mine Site will assist in developing a path forward and seeking solutions for the issues related to dust on snow.

March 2021 41

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Mittimatalik Hunters and Trappers Organization

ID # Question Response Attachment 2. The results of the exploratory pilot sampling program for ore dust in snow does not change the conclusions of the referenced statement in the Food Security Assessment.

3. At the Jan-Feb 2021 hearings and in its written submissions, the MHTO showed photos of ore dust on snow. Baffinland is also aware of previous community feedback including comments from community participants in the Tusaqtavut Study. Based on these submissions and discussion, Inuit have told us the presence of the ore dust impacts Inuit experience. The pilot snow meltwater study referenced above found that aesthetic drinking water guidelines may be exceeded in the snowpack in areas with heavier dustfall, but this does not represent a health risk. By expanding on this pilot study through a community led study, a greater database of information can be collected which can further the understanding of safety of drinking water sources, and by implementing further dust mitigation to reduce dustfall, or other mitigations that are mutually developed, this impact will be reduced. MHTO-13 a) What further research does BIM feel is required related to Zone of influence (ZOI) for the Phase 2 proposal? a) Baffinland is conducting all studies required to better inform on the Project-specific Zone of b) Please provide details including the timing of that research and bii) any changes that may be required to predicted Influence (ZOI). Currently, this includes surveys to characterize disturbance, and in the future, effects, mitigation, and monitoring based on findings of this research. when the caribou return in numbers to monitor response to the Project. Baffinland has committed to these studies as Project Commitment No. 65.bi) The monitoring and data c) Why has BIM not expanded its ZOI beyond 14 km, considering the cumulative effect of road and rail infrastructure? collection for the ZOI work started in 2012 and is ongoing. Baffinland collects all data to d) What evidence does BIM have that a 14 km ZOI is not only adequate, but is a conservative estimate, especially characterize potential disturbance associated with the Mine Site, including Daily Tote Road considering the transportation infrastructure associated with the Phase 2 development includes both road and rail. Traffic passes; Helicopter overflights, dustfall, and noise. Baffinland's impact monitoring is e) Please provide references to any Arctic (or other) developments with similar transportation infrastructure (road robust for vegetation response to dustfall and emissions. That long-term monitoring will and rail) that have demonstrated a 14 km ZOI for caribou is adequate. continue through the Project's life, with analysis and operational responses reported annually. f) Please also explain whether the current ZOI will be revised to reflect findings from mine roads elsewhere in So far, the ZOI on vegetation is within or adjacent to the Project Development Area. Caribou Nunavut, to reflect railway-caribou interactions elsewhere in the Arctic, or whether it may be updated to reflect response to the Project's conceptual ZOI can only be determined when the density of caribou new academic research. increases in the North Baffin Island region. Currently, the density is ~1,000 times lower than anywhere else that these studies are conducted. To that end, Baffinland has developed a g) Please explain the grounds on which BIM would determine a revision necessary, and the timing for such revisions forward-looking study design using satellite collars (in collaboration with the GN) to to be undertaken. determine the Project's potential impact on habitat use (ZOI) and movement. The studies need a total of 350 caribou in ~35 individual groups before providing robust results. We expect caribou density to increase to those levels within the next two decades based on traditional knowledge. The studies will be conducted when appropriate numbers are available to yield robust and meaningful results. Baffinland has committed to several possible studies, depending on the technology, knowledge, and level of concern at the time. To date, these include aerial surveys and collar studies and analysis. As an interim survey to "check" on caribou distribution in the Regional Study Area (RSA), Baffinland is proposing to conduct an aerial survey in September 2021. b) Empirical results from Baffinland's effects monitoring are used to assess predictions' accuracy, not change those predictions. Empirical observations of unanticipated effects or environmental conditions will inform changes to mitigation, such as locating new areas for caribou crossing structures or other operational changes — in line with how responses are made to current monitoring results. Monitoring may be revised as results become available and changes are made as necessary — again, just like the current monitoring programs. c) Baffinland has found no evidence suggesting that a different ZOI be considered for effects assessment. The ZOI is conceptual, based on a critical review of the literature and the best available information. Spatially, Phase 2 has a limited addition to the Proposed Development Area (PDA) that did not require any changes to the conceptual 14-km radius ZOI. Phase 2 also substantially reduces the sensory disturbance of vehicle passes by taking many trucks off the

March 2021 42

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Mittimatalik Hunters and Trappers Organization

ID # Question Response Attachment road and putting the ore on fewer train passes. A lack of evidence suggesting otherwise, and the likely reduced sensory disturbance to caribou from Phase 2, did not warrant an "expansion" of the 14 km ZOI used in the Mary River Project's effects assessment. d) The justification for the 14 km ZOI is provided in TSD-10, Table 5, and previous supporting material dating to the original Final Environmental Impact Statement (Volume 6 – Section 5.2.1). We agree with the disturbances and ZOIs summarized by the MHTO's literature review (MSES. 2021. Review of caribou impacts for the Baffinland Phase 2 Development Proposal Hearing. Prepared for Mittimatalik Hunters and Trappers Organization. 16 pp.), are encompassed within the Mary River Project's ZOI. e) There are no other Arctic projects with a road and rail that have conducted studies to determine if there is a ZOI. The justification for the 14 km ZOI used for the Mary River Project is provided in TSD-10, Table 5, and previous supporting material dating to the original Final Environmental Impact Statement (Volume 6 – Section 5.2.1). f) The theoretical ZOI used to predict impacts on the terrestrial environment in the impact assessment does not require updating for an operating project. Baffinland accepts all valid scientific results from other Nunavut or other Arctic studies and uses those results to inform Baffinland's monitoring and study approaches. g) The ZOI was theoretical and used as a conservative approach (i.e., overestimate) to predict Project effects, used for purposes of the impact assessment only. As we advance, the ZOI used for impact predictions is irrelevant to operations other than as a retrospective comparison for empirical monitoring results. Regardless, Baffinland is already committed, in response to the GN, through Commitment no. 65 … "BIMC will update the Terrestrial Environment Mitigation and Monitoring Plan to reflect that it will undertake research to estimate the Zone(s)-of- Influence (ZOI) and disturbance coefficients (DC) exerted by the Project on caribou, and shall provide to NIRB updated estimates of cumulative habitat losses for caribou, at least every 5 years. The TEMMP was revised to indicate that commitment and the timing of those studies are as discussed in part (bi) of this answer. MHTO-14 a) Can BIM explain how its current caribou monitoring plans will be able to identify whether caribou are moving away a) The various caribou monitoring plans include Project-based Height of Land surveys, snow from transportation or other project infrastructure, or that they are impacted by the Phase 2 development? tracks, and incidental sightings. Those surveys used in conjunction are intended to inform on b) Why has BIM not considered, or included references to, rail projects and caribou interactions in Canada or in other direct caribou interaction with the Project. On their own, each informs only partially whether Arctic jurisdictions (globally) in its effects predictions and proposed mitigation and monitoring plans? caribou may or may not be moving away from transportation or other Project Infrastructure. As outlined in the TEMMP, and as previously discussed in the TEWG meetings and within this hearing, Baffinland commits to future aerial surveys and continued collaboration with the Government of Nunavut on their region-wide aerial surveys and future caribou satellite collar programs. Those surveys and studies are intended to inform, at a broader scale, caribou response to the transportation corridor and other Project infrastructure. b) TSD-10 and the FEIS Volume 6 make specific reference to any studies, published or unpublished, relevant to rail projects and caribou interactions. All known available information is considered in both the effects assessment and the proposed mitigation and monitoring plans. MHTO-15 Please confirm whether, following the introduction of the modified Phase 2 scope to include a northern railway, any 1. Baffinland can confirm this did occur and would direct the MHTO to the Community Risk invitations were extended to community members for focus groups, elders workshops, or other formats of structured IQ Assessment Workshop Report (NIRB Registry No. 327148), the Rail Alignment Summary gathering sessions where people were specifically invited to share insights about caribou responses to railway infrastructure Report (NIRB Registry No.327148-327149) and 2020 EA Workshop Report (NIRB Registry No. - specifically in regard to embankment height or slope, tracks, moving trains, whistles, migration, and also to the combined 329530). effect of road and rail on caribou. If sessions were held to gather IQ in respect of the northern railway, please provide 2. The information requested is provided in the reports detailed in response to Question No. 1. details, including invitations outlining format and questions to be asked, lists of attendees, lists of questions asked,

March 2021 43

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Mittimatalik Hunters and Trappers Organization

ID # Question Response Attachment presentations delivered, comments and questions provided by attendees, and evidence of verification exercises conducted 3. No, and Baffinland has not relied on that information alone. As described in 1) above, after the sessions to confirm information collected in the context of its use. Baffinland has held additional specific workshops as well as multiple meetings to gather more With regard to the caribou focus group session held in 2008 - if questions were asked about rail at that time, did BIM follow information about the Northern Railway. up to verify with participants from 2008 whether information and their expertise collected at that time was applicable, in 4. The Pisiksik Working Group, which supported consultations undertaken between 2006-2010, their view as the knowledge holder, to the northern railway project and current conditions (considering the time lapsed was comprised of 12 residents from Pond Inlet. Information collected during Community- since the session was held)?If input regarding railway development was considered from workshops held from 2006-2010, Based Research was collected under a research agreement negotiated with the Pisiksik how many participants were from Pond Inlet? Please provide the number of participants from each affected community in Working Group. This research agreement outlined the roles and responsibilities of the Parties, attendance at each session. the purpose and methods of the IQ study. Interviewer training was provided by Shelly Does BIM consider information collected in respect of the Steensby Rail project as being adequate to inform its assessment Elverum, with five interviewers from Pond Inlet working to support the studies. The Pisiksik of IQ and impacts related to the northern rail project? Working Group also established interview questions for the IQ interviews with Elders from Pond Inlet, with a total of 16 Elders from Pond Inlet being interviewed. Additionally, IQ Community Workshops were held for both the general public, as well as smaller meetings with “Invited Persons”, which included members of the MHTO, elders and members of the Pisiksik Working Group. For full details on these studies, and details regarding representative participation from other communities, please see the FEIS 2012, Volume 2, Appendix 2B. 5. Baffinland considers this information valuable and relevant to a degree, but not sufficient on its own. To that end, additional studies specific to the North Railway were conducted. Please refer to response to Question No. 1. MHTO-16 Does BIM collaborate with the GN on regional caribou monitoring programs? If so, are the details of that collaboration Baffinland and the Government of Nunavut have maintained an informal relationship since operations public? Specifically, when is the last time BIM contributed financial resources to the GN’s program, outside of in-kind commenced where Baffinland in-kind support to the Government of Nunavut on request. The in-kind provision of goods or support? support Baffinland is able to provide the Government of Nunavut - predominantly accommodations, staging and fuel - translates into real and significant cost savings. A listing of published studies acknowledging support (financial and in-kind) is listed below for reference. • Baffinland Island Caribou Composition Summary Report 2015-2018 (John Ringrose (GN) 2018): “Financial and logistical support provided by Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation, Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS), Nunavut Wildlife Management Board (NWMB) and Peregrine Diamonds Ltd.” (page 17 of attached pdf). • Anderon and Orman (GN). 2017. North Baffin Caribou Fall composition/Demographic Survey, 2016. “Baffinland provided substantial in-kind support, including holding the helicopters on site for the extra days we needed to finish the survey, and providing meals, accommodations, and transport”. (page 8 of pdf) • Jenkins, goorts, Lecomte (GN). 2012. Estimating the Abundance of South Baffin Caribou: “Funding for this study was provided by the Department of Environment, Government of Nunavut, Polar Continental Shelf Project, and the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board. In- kind support was provided by the Canadian Wildlife Service, Baffinland Iron Mines and Peregrine Diamonds.”(page 4 of pdf) • Jenkins and Goorts (GN). 2011. Space Use and Movement Patterns of North Baffin Caribou: “This project was funded by the Department of Environment, Government of Nunavut, Baffinland Iron Mines Inc., the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, and Polar Continental Shelf Project. Thanks to a team of observers Grigor Hope, Sheatie Tagak, Mitch Campbell, Jaypiti Inutiq, Andrew Maher, Gerry Courtemanche, Susan Breckon, Alex Millar, Jaylene Goorts, and Ben Widdowson. Personnel at the Mary River exploration camp were extremely helpful, particularly, Trevor Myers, Jim Millard, Cheryl Wray, Cliff Pilgrim, Brian Larson, Dalton Head, David McCann, Jeff Bush, Kirk Keller, Roland Landry, Wendy Wiseman, and John McLean. Thanks to the kitchen crew that feed us so well….” (page 2 of pdf)

March 2021 44

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Mittimatalik Hunters and Trappers Organization

ID # Question Response Attachment MHTO-17 a) How frequently have caribou crossed the Tote Road since operations began in 2015? a) We do not know how frequently caribou have crossed the Tote Road since operations began b) Please provide any evidence of caribou crossing, and/or evidence of caribou deflecting or moving away from the in 2015. However, Baffinland documented one caribou crossing the road at least twice on tote road since 2015. January 19, 2020. c) What evidence does BIM have that the Tote Road has not presented a barrier or deterrent to caribou since it began b) Evidence of the caribou crossing the Tote Road (as described above) will be provided in the operating and moving up to 280 ore truck return trips per day - 560 transits per day - along the Tote Road? DRAFT 2020 Terrestrial Environment Annual Monitoring Report. d) Please provide specific details and results of monitoring to demonstrate the road has not served as a barrier or c) Based on all monitoring studies since 2012, there is no evidence of caribou being deflected, deterrent to caribou movement. nor the road being a barrier to caribou movement. There is a more recent example of caribou crossing the road as per a) above. All monitoring results are presented in Terrestrial Environment Annual Monitoring Reports prepared and submitted since 2012. d) d) All monitoring programs are described in the TEMPP. All results are presented in the Terrestrial Environment Annual Monitoring Reports (2012–2020). The monitoring programs and results details are discussed at several meetings each year with the TEWG, which the MHTO attends. Under current caribou densities in the area, the programs cannot provide evidence demonstrating that the road is not a barrier to caribou movement. There are extremely low numbers of caribou in the North Baffin Island region. This is the wrong time in the North Baffin Island caribou population cycle to expect definitive results to answer that question MHTO-18 1. What level of certainty does BIM have that the 400-plus ship transits proposed for Phase 2 over a 4.5 month 1. A ‘moderate’ level of confidence (i.e., certainty) has been assigned to this impact prediction MHTO-18 Attachment shipping season will not contribute to increased stress levels, negative changes in body condition, and avoidance of (Golder 2020a). Consistent with standard EIA practice, follow-up monitoring is required where 1: List of References preferred habitat by narwhals? Is there academic literature or other examples of shipping in narwhal habitat which the limitations in, or scientific certainty of, the impact predictions need to be verified (i.e., MHTO-18 Attachment would support BIM’s predictions regarding stress levels, changes in body condition, and avoidance of preferred when an EIA practitioner’s confidence in the significance determination is low or moderate), 2: Pond Inlet habitat? or where the effectiveness of mitigation requires confirmation) (CEAA 2011, 2012). Hence, ENGAGEMENT 2. Does BIM suggest that the 400-plus ship transits proposed for Phase 2 will not be associated with distinguishable follow-up monitoring is warranted in the case of the Phase 2 Proposal to verify the accuracy Summary of impact predictions regarding shipping effects on narwhal. impacts to the seal distribution, abundance, reproductive success, and/or habitat selection including overwintering MHTO-18 Attachment

habitat in and adjacent to the shipping corridor? What level of certainty is associated with any such prediction? 3: IQ Considered in Baffinland acknowledges recent feedback from the MHTO regarding repeated observations of Please provide the evidence and studies backing up those conclusions. Ringed Seal Assessment ‘skinny’ narwhal in the RSA by Inuit hunters. Given what is presently known with respect to 3. Can BIM please provide evidence of these inquiries - providing specific letters that have been issued to the climate change effects on Arctic marine mammals (i.e., changes in food web structure and community/organizations or minutes from meetings held with the community to answer these questions, as well prey availability, decreased ice coverage, increased predation pressure), it is reasonable to as data collected. assume that narwhal have lower blubber reserves than they have historically, and this could 4. BIM has indicated that IQ informed its baseline and impacts predictions for marine mammals - did that impact lead to animals sinking after being shot (as reported by hunters and recorded by Baffinland). assessment consider IQ around indirect impacts to ringed seals including the selection of locations for breathing Poorer body condition in this case is more likely a reflection of a change in their environment holes and lairs, from icebreaking? rather than a result from shipping. 5. What monitoring of seals’ abundance, distribution, and fidelity to overwintering habitat along the northern 2. Baffinland is confident in the conclusion drawn in the assessment of icebreaking activities shipping corridor has BIM collected during the last 3.5 years that it has undertaken shoulder season ice breaking that, with mitigation, Phase 2 operations will not result in significant residual effects on ringed shipping? What collection of IQ has been undertaken in the last 3.5 years to specifically understand impacts on seal. Confidence is based on monitoring results available to date, conservative assumptions seals from ongoing shoulder season shipping and icebreaking, with regard to abundance, distribution, and and modelling scenarios applied in the assessment, the extensive set of icebreaking and overwintering habitat selection in the northern shipping corridor? Please provide clear references and direction to shipping-related mitigation measures developed for Phase 2, and commitments for follow-up where information can be found about this topic for both BIM monitoring and IQ collection. monitoring to manage uncertainty. A list of studies and evidence that support these conclusions is provided as Appendix 4. 3. Extensive efforts to meet with the MHTO to discuss the Phase 2 proposal have been expended by Baffinland. In several cases, these opportunities for consultation and information-sharing were not responded to by the MHTO. See Appendix 4. 4. Yes – Appendix 4 is a summary of IQ considered in the ringed seal assessment (Golder 2019) that speak to the influence of icebreaking and shipping during the fall shoulder season on the selection and maintenance of breathing holes and birth lairs by ringed seal in the RSA: 5. The objective of follow-up monitoring is to verify the accuracy of impact predictions made for a project or plan (that has been subject to EIA) and to determine the effectiveness of

March 2021 45

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Mittimatalik Hunters and Trappers Organization

ID # Question Response Attachment measures taken to mitigate the adverse environmental effects of a project, such to facilitate management and communication about the environmental performance of a project or plan (Marshall et al. 2005; Morrison-Saunders and Arts 2004; CEAA 2011, 2012). In accordance with standard EA practice, follow-up monitoring programs are not required for every Project effect pathway considered in the EIA. A follow-up program is required where the limitations in, or scientific certainty of, the impact predictions need to be verified (i.e., when an EIA practitioner’s confidence in the significance determination is low or moderate), or where the effectiveness of mitigation requires confirmation (e.g. for non-standard mitigation or where new technology is being proposed). The nature of and need for follow-up is also informed by the sensitivity of the receptor to potential Project-related environmental effects that may be greater than predicted or where mitigation may be found to be ineffective. In the case of the current Project, Baffinland’s practice is to undertake follow-up programs for those residual effects of the project identified as significant, those associated with low certainty/confidence, those associated with species of conservation concern (i.e., at risk species), and/or those considered as ‘key issues’ by local stakeholders and the general public (Macharia 2005; CEAA 2011).

6. To date, ringed seal have not been prioritized for follow-up monitoring because of the high level of confidence in ERP impact predictions for ringed seal (Baffinland 2013), the current state of health of the ringed seal population (not at risk, high abundance throughout the Arctic), the fact that the Project has been re-designed to eliminate ‘key issues of concern’ for ringed seal as identified through IQ and public consultation (i.e., avoidance of critical life cycle periods such as denning, pupping, nursing and mating), and in light of other known and effective mitigation measures in place to avoid and or minimize adverse impacts from shipping outside of these critical life cycle periods (e.g., ship speed restrictions in the RSA).

Notwithstanding the above, Baffinland does currently run several multi-year monitoring programs which incorporate follow-up monitoring for ringed seal including the Ship-based Observer Program and the Marine Mammal Aerial Survey Program. Monitoring under these programs test for accuracy of past impact predictions related to ship strikes and behavioral disturbance (e.g., through monitoring changes in relative abundance and distribution of ringed seal in the RSA). For example, the 2020 Marine Mammal Aerial Survey Program Report will include a summary of seal sighting rates collected during the systematic transect surveys (number of seals observed per km of survey trackline) – this is an indicator of relative seal abundance along the shipping route which can be compared between survey years (draft report will be available to the MEWG in Q2 2021). The Ship-based Observer (SBO) Program collects data on the relative abundance and distribution of ringed seal during the early and late shoulder seasons, for which seal sighting rates are similarly derived (number of seals observed per km of vessel trackline) and reported to the MEWG (Golder 2020).

Baffinland acknowledges recent feedback from hunters indicating they are observing local changes in seal abundance and distribution in the RSA, with carry-over effects on seal harvesting. In response to this feedback, Baffinland has recently committed to undertaking targeted ringed seal monitoring along the Northern Shipping Route that incorporates IQ and Inuit perspectives (including new ‘pathways of concern’ for ringed seal) into the design, planning and implementation of this monitoring program. This will comprise a dedicated ringed seal aerial survey program to be implemented in June 2021 to monitor for potential Project-induced changes in ringed seal distribution and relative abundance (i.e., density and seal hot spots) in the RSA. The 2021 survey results will be compared to ringed seal baseline

March 2021 46

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Mittimatalik Hunters and Trappers Organization

ID # Question Response Attachment aerial surveys undertaken by Baffinland in the RSA in 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2014, as well as to surveys undertaken by DFO in 2016 and 2017 during the ERP (Yurkowski et al. 2018). Baffinland’s response to MHTO-18.4 provides a summary of the IQ (collected in the last 3.5 years and prior) used by Baffinland to specifically understand Inuit perspectives regarding fall shoulder season icebreaking impacts on ringed seal abundance, distribution and habitat use during winter. MHTO-19 1. Does BIM suggest that it is only shipping during key seasons (mating, pupping, nursing, moulting) for seals that 1. No, Baffinland would not agree with this statement. Baffinland has been clear in its NIRB-75 Attachment 1: would impact their use and fidelity to the RSA? assessment that ringed seal may still be affected by Project shipping outside of these critical Icebreaking Impacts on Ringed Seal 2. What information has BIM considered that would suggest Phase 2 shipping and ice breaking during the fall will not life cycle periods, but that impacts during this stage would be limited to low to moderate

impact the areas ringed seal select to establish breathing holes and lairs and their subsequent use of these areas severity disturbance effects triggered only when in close proximity to the ship (localized QIA-9 Attachment 1: later in the winter and spring seasons? Please provide supporting evidence. temporary effects), and a temporary loss in sea ice habitat in the immediate footprint of the icebreaker, equivalent to approximately 0.33 % of available sea ice habitat in the RSA. Within Ringed Seal Moulting 3. Does BIM have any Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit that supports this? Knowing the importance of seal to these confined areas of disturbance in the RSA, ringed seal habitat use could be affected, Mittimatalingmiut, why has BIM not undertaken meaningful monitoring of ringed seal response to current ice which is why additional measures including transit restrictions in the spring and fall shoulder MHTO-18 Attachment breaking activities? More specifically, how has icebreaking and shipping in fall affected the establishment of seasons, vessel speed limits and having Ship-Based Observers on the icebreaker have all been 4: Summary of IQ breathing holes and lairs in and near the shipping corridor? What degree of certainty does BIM have in suggesting committed to as part of the Project. Additional information is provided in Appendix 1 and Considered in the that Phase 2 shipping is unlikely to impact seals’ use of the LSA during winter? Appendix 2. Ringed Seal Assessment 4. What is the enhanced seal monitoring program BIM is proposing under Phase 2; specifically, what are the 2. Baffinland has not made that assertion. As articulated in the icebreaker assessment (Golder indicators and thresholds that will be implemented? 2019), icebreaking impacts on ringed seal during the fall freeze-up are predicted to occur; these being limited to low to moderate severity disturbance effects triggered when in close proximity to the icebreaker (localized temporary avoidance response), and a temporary loss in sea ice habitat in the immediate footprint of the icebreaker, equivalent to approximately 0.33 % of available sea ice habitat in the RSA. This does not represent a significant amount of lost habitat (for breathing hole maintenance or other functional habitat uses such as resting) and is not expected to result in a population-level effect on ringed seal. Additional information is provided in Appendix 4. 3. Please see responses to MHTO-18 and Appendix 4. 4. Baffinland is proposing to conduct systematic ringed seal aerial surveys starting in 2021. The objective of the seal aerial survey program is to document ringed seal density and distribution in the RSA in early June, using a survey design and data collection methodology previously developed by Fisheries and Oceans Canada. The data collected during these surveys will be compared to previous results obtained in 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2014 by Baffinland and in 2016 and 2017 by Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Ringed seal density will be the primary indicator and the proposed threshold is a >25.0% decrease in ringed seal density throughout the Local Study Area (LSA) (noting that finalization of the Objectives Indicators, Thresholds and Responses (OITR) plan is still pending approval by QIA). It is expected that additional Inuit OITRs will also be developed for integration into the Adaptive Management Plan. MHTO-20 1. Please confirm that the indicator has been agreed to and accepted by all members of the MEWG. 1. As was summarized in the Early Warning Indicators for Marine Mammals Technical Appendix 12 TARPs and Toolkits, 2. Has the indicator been presented to the NIRB, or to the public for any commenting and/or verification? Memorandum dated 20 August 2020 (NIRB Registry No. 331325) extensive efforts were made by Baffinland to work with the MEWG to develop EWIs for the Project. A brief summary of AMP 3. Please describe the implementation of this indicator to date - BIM suggested that the indicator has been these efforts is as follows. Subsequent to discussions during Marine Environmental Working implemented because it has “years of monitoring data to support it.” What are the observed results, and where Group meetings, participants were asked, on 13 September 2018, to provide suggestions of have these been reported? potential indicators to Baffinland. Only Fisheries and Oceans Canada submitted suggestions of 4. What is the threshold for immature narwhal ratios that trigger adaptive management responses? Where are these potential indicators on 25 October 2018. These nine suggested indicators were then discussed responses detailed in adaptive management plans? What mitigation measures will be implemented when a with the MHTO during an in-person meeting in Pond Inlet on 29 November 2018. During this threshold is exceeded? meeting, the MHTO identified indicators of concern. These indicators were carried forward 5. Can BIM clearly demonstrate how the immature narwhal ratio is an EWI? How long will it take to detect a change and presented to the Marine Environmental Working Group as candidate early warning that is outside the bounds of natural variation? indicators. On 26 February 2019, the Marine Environmental Working Group was then asked to provide suggested thresholds for these proposed candidate early warning indicators. No

March 2021 47

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Mittimatalik Hunters and Trappers Organization

ID # Question Response Attachment 6. From the monitoring data that BIM has to support the selection of this indicator, what are the trends that have suggested thresholds were received following this request from any MEWG participants. been noted? Where is this information documented? Following this engagement with the Marine Environmental Working Group and the MHTO, 7. How many years of data and results would be required to identify an impact? How would BIM determine with any candidate early warning indicators were evaluated based on a number of criteria, including degree of certainty that project interactions are responsible for changes in juvenile/calf ratios over the years?8. Inuit support. A more detailed description of this analysis can be found in the EWI technical What IQ was involved in selecting this indicator, specifically community level input that was solicited outside memo. As a result of this analysis, Baffinland determined that the proportion of immature MEWG meetings? individuals in the population would be used as a selected early warning indicator for the Project and provide a monitored measure of calving rate and calf survival. Baffinland consulted with the MEWG in the development of the EWI, and it is noted that there is no requirement that MEWG members agree to and accept any specific EWI. As such we did not want to further defer implementation of this precedent-setting measure. As we have emphasized repeatedly, Baffinland is open to the development of further EWI or the modification of the EWI and looks forward to further engagement with MEWG on this topic. 2. The EWI technical memo was submitted to the NIRB in August 2020. Additionally, dedicated time in the December 2020 MEWG meeting was allocated to seek MEWG feedback on the EWI technical memo. Baffinland expects opportunity for additional comments on this EWI will be provided via NIRB’s request for comments from interested Parties on Baffinland’s Annual Report to the NIRB (as the development of the EWI will be described in that document). 3. The results were presented in the August 2020 EWI technical memo and in the December 2020 presentation to the MEWG. Moving forward results will be presented in Baffinland’s Annual Report to the NIRB. The results indicate that there has not been a change in the proportion of immature narwhals since Project shipping began. 4. The EWI threshold is 10% decrease in the proportion of immature individuals in the population from the lowest natural variability baseline value available. This threshold has not been captured in an updated management plan as it was finalized in the midst of the 2020 shipping season. As part of the Phase 2 updates to the Marine Monitoring Plan, this threshold will be included as a moderate risk threshold. This threshold would need to be met alongside corresponding moderate level behavioural responses to be able to effectively correlate this change to Project-related impacts. If this threshold was met, Baffinland has provided a list of multiple management options that could be implemented (see the Mitigation Toolkits included in Appendix 12). 5. This request is detailed in the literature review provided in Section 2.2. of the EWI Technical Memo. A summary of this is as follows: Ecological theory suggests that reproductive-age adult females evolve strategies that enable them to delay breeding or abandon investment in young when conditions are harsh to prioritize their own survival and maximize their future reproductive output when conditions improve. In a fluctuating environment, it would be expected that adult female survival will remain high and relative constant while fecundity and calf or pup survival fluctuates. As such, from an early warning perspective, fecundity and calf or pup survival, would be parameters to target. Reference: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAMES). 2017. Approaches to Understanding the Cumulative Effects of Stressors on Marine Mammals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi.org/10.17226/23479.Monitoring for the EWI in conjunction with behavioural response data allows us to more efficiently tease out natural variation from Project related impacts. If we were to look solely at the proportion of immatures, the time associated with understanding natural variation or non-Project related impacts would be greater – which is why we have proposed continued monitoring of multi-indicator datasets. 6. The trends from the monitoring show that the proportion of immatures in the narwhal population have not changed since Project shipping began. This was reported in the EWI technical memo and the December 2020 presentation to the MEWG, as well as in the Marine Presentation provided at the January-February 2020 Hearing. Moving forward this will

March 2021 48

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Mittimatalik Hunters and Trappers Organization

ID # Question Response Attachment continue to be reported on through the Bruce Head Shore-Based Monitoring Reports and Baffinland’s Annual Report to the NIRB. 7. See response to Question No. 5. 8. This information was captured in the EWI Technical Memo. Given their participation in the meeting, the MHTO would also be aware that on 29 November 2018, Baffinland met in person with the Mittimatalik Hunters and Trappers Organization (MHTO) in Pond Inlet, NU, to present the framework and the MEWG submissions received to date, and receive the MHTO’s feedback with regards to important indicators to the MHTO. During this meeting, the MHTO indicated that they were particularly concerned with the number of narwhals (population size), potential impact on calving rate, and narwhal body condition. MHTO-21 Please explain how changes in reproductive output provide a reliable warning indicator for health of the population? Additional information regarding why reproductive output is a reliable indicator for health of the population is available in the literature review section (Section 2.2) of the EWI technical memo. A brief Appendix 12 Please clarify which of BIM’s studies in this instance are referred as the “more specific studies looking at behaviour and summary of what is contained in that memo is as follows: TARPs and Toolkits, AMP determine whether that’s project driven or not,” and please clearly explain how BIM is able to determine what is or is not a project driven change in behaviour and/or specific indicator? Population dynamics are controlled by four fundamental demographic parameters: survival, fecundity, immigration, and emigration. One or more of these must decrease (or increase in the case of Please identify the the low, moderate, and high level indicators referenced, including the thresholds to determine change emigration) for a population decline to occur. Measuring these parameters may be preferable than for each, and also identify the “more refined” indicators and thresholds referenced in this statement. waiting for a detectable change in population size. It is typically infeasible to monitor all of these Please clearly explain how BIM is able to characterize project effects to narwhal and distinguish these from pressures to the parameters, so prioritization will be required (NAMES et al. 2017). Ecological theory suggests that animals from other sources? reproductive-age adult females evolve strategies that enable them to delay breeding or abandon investment in young when conditions are harsh to prioritize their own survival and maximize their future reproductive output when conditions improve. In a fluctuating environment, it would be expected that adult female survival will remain high and relative constant while fecundity and calf or pup survival fluctuates. As such, from an early warning perspective, fecundity and calf or pup survival, would be parameters to target (NAMES 2017). Although Booth et al. (2020) indicated that body condition is a potentially useful measure of health, but that observed changes in body condition may be the result of a change in environmental quality rather than a result of exposure to disturbance. References: Booth CG, Sinclair RR, and Harwood J. 2020. Methods for Monitoring for the Population Consequence of Disturbance in Marine Mammals: A Review. Front. Mar. Sci. 7:115. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2020.00115. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Approaches to Understanding the Cumulative Effects of Stressors on Marine Mammals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi.org/10.17226/23479.Behavioural response studies carried out for the current Project and proposed for Phase 2 include studies conducted through the Bruce Head Shore Based Monitoring Program and Narwhal Tagging Studies. These studies allow for comparison of behaviour of narwhal prior to, during, and after an encounter with a vessel. By studying this, it can be determined the extent to which narwhal have biologically meaningful (i.e. those that would result significant disruption to critical life functions such as foraging, resting, migration, etc.) responses to Project vessels. If behavioural responses continue to be localized and temporary, then it reasons that Project impacts would not meaningfully affect the overall health of narwhal, or have population level consequences (i.e. such as affecting fecundity). Therefore, if changes to the population occur, attribution to the Project can be assessed with greater certainty relative to the behavioural responses of narwhal observed through these studies. A description of the initial OITRs proposed by Baffinland is included in Appendix 4. MHTO-22 1. Does BIM agree that monitoring the impacts of its project on the Inuit harvest of narwhals, seals, and Arctic char is 1. Yes, Baffinland agrees with the statement. important? 2. There are no existing early warning indicators for impacts to Inuit harvesting (per level of effort) of seal and narwhal in Baffinland’s management plans, nor is there any requirements 2. What are the existing early warning indicators for impacts to Inuit harvesting (per level effort) of seal and narwhal for these to be in place. As part of the commitments made by Baffinland through the ICA, that are included in BIM’s adaptive management plan, marine and/or terrestrial management and monitoring Inuit Objectives, Indicators, Thresholds and Reponses (OITRs) will be established. This process plans, and have these been implemented? will allow for the development of early or low, moderate and high thresholds and responses

March 2021 49 Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Mittimatalik Hunters and Trappers Organization

ID # Question Response Attachment 3. What further investigation does BIM suggest is required, and what further investigation is BIM willing to undertake related to harvesting to be determined by Inuit. As it relates to the current Project, without to collect information that would assist in answering this question? Will BIM complete this work before Phase 2 is these thresholds in place, Baffinland has still responded to community concerns raised operational? regarding harvesting of important country foods. A few examples of this response include 4. Please explain how BIM has arrived at a high degree of certainty for impacts of the project on Inuit harvest of providing fuel, food and shelter to harvesters near the Project site, the development of the narwhal, seals and fish, specifically when data on the harvest per level effort has not been considered? Harvesters Enabling Fund, provision of funding for the Wildlife Compensation Fund and the development of the Tasiqitut Working Group. 3. Additional data collection Baffinland is currently funding that would assist in the development of Inuit OITRS includes the QIA led CRLU re-assessment and the Pond Inlet Country Food Baseline Study. Additionally, outside of the ICA, Baffinland will continue to engage with the MHTO to understand how the Project may be impacting hunters and will work with MHTO to find solutions to avoid, minimize or compensate for these impacts. 4. Baffinland has never stated that there is a high level of certainty for impacts of the Project on Inuit harvest of narwhal, seals or fish. Table 9.5 of TSD 25 clearly states that there is a ‘moderate’ level of confidence in the effects prediction. With respect to the current Project, Baffinland has addressed uncertainties by proactively providing mitigations to minimize potential impacts as outlined in response to Question No. 2. MHTO-23 1. Why has the MEEMP not been updated since 2016, especially since the MEEMP states “The document will be 1. As it relates to the Phase 2 process, a draft Phase 2 Marine Monitoring Plan was submitted at modified on a regular basis, likely annually, as results from monitoring programs are analysed and assessed.” the request of interveners. The 2016 MEEMP referenced by the MHTO is a living document. 2. Why was the MEEMP not modified to including monitoring for the effects of icebreaking activities on narwhals and Annual updates to it have materialized and been communicated in the form of regular seals during the shoulder seasons of 2017 (end of season only), 2018, 2019, or 2020? meetings with the MEWG as well as the MHTO before the start of each field season. The process for identifying required changes to the monitoring programs each year has been 3. Based on the results of the 2015 marine mammal monitoring program and the adaptive management steps iterative and informed by feedback provided by the MEWG, the MHTO, the NIRB and outlined in the MEEMP (2016), provide explanation of why further mitigation and monitoring was not triggered comments received from interested Parties on Baffinland’s Annual Report. That is to say, that year? while this has not been done formally via an update to the 2016 version of the MEEMP report, 4. Please identify – specifically - where the MEEMP has considered effects of the Project on the Inuit harvest of the process and outcomes that would be captured within updates to that Plan have been narwhals and seals? realized. 5. In light of the impacts on narwhal and seal observed by Inuit, why has the MEEMP not been updated to reflect 2. For clarity, no icebreaking for the Project was undertaken in 2017. See also response to these findings? Question # 1. 6. Where is BIM’s scientific assessment of the effectiveness of the mitigation measures and adaptive management 3. Baffinland assumes this question is made in reference to the Draft 2015 Aerial Survey Report. measures proposed to avoid or lessen impacts to narwhal and seal, and to Inuit harvesting rights? As was summarized by Baffinland previously, and more recently DFO in their October 2020 CSAS, the findings of that report were not reliable. To address the deficiencies in the monitoring program, Baffinland implemented recommendations made by Golder in its peer review of the 2015 Draft Aerial Survey Report produced by LGL. Namely, these recommendations including enhancing behavioural response monitoring via the Bruce Head Shore Based Monitoring Program and a tagging program. It is also noted that DFO undertook a marine mammal aerial survey in 2016, and therefore the program was not completed by Baffinland the following year as those efforts would have been duplicative of other regional monitoring initiatives. 4. For clarity, the Marine Monitoring Plan is not meant to be directly focused on effects of the Project on Inuit harvest of marine mammals. The Marine Monitoring Plan is designed to outline how Projects effect on marine mammals impacted by the Project will be monitored for. As outlined in the 2016 MEEMP referenced by the MHTO, with respect to marine mammal abundance, distribution and behaviour, Inuit harvesting is actually a confounding factor in the analysis given that harvesting activities can also impact marine mammal population stability and integrity. Baffinland understands however that Inuit ability to harvest could be impacted if marine mammal populations were adversely affected by Project activities (related to availability). There is therefore, an inherent relationship between monitoring marine mammal populations and Inuit harvest of narwhal and seals. Additional considerations related to access, perceptions of quality of country foods, quality of hunting

March 2021 50

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Mittimatalik Hunters and Trappers Organization

ID # Question Response Attachment experience, etc. would be monitored separately through the socio-economic management plan, rather than the Marine Monitoring Plan. 5. See response to Question # 4. 6. 6. Assessment materials to support conclusions regarding the efficacy of mitigation measures associated with the current Project or proposed for Phase 2 to lessen impacts of the Project on marine mammals and Inuit harvesting have been provided in the FEIS Addendum documentation, including TSD 24, TSD 25, the Assessment of Icebreaking and the Socio- Economic Effects of Icebreaking as well as supplementary analyses provided in response to intervener comments on these assessments. MHTO-24 1. Can BIM provide detailed plans and analyses as to how shipping of ore can be constrained (including quantification 1. Should Baffinland's marine monitoring program, or the QIA's CRLU monitoring program of shipping level reduction) by identified adaptive management requirements for marine mammals and their demonstrate the need to implement a high risk response, such a response could include harvest, and still manage to achieve production targets and economic viability for the Project? adjusting the maximum number of ore carriers allowed to come to Milne Port in a single 2. What are the minimum levels of shipping BIM could return to after a slow down or shut down, while still managing season. to maintain economic viability for the Project? 2. Baffinland's ability to maintain a viable operation under added vessel restrictions will depend on the operating environment at that time. The price of iron and the availability of larger vessels are two significant factors, where Baffinland has no control over the former and extremely limited influence over the latter. As such it is not possible to provide a minimum level of shipping to BIM could return to in order to remain viable. MHTO-25 What is the exact definition of a significant effect for marine mammals used in the Phase 2 assessment? When referring to significance on marine mammals in the environmental assessment, this specifically How does the effects assessment procedure specifically consider effects of the Project on narwhal critical life functions refers to biological significance. A residual effect is defined as significant if it compromises the integrity (calving, nursing, and foraging) which are known to occur in the LSA? of a population, either via mortality or via seasonal displacement or permanent abandonment of preferred habitats. This use of population level effects as an index for biological significance is a Where and how in the EA methodology were effects on narwhal and seal harvesting directly accounted for and how standard approach in the assessment of environmental impacts. It is important to note that when a specifically did the Phase 2 FEIS Addendum consider the significance of effects on narwhal and seal harvesting? Project effect is considered non-significant, that does not mean that an effect does not exist, nor does it indicate that the effect is not important. It specifically refers to the significance of the impact at the population level. The assessment recognizes the importance of the RSA to narwhal for calving, nursing and foraging. This is why such extensive mitigation measures were developed to avoid and/or minimize potential Project effects on narwhal during these sensitive life cycle periods. The magnitude rating includes consideration of environmental sensitivity as a qualifier of magnitude, which refers to areas of potential heightened sensitivity such as potential calving grounds, as discussed in Table 2-3.3, Section 3.0 of Volume 2 of the original FEIS (Baffinland 2012). The Phase 2 Addendum applies this same EIA methodology in its characterization of effects and significance determinations. Residual effects determination on narwhal and seal harvesting are provided in TSD 25 and the Food Security Assessment. MHTO-26 1. During BIM’s Marine Presentation, it noted that the 120 dB sound level criterion was considered the “gold star” for 1. The 120 dB disturbance threshold was developed by experts in the fields of marine mammals MHTO-26 Attachment impact assessment. Please provide specific evidence that this statement is applicable to narwhals. and bioacoustics following several decades of marine mammal research and is the standard 1: A List of a Scientific Studies for which the 2. During BIM’s Marine Presentation, it noted several times that uncertainty in effects predictions were addressed adopted by the US regulatory body responsible for managing noise impacts on marine Findings are Consistent through conservative assumptions in the assessment. Related to this, what scientific evidence and IQ specific to mammals, namely the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (NOAA with the Impact narwhal were used to conclude that assumptions in the effects assessment are conservative. 2013). Currently, the Government of Canada has no legislated acoustic thresholds for either acoustic injury or disturbance in marine mammals. In absence of defined underwater noise Predictions Made for 3. How were the findings of BIM’s marine mammal and acoustic monitoring, which have been undertaken for seven Narwhal exposure criteria in Canada, DFO has relied on the 120 dB re 1 uPa (rms) disturbance years, used to validate the behavioural thresholds (120 dB and 135 dB) used in the Phase 2 assessment? threshold for continuous noise sources (i.e. shipping noise) and the ‘broadband’ 160 dB re 1 4. Where in the Phase 2 Addendum are the impacts of multiple, repeated vessel passages, day after day, on narwhals MHTO-26 Attachment considered? uPa (rms) disturbance threshold for non-continuous (i.e., impulsive) noise sources, as 2: recognized and administered by NOAA. As the majority of underwater sound generated by Direct Excerpt From: vessel traffic is concentrated below 200 Hz (Veirs et al. 2016), which is well below the Green, D., H. DeFerrari,

March 2021 51

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Mittimatalik Hunters and Trappers Organization

ID # Question Response Attachment assumed sensitive hearing range of narwhal (>1 kHz) and all MFC, the 120 dB threshold is D. McFadden, J. Pearse, considered to be conservative for MFC such as narwhal in the context of predicting vessel A. Popper, W. noise disturbance impacts (see Appendix 4). Richardson, S. Ridgway 2. Results to date from Baffinland’s follow-up monitoring programs for narwhal have shown that and P. Tyack. 1994. effects from the Project can, and have been, measured. The available modelling data are Low-Frequency Sound scientific evidence that the measured Project effects are in line with those predicted in the and Marine Mammals: assessment; and confirm that the acoustic modelling predictions are conservative. Current Knowledge and Baffinland’s confidence in its impact predictions for narwhal is supported by the extensive Research Needs. monitoring data for narwhal, in addition to multiple other factors such as the conservative Washington DC: assumptions and modelling scenarios applied in the assessment, the extensive set of National Academy icebreaking and shipping-related mitigation measures developed for Phase 2, Baffinland’s Press. commitments for further follow-up monitoring under Phase 2 operations to manage any residual uncertainty, and in consideration of Baffinland’s proposed adaptive management plan for narwhal. Appendix 4 provides a list of scientific studies for which the findings are consistent with the impact predictions made for narwhal. Also see Appendix 4 for a comprehensive list of IQ that speaks to Inuit perspectives on the effects of shipping on narwhal and ringed seal. Note that there is considerable variability within available IQ regarding effects of shipping on both species, with perspectives ranging from little to no effect, to fears of fleeing and abandonment and associated adverse impacts on harvesting of these species. 3. Findings from Baffinland’s comprehensive marine mammal monitoring programs and from the acoustic monitoring programs have been used to test the suitability of the behavioral thresholds used in the Phase 2 assessment in an evolving process. Through both the Integrated 2017-2018 Narwhal Tagging Study and the Bruce Head Shore-based Monitoring Program, the focus has been to determine the spatial extent around vessels that narwhal exhibit behavioral changes or changes in group composition. In assessing the specific ranges at which a behavioral response by narwhal may occur, Baffinland is better able to predict the potential zone of disturbance, the duration that the disturbance is expected to be experienced in the vicinity of a vessel, and then correlate the zone of disturbance to received levels derived from vessel source level data. This latter component is currently being worked up as part of two complementary technical memorandums aimed at determining the range of received sound levels at which behavioral responses are typically observed, one by JASCO Applied Sciences (Austin and Dofher 2021), and one by Golder Associates, on behalf of Baffinland. 4. The impacts of multiple (repeated), daily exposures by narwhal to vessel transits and associated noise were assessed and discussed in the following documents: • TSD 24 – Marine Mammal Effects Assessment (Golder 2018) – Appendix B for acoustic modelling • Icebreaking Effects Assessment (Golder 2019) – Appendix B for acoustic modelling • TM – Response to DFO 3.3.5 and 3.5.5 – Memo for Additional Modelling of Capesize Vessels at 13 knots (10 May 2019) • TM – 2019 Marine Mammal Monitoring Programs – Preliminary Findings (Golder 2019) – 11 Oct 2019 • TM- 2019 Marine Mammal Monitoring Programs – Updated Preliminary Results (21 Feb 2020) 1663724-186-TM-Rev0-38000 • TM – Summary of Results for the 2019 MM Monitoring Programs (25 May 2020) 1663724-186-TM-Rev3-38000

March 2021 52

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Mittimatalik Hunters and Trappers Organization

ID # Question Response Attachment • TM – Response to DFO 3.5.6 – Daily Exposure Periods for Narwhal (Golder 2019) – 15 July 2019

MHTO-27 Can BIM confirm the applicability of the following statement from section 9.3.2 of TSD24 (Phase 2 FEIS Addendum) The referenced statement from Section 9.3.2 of TSD 25 touched on several previously assessed effects regarding Resources and Land Use to the Phase 2 assessment: that were judged to remain unchanged due to the Phase 2 Proposal: “Potential effects on sustainable resources use, such as country food availability, accessibility of carving stone, and • Country food availability traditional clothing in the context of general effects to wildlife and harvesting, were assessed as part of the FEIS (Volumes 4 • Accessibility of carving stone and 10). The Phase 2 Proposal does not present new mechanisms of interaction; therefore this is not further assessed in the • Traditional clothing in the context of general effects to wildlife and harvesting current document.” With respect to country food availability, this was assessed in Section 9.7.2 of TSD 25, and then Please confirm that the reference to the FEIS (Volumes 4 and 10) made here is referring to the initial FEIS filed with the NIRB subsequently in far greater detail in the Food Security Assessment issued during this review process. in 2012 for the original Mary River project proposal? Regarding the accessibility of carving stone, accessibility of the Mary River soapstone deposit was The 2017 Socio-Economic Monitoring Report included within TSD 24 indicates that “No specific prediction related to Project assessed in FEIS Volume 4, Section 10.4. The Phase 2 Proposal will not change the accessibility of this harvesting interactions and food security was presented in the FEIS.” Please confirm that this reference is again to the 2012 important carving stone deposit. FEIS for the Mary River project? Lastly, population-level effects to wildlife species used to make traditional clothing (mainly caribou, birds and seal) are not expected with the Phase 2 Proposal (TSD 10, TSD 12 and TSD 24). MHTO-28 1. Please indicate which new indicators will in fact, be developed and implemented, and on what factors their 1. The importance of this topic to Inuit and QIA’s request to develop new monitoring indicators MHTO-28 Attachment development and implementation are to be based? on food security led Baffinland to propose the use of three new indicators on food security as 1: Response to Question 4 2. Why have indicators not been implemented and why has this information not been gathered under the approved described in Baffinland’s Food Security Assessment. and ongoing project operations? • Community food security rate 3. Can BIM explain what its role would be in collecting and analyzing this information, when it anticipates this • Community harvester participation and/or success rate monitoring to commence, and how it would compensate for the fact that there is currently no (or limited) baseline • Baffinland contributions to food security-related programs and initiatives information available on this indicator? Please also provide proposed thresholds for change and what adaptive management or mitigation measures would be implemented if these thresholds were exceeded. What is the Before these indicators (and data sources) are finalized, however, Baffinland will solicit projected time lapse until such a point that monitoring may be able to document a trend and what certainty is additional feedback from the MHTO, QSEMC and SEMWG (note that initial consultation on required that any such changes or trends be attributed to project impacts? this topic was completed in May 2019 with the SEMWG), communities, HTOs, and QIA.

4. Where specifically is that information provided within the FEIS Addendum or supporting documentation, and For example, Article 2 of the ICA notes QIA and Baffinland will jointly develop and approve where and how has BIM inquired about these considerations, and which these specific considerations did BIM indicators for all adaptive management plans included in the Adaptive Management Plan inquire about? (which includes the Socio-Economic Monitoring Plan).

Article 4 of the ICA also commits Baffinland to the development of a Culture, Resources, and Land Use (CRLU) monitoring program with QIA, which may include harvesting and food security-related indicators.

Where practical, Baffinland will align CRLU monitoring on this topic with its socio-economic monitoring efforts. Once finalized, indicators will be reflected in the Project’s CRLU monitoring plan and revisions to Baffinland’s Socio-Economic Monitoring Plan.

2. Some relevant food security and harvesting information and indicators have, been developed and reported on in Baffinland’s annual Socio-Economic Monitoring Reports. As described in these annual reports and in Baffinland’s Food Security Assessment. While specific community- level government indicator data have been unavailable on this topic to-date (i.e. annually produced, community-level statistics), the above still provide useful information on food security and harvesting-related trends. Baffinland’s current efforts in this area will be supplemented through the development of new monitoring indicators, described previously, and work conducted by the Inuit Stewardship Plan- Social Monitoring Framework. 3. Baffinland’s role in collecting and/or analyzing this information has been described in the ICA and Food Security Assessment (NIRB ID 327158). For example, Article 4 of the ICA describes

March 2021 53

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Mittimatalik Hunters and Trappers Organization

ID # Question Response Attachment the CRLU monitoring program that will be developed with QIA and overseen by an independent Inuit Committee. Section 10.3 of the Food Security Assessment also describes Baffinland’s proposed role in monitoring food security. Monitoring of new food security indicators would commence following regulatory approval of the Phase 2 Proposal and once indicators have been finalized, as outlined previously. Information and results will be presented in Baffinland’s annual Socio-Economic Monitoring Reports provided to NIRB. Some baseline information exists for Baffinland’s proposed food security indicators, including Aboriginal Peoples Survey data already obtained by Baffinland at the North Baffin scale, for 2012 and 2017 (for various metrics). Additional baseline information is anticipated through the Pond Inlet Country Food Baseline study, as described in Article 7 of the ICA. Per ICA Article 2, QIA and Baffinland will jointly develop and approve the Final Adaptive Management Plan and sub-plans for the Project (which includes the Socio-Economic Monitoring Plan).

In addition, QIA and Baffinland will jointly develop and approve objectives, indicators, thresholds, and response requirements for all adaptive management plans included in the Adaptive Management Plan.

4. SEE ATTACHED FOR RESPONSE TO #4 (Appendix 4) MHTO-29 1. Was a specific prediction related to Project harvesting interactions and food security relevant to marine mammals 1. Food security was assessed FEIS Volume 4: included within the original Mary River FEIS? If so, what was it, and please provide references. Was a prediction • Section 4.3 Inuit Harvesting Livelihoods – Combined Effects – described the relationship related to Project harvesting and food security specific to marine mammals included within the FEIS Addendum, between Inuit harvesting and food security- Section 6.2 Issues Scoping – described TSD 25 or the Food Security Assessment? Please provide references. experiences from other mines in Nunavut including experiences related to food security 2. TSD 25 indicates that in addition to providing compensation for lost harvests due to the Project through the (Section 6.2.3)- Wildlife Compensation Fund (WCF), a number of additional mitigation measures have been incorporated into • Section 6.3 – Well-being of Children - food security is mentioned in relation to other planning of the Phase 2 Proposal including eliminating trans-shipping and the winter sealift, and concentrating interactions regarding the well-being of children- shipping within the open water and shoulder shipping seasons. • Section 6.6.2 Food Security – describes the beneficial effects on food security that are 3. Please explain how eliminating trans-shipping and winter-sealift, and concentrating shipping within the open water expected to occur mainly from household incomes amongst those employed by the project and shoulder seasons mitigates for impacts to Inuit harvest of marine mammals - including ringed seals and through an increased ability to purchase equipment required for harvesting as well as store- narwhal particularly. BIM could not provide the number of claims filed under the WCF during the January- February bought food. The section acknowledges the potential for the Project to affect harvesting Hearing.8 activities and country food consumption, referencing Section 4.3 for more discussion on this 4. To confirm, BIM does not track the number of unsuccessful hunts? linkage.- 5. Why is this information not collected or considered by BIM? • Section 10.4 Wildlife harvesting by Inuit – assesses the expected project affects on the ability of hunters to obtain/harvest country food in the LSA TSD 25 discussed food security: 6. Why does BIM not track claims submitted and the outcome of those claims in terms of the Wildlife Compensation Fund? o Section 6.6.2 Household Income and Food Security- 7. Does BIM suggest that the Wildlife Compensation Fund is a measure that mitigates potential impacts to o Table 6.3 describes potential impacts to food security as a result of wildlife disturbance harvesting? and reduced access to harvesting areas- o Section 9.7.2 Harvesting – describes potential project effects on Inuit harvesting of marine mammals and other wildlife. The Food Security Assessment assesses Project interactions with marine mammal and other harvesting as follows: • Section 7.3.1.2 Changing Wildlife Stocks and Variable Wildlife Populations - assesses Project effects on the availability of wildlife, related to project effects on wildlife abundance and distribution • Section 7.3.2.5 Changing Access to Hunting Grounds – assesses Project effects on the accessibility of wildlife populations 2. Trans-shipment and the winter sealift both involved shipping during periods of ice cover. The benefit of not shipping during winter is mainly to ringed seal and not narwhal.

March 2021 54

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Mittimatalik Hunters and Trappers Organization

ID # Question Response Attachment 3. The QIA is responsible for administration and public reporting on the Wildlife Compensation Fund as per IIBA Articles 14.7 (c) and 17.6.6. The number of claims are annually reported by Baffinland in the Socio-Economic Monitoring Report for the Mary River Project. See the 2019 report, Section 8, page 65-66. Baffinland does not currently track the number of unsuccessful hunts. Should the MHTO be willing to discuss provision of this data to Baffinland, data could be useful with the proposed CRLU monitoring program. 4. Collecting information on unsuccessful hunts could form part of the CRLU monitoring program proposed by Baffinland, to be implemented by the QIA and communities. 5. The QIA is responsible for administration and public reporting on the Wildlife Compensation Fund as per IIBA Articles 14.7 (c) and 17.6.6. 6. The number of claims reported by QIA are reported by Baffinland in the Socio-Economic Monitoring Report for the Mary River Project. See the 2019 report, Section 8, page 65-66.6. 7. The Wildlife Compensation Fund is one measure to offset impacts to harvesting. However, compensation is considered a final option in the mitigation hierarchy of: avoid, reduce, offset, compensate. MHTO-30 Can BIM confirm the definition for those “lakes and streams in the Project area” within which local residents focus their The “lakes and streams in the Project area” referred to waterbodies near the Project area assessed in fishing efforts - specifically, is this relating to the Mary River Mine Site, or does it also extend to the Milne Port, Tote Road, the Phase 2 Proposal. This includes Phillips Creek, and the portion of the Ravn River watershed that the Steensby rail route, and/or Steensby Port?8 M. Lord-Hoyle, Hearing Transcript Doc ID 333451, Vol 7, p 1300-1301, lines 26 tote road, proposed North Railway and Mine Site are situated. There are reportedly anadromous arctic and 1-3.Are “local residents” referred to in section 9.3.2 of TSD 25 people from Igloolik, Sanirajak, Pond Inlet, Arctic Bay, or char found in the Cockburn River which the South Railway will cross. Clyde River? Please clarify and provide references to specific consultation sessions or feedback which was relied upon to Local residents refer to people from each of the communities. On Figures 5.1 and 5.2 from TSD 5 (the make the statement in TSD 25 referred to in the first paragraph of this section above.Do Inuit from impacted communities - IQ study map book), Pond Inlet elders identified land-locked arctic char waterbodies as being present and specifically Pond Inlet - focus any of their fishing efforts at lakes and streams in the Project area, or are they focused within the Phillips Creek and Ravn River watersheds. Arctic Bay elders also indicated the presence of specifically on anadromous fish, and presumably elsewhere? How has BIM confirmed this? If elsewhere, please describe arctic char in waterbodies south of the Mine Site, and Igloolik elders identified lakes and rivers in the those lakes, rivers, and areas. How has BIM confirmed that Inuit harvest of landlocked and/or anadromous fish have not, southern portion of the project area (south rail and Steensby). and will not, be impacted by currently approved or proposed (Phase 2) project activities? That community members know which inland lakes contain land-locked arctic char (Figures 5.1 and 5.2 from TSD 5) indicates that some fishing has or does occur in these lakes. However, these same figures show a heavier focus of fishing on the water systems supporting anadromous char, including the Ikaluit River, Tugaat River and Qurluktuk. The focus on these waterbodies is shown on Figures 3.7, 3.8, and 3.37 the Land Use Report (FEIS Appendix 4C). Information presented in the Nunavut Atlas (Reiwe, 1992) and the Nunavut Wildlife Harvest Study 1996-2001 (Priest and Usher, 2004; see Figure 3.37 of the Land Use Report) each show that fishing activities are concentrated in these anadromous char supporting waterbodies, with no fishing reported on the inland waterbodies near the Project. Elders interviewed between 2006 and 2008 distinguished sea run (anadromous) Arctic char from from the landlocked variant (nutilliarjuk) which was noted to dominate the waters around Mary River (Knight Piésold 2014). Sea run Arctic char were preferred for size and flavour, and the river systems where they were fished were well-known: There is a lot of landlocked char which are red in color and they don’t migrate to the ocean at all. Also, in the Mary River area, there is a whole lot of landlocked char. There are all kinds of fish which don’t go to the ocean. And also, at a place in Iqaluit, so that’s our fishing spot and at the area there. When you lived there, we would go berry picking because it’s so close. As you approached it you could see the whole area and it looks like it’s red. A lot of landlocked fish congregate there. Also at a place called Auliqqua, the rivers there are very deep. When we were children we would go out walking on the land trying to pick berries. There were a lot of black berries and a lot of times, you would see fish swarming, swimming away from us when the sun was shining. And you could see they were very red in color. We used to harvest them as well and the meat is white and they’re very pleasant to eat but nowadays we hardly eat them anymore. (PI-14 (Pond Inlet), Knight Piésold 2014).

March 2021 55

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Mittimatalik Hunters and Trappers Organization

ID # Question Response Attachment At Tugaat Lake was I was saying the fish [sea run Arctic char] tastes like sweet taste and the skin is thin. At Tugaat lake, I was saying this to, its even better, you can eat it but you don't have heart burn, if you eat too much you get heart burn. But Tugaat Lake you can eat it day after day, day after day and you don't get heartburn. (P07, 05-Feb-19 in QIA: 90-91).

Fishing of inland or land-locked char appears to be associated with traveling and hunting on the land. Often inland fishing sites were not the destination, but a part of a larger activity such as caribou hunting (Brody 1976: 168). Traditionally, land-locked char were an essential food source for Inuit and the dogs accompanying them during the mid to late 20th century (Aporta 2009). Fish caches were placed at strategic locations (Aporta 2004: 16). While snowmobile travel has replaced dogs for inland travel, fishing while inland travelling still takes place. One participant in the Tusaqtavut Report acknowledges catching fish alongside other inland activities (QIA 2019a: 90):

Every time they go through there [Mary River], they would catch fish as well. When they wish to eat fish, they would fish there (P04, 05-Feb-19, interpreted from Inuktitut in QIA: 90).

Impact to the Inuit harvest of anadromous fish are not expected on the basis that the key fishing waterbodies are removed from the Project area, and there is no physical interaction with these waterbodies or reductions in their accessibility. With respect to landlocked arctic char, the information collected indicates that fishing of land-locked arctic char near the project likely occurs only incidentally during other land use activities. Impacts to fish populations as a result of the Project (i.e., due to construction of the railway) must be offset in accordance with the Fisheries Act, and aquatic effects monitoring of the lakes and streams in the Mine Site area is required and would identify population level impacts to the fish population, should they occur. MHTO-31 a) Did BIM's assessment determine that the northern railway combined with the Tote Road would not present any a) The North Railway combined with the Tote Road did not present any new interaction new mechanisms of interaction for impacts to caribou and/or Inuit harvesting of caribou? mechanisms that had not already been considered in the Mary River Project's effects b) Has BIM considered the cumulative effects of the Phase 2 development on caribou harvesting, including harvesting assessment. quotas implemented for Baffin Island caribou? b) Baffinland did not assess cumulative impacts on caribou harvest (including harvest quotas). It was not in the scope of the NIRB assessment. Harvest and quotas are the responsibilities of the GN and the NWMB. MHTO-32 1. Does this prediction remain accurate given the substantially fewer number of ships, and omission of ice breaker 1. A more thorough assessment of the land use effects of shoulder season ice-breaking was shipping contemplated by the assessment in TSD 25 of the FEIS Addendum? presented in a May 2019 submission (submission 02B; Knight Piésold Ltd., 2019. Mary River 2. What is the current (operating) project’s effect on harvesting, including the effort and experience of Inuit hunters? Project – Phase 2 Proposal - Socio-economic Assessment of Icebreaking Operations during How does BIM currently measure and assess project- harvesting interactions, and impacts to harvesting and/or Shipping Shoulder Seasons. Ref. No. NB102-181/53-3, Rev. 0, May 17). This assessment was food security? prepared concurrent to the shoulder season icebreaking assessment on marine mammals (Golder, 2019. Mary River Project – Phase 2 Proposal - Assessment of Icebreaking 3. BIM’s TSD 25 notes that “with the appropriate mitigation in place, the potential impact on the quantity of marine Operations during Shipping Shoulder Seasons on Marine Biophysical Valued Ecosystem mammals harvested by level of effort is determined to be of low magnitude and is evaluated to be not significant.” Components (VECs)). These assessments considered the correct number of vessels. 4. Please explain how BIM measured/measures harvesting by level of effort? What is the source of BIM’s baseline 2. The Tusaqtavut Study for Pond Inlet (QIA, 2019) reported that the project currently impacts data for the quantity of marine mammals (narwhal, seal, other whales, walrus) harvested by level of effort, what Inuit harvesting and the experience of being out on the land. monitoring of this indicator is ongoing, and where is this information detailed? 3. Comment only, no question posed. 5. Please provide specific details setting out how BIM plans to assess impacts to harvesting per level effort under a potential Phase 2 scenario. 4. The Food Security Assessment considered this and other sources of information to evaluate the effect of the Phase 2 Proposal on the availability and accessibility of country food for harvesting. Available narwhal harvest data presented in the Food Security Assessment (with updated data current to 2019 filed with the NIRB during the January-February hearing) suggest that narwhal harvests have remained at relative highs since construction of the

March 2021 56

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Mittimatalik Hunters and Trappers Organization

ID # Question Response Attachment project was initiated in 2013. Baffinland recognizes the need to measure project-harvesting interactions and potation impacts on food security, and has agreed to a QIA-led Culture, Resources and Land Use (CRLU) monitoring program, as well as additional indicators to monitor food security, as noted in the Food Security Assessmen Available baseline data on marine mammal harvesting is presented in the Food Security Assessment. 5. The proposed CRLU monitoring program will likely include tracking harvesting efforts. The cooperation of the MHTO will be required to collect meaningful monitoring data on harvesting moving forward. MHTO-33 a) Please explain how monitoring impacts to caribou is a satisfactory method to assess impacts on the Resources and a) Monitoring caribou abundance and distribution is a proxy indicator for caribou availability for Land Use indicator, namely "Quantity of caribou harvested per level of effort"? Please describe any other harvesting. While Inuit experience, harvest technique, and caribou locations may change in information considered in BIM's assessment of this indicator to date. the Project area, caribou population knowledge informs the potential impacts on harvesting. b) What information has BIM collected regarding caribou harvest per level of effort for Mittimatalingmiut, and where b) There is no information regarding caribou harvest per level of effort for Mittimatalingmiut. is this information detailed? That information would be available only from the Mittimatalik Hunters and Trappers Organization. c) Which other affected communities harvest caribou throughout the Regional Study Area? Provide references supporting these conclusions. c) Baffinland has recognized Hall Beach, Igloolik, Arctic Bay, Pond Inlet, and Clyde River as harvesting/potentially harvesting caribou within the Project's Regional Study Area (Priest, H. and Usher, P.J. 2004. Nunavut Wildlife Harvest Study. Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, Iqaluit, Nunavut. 822 pp. MHTO-34 Where in its materials, with specific references, has BIM considered psychosocial impacts of its project on Inuit perception Baffinland acknowledges the concerns raised during the hearings regarding dust on snow and ice, how of risk and the resulting impacts to traditional and land-based cultural practices including, but not limited to: hunting, this affects the use of snow as a source of drinking water, and concerns regarding potential impacts of fishing, camping, country food consumption, skin preparation and traditional sewing? this dust on the food web. The effects assessment for the Phase 2 Proposal included an assessment of the risk presented by the ore dust, and the impacts are primarily aesthetic rather than toxicological. Baffinland has proposed a risk communication process to better communicate the risks of such aspects of the Project. Additionally, a dust mitigation plan has been filed with this submission to address the ore dust on snow issue. MHTO-35 1. If Inuit felt they were going to lose their culture, or lose the ability to harvest due to Phase 2, what are the specific 1. Baffinland is not asking Inuit to make a choice between culture/ability to harvest and Phase 2. “checks and balances” that would be implemented to see BIM’s operations stopped and closed to ensure that We believe both can proceed in parallel. It is anticipated that these considerations such as would not happen? those described in the MHTO’s question will be brought forward by QIA (in consultation with 2. What level of certainty is BIM suggesting must exist in order to determine if the project is having an impact on Inuit) into the development of the indicators, thresholds and actions that will be included in wildlife? On Inuit harvesting? On Inuit culture? the final Adaptive Management Plan. 3. What are the thresholds and indicators that BIM has proposed to assess these impacts? 2. Generally the Precautionary Principle will govern such determinations: “When an activity raises threats of harm to environmental, sociocultural, and economic wellbeing and resilience, 4. How does BIM currently monitor for impacts on Inuit harvesting (indicators, thresholds, monitoring programs precautionary measures and preventative action should be taken using a systems approach, undertaken)? even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established.” 5. What about monitoring the presence, vibrancy, and/or practice, of Inuit culture? What are the indicators, 3. The thresholds and indicators use to assess impacts on harvesting will be developed between thresholds, and monitoring programs that have undertaken to date in this regard? What are the findings of this the QIA and communities as part of the Inuit Stewardship Plan. monitoring. 4. Baffinland does not currently have a formal monitoring program to assess impacts to harvesting. Information has been provided to Baffinland through meetings/workshops, the QIA or other sources of information (e.g. DFO landed catch data) to help inform an understanding of current harvesting efforts and success rates. 5. These specific items are not currently monitored by Baffinland in a stand-alone program, but it is anticipated that this type of monitoring could be undertaken as part of the Inuit-led CRLU monitoring program. MHTO-36 1. How will Inuit indicators fit within BIM’s own project specific monitoring programs? Please provide specific 1. Inuit specific indicators are expected to fit into Trigger, Action Response Plans (TARPs). The examples. TARP format has already been adopted into the currently implemented Aquatic Effects Monitoring Program (AEMP), and will be standard across all Baffinland’s environmental

March 2021 57

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Mittimatalik Hunters and Trappers Organization

ID # Question Response Attachment 2. If BIM’s monitoring programs are not able to address indicators that are important to Inuit - say, body condition of management plans, to be finalized within 6 months, should Phase 2 be approved. Additional narwhal, or abundance of seal birth lairs, or Arctic char health in a particular lake of interest - are Inuit to examples can be found in the Adaptive Management Progress Summary Package. undertake the associated monitoring? And based on these Inuit indicators, and monitoring programs, Inuit would 2. Baffinland is committed to ensuring that indicators that are important to Inuit are included in be required to demonstrate an effect from the Project? our monitoring programs, but to ensure indicators will also be monitored by Inuit under a 3. If Inuit and BIM agree on certain indicators, how will thresholds be determined - for example, if 10% of a separate independent Inuit monitoring program as has been agreed under the ICA and population change is BIM’s preferred threshold to determine impact, but Inuit thresholds are much more sensitive, committed to NIRB. The specifics respecting reporting on Inuit monitoring is something that how will these differences be resolved? Which threshold would then apply to the project monitoring? will be worked out between QIA and the communities. 4. Will BIM integrate monitoring data collected through the Inuit Stewardship Program into its own assessment of 3. Baffinland and QIA, with the advice of the Inuit Committees, are expected to come to mutual project monitoring data and impacts? Has BIM committed to integrate this data? If not, why not? agreement on all objectives, indicators, thresholds and actions. While Baffinland is confident this can be accomplished through a mutually respectful process, there are provisions in the form of expedited arbitration should it become required. 4. The QIA is expected to generate its own annual reports on the Inuit Stewardship Plan and its associated monitoring programs. Where Baffinland can be reasonably expected to report on the combined outcomes of Inuit Stewardship Plan and Baffinland’s own environmental management system is in the annual report on adaptive management. MHTO-37 1. Can BIM explain how its plans to ship ore can be constrained by adaptive management requirements, including a Baffinland will be required to comply with the Adaptive Management Plan. Should Baffinland's marine potential and sustained reduction in shipping levels, to address impacts to marine mammals and Inuit harvesting? monitoring program, or the QIA's CRLU monitoring program demonstrate the need to implement a 2. What are the minimum levels of shipping BIM could return to after a slow down or shut down, while still managing high risk response as set out in the Adaptive Management Plan, such a response could include to maintain economic viability for the Project? adjusting the maximum number of ore carriers allowed to come to Milne Port in a single season. Failure to follow the Adaptive Management Plan has very serious consequences under the suite of agreements with QIA, including default under the Commercial Lease. It is anticipated the Adaptive Management Plan will also address returning to shipping levels after a slow down or shut down, based on environmental considerations. Baffinland's ability to maintain an economically viable operation under added vessel restrictions would depend on the operating environment at that time, including the price of iron ore and the availability of larger vessels on the market. MHTO-38 1. Has the ISP been integrated into the AMP? Is the AMP completed? 1. Baffinland is not responsible for the development of the Inuit Stewardship Plan, including the CRLU and Social monitoring programs, but to the best of its knowledge, these are under active 2. Further, please indicate which “appropriate thresholds, trigger and actions” have been developed for a) the CRLU; development between QIA and the communities. A revised draft Adaptive Management Plan and b) the Social Streams, and integrated into the AMP. was included in the ICA and submitted to NIRB by Baffinland in August 2020 and again by QIA 3. What if BIM does not approve the AMP and/or adaptive management actions? Can one party be forced into with select ICA Schedules in September 2020. arbitration by the other party to resolve the matter? 2. The final Adaptive Management Plan is expected to be complete by August 31, 2020 and will 4. How will the “high degree of certainty” that the Project has caused an effect before triggering an adaptive include the thresholds, triggers and actions developed through the CRLU Assessment and management response be determined? Inuit Stewardship Plan. 3. If Baffinland and QIA cannot agree to a final Adaptive Management Plan, there are provisions in the Inuit Certainty Agreement that would see senior management attempt to resolve the difference before the matter is brought by either party to an expedited arbitration process as described in the ICA. Under this process QIA is responsible for selecting the arbitrator, who would give full, fair and impartial, and balanced consideration of an established set of factors before making their determination on the matter or matters in dispute. Further, NIRB has the ability to direct Baffinland under the Project Certificate and conducts its own annual monitoring to ensure compliance with any Terms and Conditions of the Project. 5. Where a high degree of certainty is required to implement an adaptive management response, an investigation would be required. This investigation would likely be executed jointly with the QIA, and by extension the Inuit Committees. In practice, the format of the investigation could be increased monitoring effort, an environmental audit, or additional lab sampling. The outcomes of these investigations would again rely on the interpretation of all parties as part of the decision making process.

March 2021 58

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Mittimatalik Hunters and Trappers Organization

ID # Question Response Attachment As the ICA makes clear at Schedule 2, Section 2.1.3, “investigations of impact and attributions of causes and sources will be undertaken in good faith and will not be used as a means of obfuscating, avoiding, or unnecessarily delaying the implementation of adaptive management measures. In other words, it may be possible and in some cases prudent to apply adaptive management actions prior to or during the process of investigation.”

Further, the ICA requires that adaptive management will be applied appropriately even when it is not possible to determine the exact cause or degree of impact the Project is contributing to the total effect observed. The implementation of remedial actions to avoid or reduce impacts will occur within timeframes that suit the circumstance. Response actions shall be prioritized for immediate implementation. MHTO-39 Has the implementation plan been completed, and will you provide it to the MHTO? The Implementation Plan is a living document, revisited on a weekly basis by Baffinland and QIA to track progress towards ICA implementation. As part of the January 2021 Community Engagement update to NIRB Baffinland did provide an ICA implementation update. Given that the Implementation Plan itself is a working document related to ongoing amendments to the Inuit Impact Benefit Agreement, the Commercial Lease and the Water Compensation Agreement, Baffinland does not believe it is necessary to share as part of the NIRB record. If the MHTO is interested in attending an implementation meeting with Baffinland and the QIA to discuss the status of implementation on various obligations, Baffinland would be happy to accommodate that. MHTO-40 Under section 1.1.2 of Schedule A of the ICA, , the “ISP will be presented to Baffinland for feedback prior to QIA’s finalization The QIA is tasked with developing and finalizing the Inuit Stewardship Plan (ISP) under the Inuit and approval”. Is QIA required under the ICA to incorporate BIM’s feedback, or could QIA ignore the feedback? Certainty Agreement. QIA has no obligation under the ICA to incorporate Baffinland’s feedback on the design of the ISP and, the QIA and Baffinland are not required to agree on the ISP. However in the event feedback is not incorporated in the ISP, Baffinland anticipates that QIA would provide a written explanation as to its rationale. MHTO-41 1. Are either of the Marine Monitoring Plan or Aquatic Effects Monitoring Plan complete? 1, 2. The Marine Monitoring Plan and Aquatic Effects Monitoring Plan are still in draft, but have been updated to integrate the initial sets of objectives, indicators, thresholds and responses. 2. Please describe what the “initial set of objectives, indicators, thresholds and responses” for these plans are and Please see the Adaptive Management Progress Update for more details. where these are filed. 3, 4. Similar to the plans mentioned above, the Surface Water Aquatic Ecosystem Management 3. Are any of the Surface Water Aquatic Ecosystem Management Plan, Waste Management Plan, Borrow Pit and Plan, Waste Management Plan, Borrow Pit and Quarry Management Plan, Snow Management Quarry Management Plan, Snow Management Plan or Road Management Plan complete? Plan or Road Management Plan have been updated to include the initial sets of objectives, 4. Please describe what the “initial set of objectives, indicators, thresholds and responses” for these plans are and indicators, thresholds and responses. These updated plans are planned to be submitted to the where these are filed. Nunavut Water Board and the Nunavut Impact Review Board (as a matter of notification) as part of an updated water license package. The timing of this submission is expected within the next 30 days. MHTO-42 1. What is the purpose of the CRLU assessment in the ICA? 1. As set out in the QIA Outreach Guide, "Before any new major construction related to the rail alignment occur, a new Culture Resources and Land Use Assessment will be conducted. This 2. Does the BIM view the CRLU Assessment as an important tool for the collection of IQ related to Phase 2? will involve QIA, the impacted communities and Baffinland. The findings may require 3. When does BIM expect results of the CRLU Assessment will be available? modifications and additions to mitigation, monitoring, adaptive management, and 4. Please provide a rationale for completing a CRLU Assessment only after Phase 2 is approved, considering the compensation measures.” position outlined in ICA ID 6, section 6.1.1 which indicates that “Baffinland’s Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) underestimated impacts to Culture, Resources and Land Use (CRLU)” and that “QIA and the North Baffin The following sections of the ICA also describe the purpose of the CRLU Assessment, which is communities have not found Baffinland’s current findings credible.” intended to supplement the FEIS Addendum conclusions: 5. Would BIM agree that many Inuit believe that impacts to harvesting have not been adequately considered by BIM’s • 6.1.2 QIA and Inuit are of the opinion that relying on the FEIS alone does not create an assessment to date? adequate basis from which to monitor impacts associated with the project. Inuit have therefore proposed, and Baffinland has accepted, that a Phase 2 CRLU Assessment will be conducted prior to Major Construction Activities and will form a basis from which Inuit and Baffinland will monitor and assess the adequacy of impact predictions and make decisions on adaptive management. Baffinland agrees the Phase 2 CRLU Assessment will

March 2021 59

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Mittimatalik Hunters and Trappers Organization

ID # Question Response Attachment contribute to the body of information that will be used to monitor and manage the Mary River Project. • 6.1.3 A Phase 2 CRLU Assessment with meaningful input from Inuit helps to provide an evaluation of project impacts, integration of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, and better protections for QIA and community CRLU. Joint analysis of impacts to CRLU will also inform monitoring and management of impacts on CRLU. • 6.1.4 It is agreed that one of the primary purposes of the Phase 2 CRLU Assessment is to reflect Inuit views on effects estimations and significance determinations in relation to the Phase 2 Proposal in addition to what has been presented in Technical Supporting Document 25 (TSD-25) of the Phase 2 FEIS Addendum. It is expected that this work will result in modifications and additions to mitigation, monitoring, adaptive management, and, compensation measures. • 6.1.6 Subject to agreement of the Inuit members appointed to participate in the Phase 2 CRLU Assessment, the findings of the Phase 2 CRLU Assessment will inform updates to effects estimations and significance determinations, changes to the mitigation, monitoring, compensation, and adaptive management measures, to be reflected in the Adaptive Management Plan and sub-plans. Joint QIA and Baffinland approval of an Adaptive Management Plan and subplans will occur, consistent with ID 2 – Adaptive Management Plans Approval. • 6.1.7 Upon completion of the Phase 2 CRLU Assessment parties will update effects estimations and significance determinations relative to what was presented in the FEIS related to CRLU and revise the final Adaptive Management Plan and sub-plans, subject to QIA and Baffinland agreement and consistent with Schedule 2 and the Adaptive Management Plan. For greater clarity, this may involve updating objectives, indicators, thresholds and response actions in the Adaptive Management Plan. 2. Yes. 3. Appendix ID 6(1) of the ICA includes a Joint Phase 2 CRLU Assessment Work Plan (also attached to this response). While Baffinland is funding this activity it is led by QIA. Based on the most recent update from QIA [what does BIM want to say re adjusted timing to the work plan attached to ICA?]. 4. Per section 6.1.1. and 6.1.2 of the ICA, QIA determined the new CRLU Assessment in relation to Phase 2 is required to address differences in perspectives on FEIS determinations while also providing a basis from which the project will be monitored and managed in the future. QIA and Inuit are of the opinion that relying on the FEIS alone does not create an adequate basis from which to monitor impacts associated with the project. Inuit have therefore proposed, and Baffinland has accepted, that a Phase 2 CRLU Assessment will be conducted prior to Major Construction Activities and will form a basis from which Inuit and Baffinland will monitor and assess the adequacy of impact predictions and make decisions on adaptive management. 5. Baffinland acknowledges that some Inuit participants in the NIRB process have expressed this view. Inuit and Baffinland have recognized, since the early days of the Project, that impacts to harvesting may occur from the Project Article 13.1 of the IIBA clearly states that Inuit and the Company acknowledged that impacts to harvesting may occur from the Project. Specifically, Article 13.1 of the IIBA notes the following: “The objective of Article 13 hereof is to ensure that any potential incompatibility of the rights of Inuit to free and unrestricted travel and access for harvesting to all lands, water and marine areas within the Nunavut Settlement Area with the Company’s land use activities and rights of navigation in marine areas may be reduced….The QIA recognizes that the Company’s right to

March 2021 60

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Mittimatalik Hunters and Trappers Organization

ID # Question Response Attachment operate and manage their activity within the Project area including the rail and shipping corridor, subject to the provisions of this Agreement and QIA recognizes the restriction on Inuit right of access under Sections 5.7.18 and 5.7.25 of the NLCA…” In addition to the suite of the land-user specific mitigation developed by BIM in consultation with the QIA and communities, compensation for these effects are outlined in IIBA Articles 5.6.3 (financial participation); 17.6 (WCF); 17.7 (HEF); 17.9 (Research Vessel); 17.8 (CBM). MHTO-43 1. What specifically, are the “certain adaptive management responses” to which this clause of the ICA applies? 1. Those that challenge the overall scope, scale and viability of the Project. 2. Can BIM clarify which adaptive management responses will be implemented per 2.1.12 and which will be 2. Sections 2.1.3, 2.1.12 and 2.1.13 provide general guidance in approach to adaptive exempted via 2.1.3 and 2.1.13? management, and have been expanded on for more practical application in Section 2 of the 3. Which effects does BIM suggest can be measured and identified per 2.1.11 and 2.1.12, especially based on draft Adaptive Management Plan. Ultimately, each exceedance of a threshold will have a monitoring which may not have the ability to detect project level effects? unique set of circumstances that we cannot fully account for ahead of time. What is important is there is a system in place for Baffinland, QIA, communities, and environmental 4. BIM’s Adaptive Management Plan indicates a Review of Monitoring Program Results will be undertaken against working groups to investigate an exceedance and determine the most appropriate outcome. Predetermined Indicators and Thresholds. What are these indicators and thresholds? What monitoring program results have been, or will be, utilized in this review? When is this review anticipated to occur? 3. All effects indicators must be measurable in some form to apply thresholds. To that end, all indicators have the potential to be responded to in a manner consistent with 2.1.11 and 2.1.12. 4. Each indicator must be linked to a monitoring program than can observe and report possible changes. Monitoring frequency will not be standard across all indicators, where water quality may be tested daily, while marine mammal monitoring programs are run seasonally. Regardless of the frequency, the results of monitoring programs will be evaluated against established thresholds that correspond to low, moderate and high risk actions. Please see the Adaptive Management Progress Update for examples of initial indicators and thresholds developed for the Aquatic Effects Monitoring Plan, Terrestrial Environment Mitigation and Monitoring Plan and the Marine Monitoring Plan.

March 2021 61

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Sanirajak

SANIRAJAK

ID # Question Response Attachment HS-1 During the Technical Meeting portion of the Hearing, I asked Baffinland if when there is a five­ ship ore convoy whether this To clarify the statement from the Public Hearing, if 5 vessels were to travel in a convoy, each of those 5 counts as one transit toward the 176 or whether it counts as five. The answer provided, "that it counts as one transit but that vessels would count towards the 176 vessel limit (i.e. there would only by 171 vessels allowed after that there will only be 176 ships" is ambiguous. If under the Phase 2 proposal Baffinland is allowed to have 176 transits and a five­ 5). The 176 ore carriers refers to individual vessels. By combining vessels into a single transit (i.e. a ship convoy only counts as one transit, that would mean that they could have a total of 880 (5 x 176) ore ships if all ore ships convoy) does not mean the overall number of individual vessels can or will increase. Baffinland would were to travel in five-ship convoys. Could Baffinland confirm that the maximum number of ore ships that could be used in a remain bound to the upper limit of 176 ore carriers (and/or the number provided for in the Project single year under the Phase 2 proposal is 176 irrespective of whether some or all of the transits are done in convoys of greater Certificate if granted). The comment about the vessels combining for a single transit is from a marine than one ore ship? mammal disturbance perspective. There are benefits to vessels travelling in convoys as the overlapping sounds that come from the vessels do not make an appreciable difference in the overall sound level. As a result, the underwater sound from a transit with 5 vessels in convoy would be similar to a transit of a single vessel. Baffinland uses convoys when ice is present and the operation is subject to daily transit restrictions to reduce underwater noise disturbance. HS-2 Baffinland advised that ore ships travel in convoys as large as five ore ships at a time and they also said that up to three ore There are currently 3 anchorages at Ragged Island and 3 anchorages at Milne Port, as well as a berth at ships at a time could be anchored at Ragged Island. Prior to the construction of the second ore dock, one of the five ships Ore Dock #1. Under Phase 2 Baffinland has not proposed any additional anchorages only an additional could be at the dock and three of the five ore ships could be at the Ragged Island anchorage. Where would the fifth ship be berth at Ore Dock #2. located if it were to be anchored? If not anchored, where would it be travelling? That is a total of 7 locations ore carriers could be under the current operation, and 8 under Phase 2. While a convoy of 5 ore carriers is possible, it is more likely a convoy of that size includes Milne Port support vessels, like tugs, that come in at the beginning of the season, and leave at the end. Tugs stay within 1km of Milne Port throughout the season and primarily assist with the berthing and unberthing of vessels from the docks. HS-3 Baffinland was asked whether the second dock under the Phase 2 proposal is solely required to handle Cape-sized vessels or Baffinland’s experience to date is that it takes, on average, 24 hours (1 day) to load a vessel at Ore Dock whether it also is necessary to ship 12 MMT/A. The answer provided was that it would be required to both handle Cape-sized #1; this time includes ballast water discharge, berthing, loading (current average is 4000/tph) and vessels and to ship 12 MMT/A. In Oceans North's presentation at the Hearing, Chris Debiski highlighted Baffinland' s unberthing, and accounts for the range of different size vessels that come to Milne Port. To move 6 Mtpa documents filed that show the number of transits and the dry weight information of the ships actually used in 2019. An under the Production Increase Proposal requires up to 84 vessels, and based on the above, 84 'loading' analysis of this information (Appendix 1, attached) shows that if Baffinland were to use the same ratio of Supermax, Panamax days. In addition to loading days, Baffinland needs to account for 'down' days, where unplanned and Post-Panamax vessels as those actually used in 2019, they could ship 13.1 MMT/A; this is 9% more than the requested maintenance to ship loading equipment, weather, or late vessels require a longer period to conduct shipping level of 12 MMT/A. If they were able to do away with using Supermax vessels and were able to attain an equal shipping in (7% is industry standard contingency). This is consistent with our currently approved shipping amount of Panamax and Post-Panamax vessels, they could ship 13.7 MMT/A; this is 14% more than the requested shipping period that extends from approximately July 15th to October 15th. Understanding that Ore Dock #1 is level of 12 MMT/A. If they were able to attain shipping with all Post-Panamax vessels, they could ship 14.3 MMT/A; this is 19% being fully utilized under the current 6 Mtpa version of the Project, and the shipping season is not more than the requested shipping level of 12 MMT/A. This calls into question Baffinland's statement that the second ore dock appreciably changing under Phase 2, (Phase 2 shipping will occur under the same limits as the current is in part required to ship 12 MMT/A. To help verify whether the second ship loader and second dock are required or not to season re. no breaking landfast ice) it follows that a second ore dock is essential to double the amount of ship 12 MMT/A, could Baffinland please provide the average number of tones of lumps and / or fines per hour that can be production to 12 Mtpa. The fact that Ore Dock #2 will be able to load capesize vessels under the Phase 2 loaded into ships using its existing ship loader and the average time it takes for one ore ship to leave the existing dock until Proposal will only serve to reduce the overall number of vessels that need to come to Milne Port in a given the next one is at dock and ready to be loaded? year when Baffinland is able to charter them. Through its operational flexibility proposal, Baffinland has already confirmed that its possible to ship more than 12 Mtpa in a season if larger vessels can be chartered. This is not something that is guaranteed as Baffinland does not own its own vessels and must access what's available on the open market. Baffinland is also at a disadvantage when it comes to preferred vessels as it only operates for a short season (3-4 months), while other vessel clients operate year round. HS-4 In responding to a question of the World Wildlife Fund regarding the use of heavy fuels that cause black carbon emissions, See response to NIRB-08 above. Baffinland indicated that it would use distillate fuels that do not emit black carbon after the new regulations are fully phased in, which would not be until 2029. As part of the explanation provided by Baffinland, it stated that distillate fuels are far more expensive. In the intervention provided by Fisheries and Oceans Canada, they stated there is a small price difference between heavy fuels and distillate fuels. Fisheries and Oceans Canada also stated that the use of distillate fuels is already required for ships in the North Sea where Baffinland's ships deliver ore to Rotterdam. Could Baffinland provide what the Phase 2 cost per year would be of complying with the Fisheries and Oceans Canada recommendation that Baffinland only use distillate fuels

March 2021 62

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Sanirajak

ID # Question Response Attachment within Canada's 200-mile Economic Zone? HS-5 Given the severe damage to the environment that would occur should there be a major oil spill by one of Baffinland's ships While vessels may be instructed not to use heavy fuel oil (HFO) in the Project area, vessels may continue while in Milne Inlet or Eclipse Sound, will Baffinland commit to immediately requiring all its ships to start using distillate fuels to carry it for use in areas where it remains permitted. This is consistent with the Government of Canada's within Canada's 200-mile Economic Zone. If Baffinland would not commit to requiring all its ships to immediately start using phased-in approach to the ban on HFO to help balance the environmental benefits with the economic distillate fuels within Canada's 200-mile Economic Zone, would it commit to start using distillate fuels within Canada's 200- realities of operating in the north. That being said, only vessels that meet established design specifications mile Economic Zone should it receive approval for its Phase 2 proposal? that would limit the severity of a fuel spill (double hulled fuel tanks) will be allowed to continue to carry the fuel until 2029. Regardless of the type of fuel carried by vessels, BIM has established operating procedures beyond regulation to reduce the risks of accidental releases. Such measures include: • Traffic management (no passing zones, speed restrictions, traffic simulations, etc) • Vessel selection criteria through Rightship that considers not only the navigational safety of the operation, but also considers the traditional use of the waters within the RSA. • Support for additional marine mapping along the transportation corridor through the Canadian Hydrographic Society. • Improved AIS coverage of all vessels-Requiring vessels to obtain clearance from NORDREG- Hiring experienced ice navigators-Requirement for all vessels to have onboard SOPEPs • Conducting fuel spill modelling and risk assessments to inform emergency preparedness response plans (i.e. SSRP)-Establishment of contract with spill response company before the start of each shipping season

March 2021 63

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Clyde River

CLYDE RIVER

ID # Question Response Attachment CR-1 Please provide more information about the various agreements Baffinland has entered into and is currently Baffinland is currently negotiating an Agreement in Principle with respect to a caribou research agreement negotiating with the Government of Nunavut pertaining to caribou research. Please provide copies of all previous and associated data sharing agreement. No previous agreements exist. Baffinland and the Government of and existing agreements between Baffinland and the Government of Nunavut pertaining to caribou. Please provide Nunavut will share the Agreement in Principle once finalized. copies of draft agreements currently being discussed by the parties. CR-2 Do any the draft agreements being discussed by Baffinland and the GN provide Baffinland with control over the No, Baffinland will not have control over the results of the caribou research. The regional caribou research results of caribou research? For example, are there provisions in any of the draft agreements that give Baffinland agreement will not prevent the Government of Nunavut from communicating the results of its studies in a influence or control over the ability of the Government of Nunavut to communicate the results of this research to timely manner. communities and other stakeholders in a timely manner? CR-3 Baffinland indicated that it would develop protocols for temporary road and rail closures when caribou return to the Baffinland has measures to stop rail and truck movements based on the road and rail caribou decision tree area “in numbers that require it”. How many caribou need to be in the North Baffin region before Baffinland (Terrestrial Environment Mitigation and Monitoring Plan [TEMMP]). For example, one caribou within 100 develops these mitigation measures? m (328 ft) triggers a response by trucks, and within 250 m (820 ft) triggers a response by rail, up to and including stopping trucks and trains. Considerations for closures to accommodate large regional caribou migrations are another issue that must be discussed with the TEWG, local harvesters, and the Inuit Committee. Characteristics of North Baffin Island caribou large regional movement is a future condition that we do not entirely understand currently. As such, Baffinland has made the following commitments based on a request to develop a preliminary threshold by the Government of Nunavut:

Baffinland will work with the TEWG and Inuit Committee to develop a preliminary threshold for caribou group size that would trigger the temporary suspension of road and/or rail traffic. The threshold will be based on monitoring outcomes, operating experience, community input, and further discussion with the TEWG and Inuit Committee. CR-4 This question pertains to Baffinland’s marine mammal monitoring program and the time frames it would take Given the inherent variability in these types of surveys and acknowledging that the 2021 ringed seal aerial Baffinland’s monitoring programs to detect population changes in marine mammals. How many seasons would the survey program has yet to be completed, it is not currently possible to predict how many annual surveys proponent need to determine if their shipping operations have an impact on seal populations? would be required to determine if shipping operations are resulting in a significant change in local seal densities in the study area (this requires a minimum of two survey years data in order to calculate). This question will be answered through a power analysis of the survey data following the completion of the June 2021 ringed seal aerial survey program. The 2021 survey results will be compared to ringed seal baseline aerial surveys undertaken by Baffinland in the regional study area in 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2014, as well as to surveys undertaken by DFO in 2016 and 2017 during the Early Revenue Phase (ERP) of the Project (Yurkowski et al. 2018). CR-5 Baffinland has indicated that it has concerns with the quality of the peer reviewed paper on cortisol levels in The full technical review conducted by Golder Associates Ltd. on behalf of Baffinland is included at CR-5 Attachment 1: Golder narwhal. Please explain the concerns with this paper and indicate who specifically reviewed this paper for Baffinland Appendix 6 Review of Paper on Cortisol and what their technical qualifications are. Levels in Narwhal A brief summary is as follows:

The Study does not appear to meet the Canadian Science Publishing Guidelines ‘FAIR Principles’ on Data Availability. Specifically, the Data as presented in the Study does not allow for ‘Reproducibility’ because the data has only been presented as post-processed pooled data sets, and pertinent details regarding inter- annual variation in cortisol levels amongst individually sampled narwhal is not presented, nor is an appropriate level of detail or comparative analysis provided regarding other well-known narwhal stressors which are known to have changed in magnitude over a similar time scale as that considered in the Study (e.g., increased killer whale predation, changes in prey availability, sea-ice conditions, climate change, changes to harvesting). Further, pertinent information regarding the study’s data screening and data

March 2021 64

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Clyde River

ID # Question Response Attachment management procedures is lacking, including specifics on the decision framework applied for data inclusion/exclusion in the pooled datasets, and how data quality verification was systematically undertaken for this purpose. Without further analyses by the authors, and additional information being supplied or corrected for in the study, it is impossible to determine if any correlating relationship or trend exists between cortisol levels in narwhal samples and Project shipping as the authors have suggested. There are numerous study limitations but these are consistently understated by the authors.

Baffinland continues to advocate for a regional approach towards health and body condition monitoring to be led by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and relevant community-based organizations, with support provided by Baffinland.

The technical review was led by Dr. Patrick Abgrall of Golder Associates Ltd. for Baffinland. Dr. Abgrall has a B.Sc., a M.Sc. and a Ph.D. in biology with an emphasis in marine biology and animal behaviour. He has studied polar marine mammals for over 20 years and has been involved in the assessment and monitoring of the impacts of underwater noise from marine development projects on marine mammals for over 15 years. CR-6 Baffinland asserts that its monitoring program has not identified any significant negative effects on marine Numerous program modifications to the marine monitoring programs have been made as a result of NIRB-79 Attachment 1: A mammals. However, hunters in Pond Inlet have observed negative effects on marine mammals as a result of marine feedback from the Environment Working Groups as well as feedback from community consultation. When summary of key monitoring- shipping. Please provide more information about whether or not members of the Marine Environmental Working suggestions have been made by Working Group members on specific programs, Baffinland has made the related feedback/suggestions Group are satisfied with Baffinland’s approach to monitoring. Have any working group members raised concerns effort in considering these requests in the most expedited and feasible manner. When a change is not provided to Baffinland by the that Baffinland’s approach to monitoring might be not be capturing all of the effects of shipping on marine implemented, Baffinland has provided rationale as to why the modification cannot immediately be Working Groups since 2018 mammals? If so, how has Baffinland addressed these concerns? implemented and/or that additional information is required before it can make an informed decision and/or has provided its reasoning for not pursuing specific requests further. A review of program modifications demonstrates Baffinland’s willingness to consider and incorporate the numerous suggestions provided through the Working Groups on program design modifications, data analyses and interpretation of results. A summary of key monitoring-related feedback/suggestions provided to Baffinland since 2018 is provided in Appendix 1). This includes a statement on the change Baffinland made in response, or the rationale if Baffinland has not (or not yet) followed through with specific requests (including if discussions are ongoing). This summary is based on Baffinland’s review of past comments received on monitoring program reports and/or through review of meeting records from working group meetings that took place since 2018. CR-7 Baffinland indicated that the Marine Environmental Working Group met in November to discuss new draft terms of Revisions to the Terms of Reference for both the MEWG and TEWG have been active throughout the Phase reference prepared by Baffinland. Please provide a copy of these draft terms of reference. Please summarize any 2 review process, with the Government of Nunavut mostly leading the initiative. The challenges with concerns expressed with the draft terms of reference by working group members and explain how Baffinland will completing the final ToR have been largely due to capacity constraints for various parties to review and address these concerns. return comments and in reaching agreement on the consensus based approach for generating recommendations. Baffinland will continue to progress the review of the ToR’s at regular MEWG and TEWG meetings, and will work closely with QIA to ensure the final working group ToR’s align with that of the Inuit Committee. Baffinland intends for this process to be complete within 6 months of the issuance of an amended Project Certificate 005, should Phase 2 be approved.

A copy of the updated terms of reference the Working Group members met to discuss in November 2020 has been available on the public registry since October 2020 (NIRB Registry No. 331790).

March 2021 65

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Clyde River

ID # Question Response Attachment CR-8 Baffinland intends to develop the triggers and actions for the adaptive management plan in conjunction with the Yes – and the commitment to do so has been formalized through the Phase 2 review process as Qikiqtani Inuit Association. Does Baffinland foresee a role for the Marine Environmental Working Group or Commitment No. 189 to DFO 3.4.1 NEW: “Baffinland commits to update the Marine Monitoring Plan Terrestrial Environment Working Group in the development of these triggers and actions? (MMP) to include a specific section relevant to icebreaking and shoulder season shipping activities in advance of the 2021 shipping season. Through the ICA, Baffinland is also committed to the development initial Indicators for the MMP in collaboration with QIA by December 2020. These initial OITR’s will then be subject to review by Inuit (through the Inuit Committee) and regulators (through the MEWG) before finalization (no later than August 30, 2021).

March 2021 66

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Government of Nunavut

GOVERNMENT OF NUNAVUT

ID # Question Response Attachment

GN-1 The GN asks Baffinland to answer the following: 1) The permeability calculation is based on the embankment design information summarized in Appendix H of the Mary 1) Provide the calculation that leads to the 66% permeability stated in slides 14 and 19 of the River Phase 2 Proposal Rail Alignment Summary Report (Baffinland, October 2019). This summary in Appendix H is Terrestrial Environment presentation? Given that the “Railway Embankment “Sensitivity” extracted from the rail alignment cut and fill report produced using Computed Aided Design (CAD) tools. The software Analysis for Caribou Crossing Potential” (EDI 2019) did not address the uncertainty raised in GN provides the cut or fill depth for the proposed rail geometry using the surveyed natural topography at 20m intervals along TSD 12. Please explain how, given this clear acknowledgement of significant uncertainty the entire rail alignment for each route investigated. The tables in Appendix H show the cumulative total distance of the associated with the results of the FEIS Addendum, Baffinland reached the conclusion that 66% rail alignment in the various increments used to analyze the data. The fill and cut, heights and depths (less than 4 m) of the railway will be permeable to caribou without further mitigation, with high confidence? respectively is presented in two separate tables one for the fill portion and one for the cut portion. These two aspects are then combined for the total summary.

Based on permeability to caribou movement being cuts and fills < 2 m in depth and height and ≥ 2 m and ≤ 4 m with 1:2 slope, all with Type 8 fill on the slope (footnote to Table 4 in the report). Additionally, the cumulative totals for each of the rail routes are highlighted in yellow for easy reference based on the permeability definitions presented. For Route 1 Fill <4 m is 56%, Cut <4 m is 10.2% for a combined cumulative total of 66.2% of the rail alignment <4 m in fill height or cut depth. For Route 2 Fill < 4m is 52.3%, Cut <4 m is 13.9% for a combined cumulative total of 66.3% of the rail alignment <4 m in fill height or cut depth. For Route 3 Fill <4 m is 54.3%, Cut <4 m is 13.4% for a combined cumulative total of 67.7% of the rail alignment <4 m in fill height or cut depth. The permeability calculation is also identified in Section 7.3 of the same report in Table 5. In this table the data are presented to demonstrate the distribution of the types of segment lengths over which the rail alignment will be permeable for the various routes based on the definition of permeability as used in these calculations. GN-2 The Proponent’s memo on the effect of fuel spills on polar bears has addressed many of the Baffinland will provide the following commitment in the next update to the Phase 2 Commitment List: GN’s concerns about the projects impact on polar bears. The GN still has concerns about the potential interaction of polar bears with oil spills – should a spill occur, Baffinland should have Section 10.3.2 of the Spill at Sea Response Plan will be updated to reflect a requirement for coordination with the Government of a plan to deter bears from the area. Can the Proponent update Section 10.3.2 of the Spill at Nunavut’s Department of Environment and Emergency Management Office in the mobilization of emergency wildlife teams for Sea Response Plan to reflect a requirement for coordination with the Government of the purpose of preventing wildlife contamination. Special consideration will be given to polar bear deterrence, which could be Nunavut’s Department of Environment and Emergency Management Office in the mobilization facilitated by helicopter or emergency response vessels. The feasibility of implementing catch and relocation as a deterrence for of emergency wildlife teams for the purpose of preventing wildlife contamination. Special polar bear will be coordinated with the Department of Environment based on the circumstances of the spill. consideration will be given to polar bear deterrence, which could be facilitated by helicopter or emergency response vessels. The feasibility of implementing catch and relocation as a deterrence for polar bear will be coordinated with the Department of Environment based on the circumstances of the spill.

GN-3 The GN asks that Baffinland answer the following: 1 The Adaptive Management Plan is applicable to adaptive management across the Project generally, not just to the 1) Would Terrestrial and Marine Environmental Working Groups recommendations to systems provided for under the Inuit Certainty Agreement. In the event an adaptive management response is required, the TEWG and/or MEWG (depending on the nature of the requirement) would be evaluating the same set of Baffinland for a ‘high action level response’ require the same high degree of certainty predetermined responses against the associated risk thresholds. As such, the same principles of adaptive management that the Project is reasonably associated with the effect and that the action is reasonably would apply to the groups recognized under the ICA, as well as the working groups, including the expectation that as likely to reverse these effects? more serious mitigations are expected to be implemented, there is an equally increasing certainty that the mitigation is 2) If the same high degree of certainty is required before implementing Working Groups warranted and will be effective. recommendations, please list the monitoring programs for caribou that will yield sufficient 2 A high degree of certainty about a cause-effect relationship is not necessary for Baffinland to implement monitoring data to provide this level of certainty? programs. The evidence of this is Baffinland's support of the 2008–2011 collar study (before the mine was operational), Baffinland's Regional Study Area aerial surveys, and Baffinland's continuing support of the GN's intermittent regional caribou surveys of North Baffin Island. Surveys that will yield sufficient data to provide a level of certainty are necessarily collaborative by nature of the question. The GN is aware of the collaborative support offered by Baffinland to their survey and collar programs. This support was given to the 2008–2011 collar programs, periodic island-wide surveys since then, and currently considered within the Agreement in Principle between the GN and Baffinland. Those collaborative, regional-level studies and monitoring programs are some of the best alternatives available to collect sufficient data, combined with observations shared by harvesters, to improve all parties' understanding of potential Project impacts

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Government of Nunavut

ID # Question Response Attachment

GN-4 The GN would like further explanation on: 1) Baffinland has proposed that recommendations made from Environmental Working Groups will go through the Inuit Appendix 12 TARPs and Toolkits, AMP 1) Will the Inuit Committees and Working Groups function in parallel? Committees to provide Inuit lens before recommendations are implemented. With the introduction of the Inuit Committees and ISPs – we expect that the Environmental Working Groups will continue to serve as advisory bodies to 2) Will advice rendered by the Working Groups require the support of the Inuit Committees the Inuit Committee as decision makers where it makes sense to do so. Other recommendations for monitoring will be before being considered or implemented by Baffinland? Likewise, will advice rendered by the evaluated by BIM and overseen by the expertise of the NIRB to ensure Baffinland is meeting all requirements for Inuit Committees require the support of the Working Groups? monitoring the Project. 3) How will existing Working Groups be involved in adaptive management? 2) There are some areas where either group (Working Group, Inuit Committee) may be in a position to provide direction, 4) How would decisions by Inuit Committees inform adaptive management actions? whether it is under regulatory power, or through binding agreements. Baffinland believes it will be important to develop 5) How would ICA arbitration processes function in relation to rendered Working Group and or a dispute resolution process to account for the possibility that there is disagreement between the groups that accounts Inuit Committee advice? for the powers afforded to each group, as well as instances where there is less formal authority. 6)How would Baffinland action NIRB monitoring instructions relative to advice rendered by 3) Working Groups will continue to provide input into Baffinland’s monitoring program designs, evaluate the outcomes, and Inuit Committees and Working Groups? participate in adaptive management response planning, where necessary. See Appendix 12, which outlines how Note Question directed to both BIM and QIA Baffinland is proposing to involve the Working Groups and the Inuit Committee’s in the Adaptive Management Process. 4) The primary intention is to agree to pre-established objectives, indicators, thresholds and responses prior to commencing Phase 2 operations. This joint agreement will be dependent on the direction provided to QIA through the Inuit Committee’s. The Inuit Committee will also have ongoing responsibilities towards adaptive management, including directing the Inuit led monitoring programs under the Inuit Stewardship Plan, or reviewing recommended adaptive management responses required in any given year before they’re implemented. See Appendix 12, which outlines how Baffinland is proposing the Inuit Committee be involved in the Adaptive Management Process. 5) ID 34 of the ICA has no relationship to, or bearing on recommendations provided by the Environmental Working Groups. 6) 6) Baffinland and QIA must respect direction provided under regulatory authority, including recommendations issued by the Board under the powers of the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act. See Appendix 12, which outlines how Baffinland foresees NIRBs role in the Adaptive Management Process in relation to the Environmental Working Groups and the Inuit Committee.

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Government of Canada

GOVERNMENT OF CANADA

ID # Question Response Attachment GoC-1 In the October 2020 memo on black carbon mitigation, Baffinland indicated that they may use See response to NIRB-8. ECCC scrubbers to meet global sulphur emission limits, but noted the environmental trade-offs regarding water pollution. ECCC notes that scrubber washwater is known to be acidic, and contains PAHs and heavy metals, substances which are known to have adverse impacts to marine aquatic life. Can Baffinland clarify whether they intend to use scrubbers in their vessels, and if so, have they assessed the impact of scrubber washwater discharge to the marine environment? What mitigation measures if any, are planned to reduce the impacts of washwater discharge to the marine environment? GoC-2 a) Given additional concerns raised and if phase 2 is approved, would Baffinland commit to: Baffinland and DFO have already agreed to a trigger for updating ballast water modelling in response to Technical DFO i) run the model scaled up to full projected phase 2 ballast water discharge Comment DFO 3.6.4 NEW. This resolution is recognized in Baffinland’s Commitment List and acknowledged in DFO's volumes, using updated oceanographic parameters and provide the results to Updated Written Submission, submitted to NIRB on January 15, 2021. Baffinland maintains that the ballast water DFO and the MEWG, modelling conducted to date is more than sufficient for the effective monitoring of ballast water, should Phase 2 be ii) to do so prior to commencing any increase in shipping associated with phase 2, approved. Should Baffinland consider discontinuing exchange plus treatment in the future, Baffinland remains and committed to updating ballast water dispersion modelling to more accurately reflect the spectrum of salinity, iii) use results to inform and be incorporated in updated monitoring and adaptive temperature, and discharge volumes that can be expected to be discharged at Milne Port under that modification. This management plans, particularly the spatial extent for AIS monitoring? will include increased ballast water discharge volumes, using updated oceanographic parameters and provide the results b) If not, please provide the rationale, and propose a more suitable timeframe to address to DFO and MEWG. The results will be used to inform updates to monitoring and adaptive management plans, including these remaining concerns. the spatial extent for AIS. GoC-3 a. Can Baffinland confirm what is the maximum extent species may be dispersed in ballast? a. The maximum extent species may be dispersed in ballast water has not been estimated because the mitigation DFO This response should be provided in context of the 2019 Updated Ballast Water proposed – open ocean exchange (which expunges organisms far away from coastal areas) plus ballast water Dispersion Modelling Report and future updates to the modelling. treatment (which exterminates any remnant organisms) – effectively cuts off this potential pathway. TC notes b. Has Baffinland considered asexual reproduction in the potential for establishment of ballast water exchange or treatment are considered to be best management practices for ballast water (Transport dispersed AIS/NIS? If so, how? If not, why not? Canada 2011). c. Has Baffinland considered repeated ballast water release in the potential for b. The methodology in the AIS Risk Assessment (TSD 21) completed for the Phase 2 Proposal was based on DFO- establishment of AIS/NIS? This may increase the probability of sexually reproducing recommended methodologies (i.e., Chan et al. 2012; Casas-Monroy et al. 2014), neither of which indicates a need organisms to find mates and further propagate. to specifically consider asexual reproduction. Baffinland’s commitment to conduct ballast water exchange and treatment will be effective for avoiding AIS/NIS, regardless of reproductive mechanism. This highly specific technical question therefore does not influence the conclusion of the assessment (no significant adverse effects from AIS) nor the mitigation proposed. Information on reproductive strategy may be the type of information considered in the species-specific Rapid Response Plans (DFO 3.6.10 NEW), should the need to develop them be triggered. c. Due to the effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures, no species are expected to be introduced into Milne Inlet through ballast water. Proposed ballast water mitigation exceeds that of Transport Canada requirements and such technical questions from DFO should therefore also be considered by Transport Canada.

To determine the potential risk of an AIS from Baffinland shipping operations, the highest risk rating was applied in the assessment, and this rating considered the shipping volumes and ship specifications applicable to the Phase 2 Proposal. BIM’s assessment of invasion risk is therefore considered accurate (given volumes and ship specifications were accounted for), conservative (highest risk rating applied), and aligned with DFO methodological guidance (i.e., Chan et al. 2012; Casas-Monroy et al. 2014).

As outlined in Part b above, Baffinland has made a number of commitments related to mitigation and monitoring of NIS/AIS species. Notably, information on reproductive strategy may be the type of information considered in the species-specific Rapid Response Plans (DFO 3.6.10 NEW), should the need to develop them be triggered. GoC-4 The Aquatic Invasive Species Regulations under the Fisheries Act provide a set of tools to help a) Baffinland understands the definition of AIS to be that set out in section 1 of the AIS Regulations, SOR/2015-121 GoC-4 Attachment 1: AIS DFO Canada protect its waters from species that can potentially harm our fish, fish habitat, ecology, (the “AIS Regulations”), which is as follows: “aquatic invasive species means a species set out in Part 2 or 3 of Response Protocol economy, or social needs. For the purposes of the Regulations, AIS are presented in a list form, and

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Government of Canada

ID # Question Response Attachment more management tools are available for those species listed. However, for management the schedule.” To date, none of the species found in the receiving environment at Milne Port are on Part 2 or 3 purposes, AIS has a two part definition: of the schedule to the Regulations and are therefore not defined as AIS under the AIS Regulations. i) that the species is not native to an area; and ii) has the potential to cause harm. There is a broad prohibition (Section 10 ) that prohibits Baffinland also notes that in accordance with section 17 of the AIS Regulations, because Baffinland’s shipping is ‘any person to introduce an aquatic species into a particular region or body of water otherwise regulated under the Ballast Water Control and Management Regulations, sections 6 to 10 and frequented by fish where it is not indigenous unless authorized to do so under federal or directions given under subsection s22(2), 26(1) and 27(1) of the AIS Regulations do not apply. provincial law.’ i.e., a species is an AIS if it is a non-indigenous (not native) species that can potentially harm our fish, fish habitat, ecology, economy or social needs. b) Baffinland does distinguish between AIS and NIS in our monitoring and reporting, according to the following a.) Does Baffinland and their reporting differentiate between AIS and NIS? definitions: b.) If Baffinland does differentiate between AIS and NIS, can they provide the definitions for these classifications? Non-indigenous species (NIS): a species that exists outside the particular region or body of water where it c.) Can Baffinland clarify and elaborate on if there is any difference in how they originated naturally. respond or would propose respond to reports of AIS and NIS? Aquatic invasive species (AIS): a species that exists outside the particular region or body of water where it originated naturally and that can harm the environment, the economy, or society.

c) Baffinland takes all potential species introductions seriously regardless of whether a species is categorized as AIS or NIS. Currently, monitoring for both NIS/AIS occurs across multiple trophic levels in the marine receiving environment; in addition, Baffinland has made a number of commitments to mitigate and monitor for potential NIS/AIS introductions under Phase 2 operations, many of which involve extensive collaboration with DFO (refer to GOC-3(b) for a list of relevant commitments).

The framework for Baffinland’s existing response protocol is provided as Appendix 8 Response to a detection will depend on whether a species introduction is determined to be Project-related. If an AIS is found to be present at Milne Port but was documented in pre-shipping baseline surveys or if taxonomic records indicate presence in the Canadian Arctic before the commencement of shipping operations, then the introduction would not be considered Project-related. In this instance, the species would be placed on a “watch list”, along with NIS species, and subject to heightened monitoring efforts, but no intervention would occur.

If a Project-related introduction of an AIS is confirmed, then species-specific response plans would be developed in collaboration with DFO (per Commitment DFO 3.6.10 NEW); in general, responses to AIS would be stronger than for NIS, commensurate with the potential risk, and possibly involve intervention or management actions. GoC-5 a. Can Baffinland confirm whether or not Marenzelleria sp. and Marenzelleria viridis have a) Marenzelleria viridis is listed on AIS databases and invasions have been documented in Europe (e.g., eastern GoC-4 Attachment 1: Ais DFO been confirmed as AIS or NIS, and, if not, how Baffinland intends to continue working to North Atlantic, Baltic Sea). However, based on available scientific evidence, Baffinland does not consider this Response Protocol determine this, as per the commitments for DFO 3.6.7 NEW and DFO 3.6.8 NEW? species invasive to Milne Port (or the Canadian Arctic) for two reasons: 1) the existence of six documented b. Further, if these species are confirmed AIS or NIS for this area, how does Baffinland intend Canadian Arctic records, prior to Baffinland shipping confirms that detection of this species at Milne Port is not to respond to a potential introduction and in what timeframe, noting Baffinland's related to Baffinland operations; and, 2) monitoring at Milne Port reveals no ecological signs of invasive commitments established for DFO 3.6.9 NEW and DFO 3.6.10 NEW? behaviour. The following provides important context to the discussion of this species as well as details showing c. Does Baffinland commit to implementing a rapid response plan for an organism(s) found why this species is not considered a Project-introduced AIS at Milne Port, the evidence available to date that within their sampling that are yet to be confirmed invasive, but that are proven to be suggests it is not behaving as an AIS in Milne Port, and why Inuit communities can be assured of no risk related invasive elsewhere? d. Can Baffinland confirm that earlier records of Marenzelleria spp. do not represent early to this species relating to Baffinland operations at Milne Inlet. records of Marenzelleria viridis? The accepted natural range of M. viridis is cited as the western north Atlantic (i.e., likely including waters from e. Does Baffinland have evidence of where this species may has been found around Baffin Newfoundland to Maryland) but there are also documented occurrences around Baffin Island and other Island prior to shipping activities? f. What does Baffinland consider to be evidence of species spread, and how many years of locations in the Canadian Arctic in the taxonomic record, indicating the currently listed range for this species is monitoring data does Baffinland have for these potential AIS/NIS since their detection? likely incomplete. There are multiple records of occurrence of M. viridis in the Canadian Arctic prior to the start of Project activities in Milne Port, including specimens collected in Frobisher Bay and Davis Strait (Cusson 2018), as well as reported populations in Gjoa Haven (where it was described as a characteristic taxa in shallow grabs, Brown et al. 2011), and established populations in the marine port areas at Churchill and Deception Bay (Chan et

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Government of Canada

ID # Question Response Attachment al. 2012; Chan 2014). Additionally, under the former identification for this species, Scolecolepides viridis, multiple specimens were collected in the western Canadian Arctic in the 1970s and 1980s (GBIF 2021; Miller et al. 2014). Collectively, this confirms that M. viridis was established in the Canadian Arctic well before Baffinland began shipping operations at Milne Port. Rather than being invasive to the region, this species appears to either naturally exist or is cryptogenic in the region, the latter term referring to species that are not demonstrably native or introduced (Carlton 1996).

Additionally, and more relevant to Baffinland operations, monitoring of benthic communities at Milne Port reveals no warning signs of invasion, even after sampling intensity was substantially increased (in response to a 2018 MEWG request). M. viridis is one of 258 polychaete (i.e. marine worm) species identified by Baffinland at Milne Port since the start of shipping operations, and there is no indication that any of the other 257 species are invasive. The species was observed in only 2 out of 32 sampled locations in 2019 (~6 % of locations) and only in 4 out of 62 sampled locations in 2020 (~6% of locations).

There is no evidence of local geographic spread, as stations where the species was observed in 2020 are between stations where unidentified species from the genus were found in 2018 (see the response to Part (d) below for explanation of the challenges in resolving taxonomic identifications to species level). Due to DFO concerns regarding AIS status of M. viridis, Baffinland undertook targeted sampling in 2020 in areas where it had previously been collected and no specimens were obtained – which reinforces the lack evidence of invasive behaviour. Lastly, review of benthic community monitoring data does not indicate that an invasion is underway at Milne Port. If this were the case, a decrease in benthic community indicators (e.g., diversity, richness, evenness) and an increase in the relative abundance of M. viridis would be expected. Rather, as will be documented in the pending 2020 MEEMP and AIS Monitoring Report, benthic infaunal communities were diverse and well established throughout Milne Port and, in isolated instances where indicators were significantly different between years, other community metrics including species density, diversity, and evenness were higher in 2020 relative to both 2018 and 2019.

While M. viridis is not considered an AIS in Milne Port, Baffinland has proactively placed it on a “watchlist” where it is subject to heightened monitoring efforts including, for example, independent review by a polychaete expert and target sampling to collect specimens for genetic barcoding.

b) Baffinland notes that, to date, a total of 817 marine taxa have been identified through monitoring efforts in Milne Port, and no Project-related introduction of high risk species has been documented. As indicated in DFO’s question, through commitment DFO 3.6.10 NEW, Baffinland has already committed to work with the MEWG and DFO to establish species-specific Rapid Response Plans for species identified as high risk through ongoing AIS/NIS monitoring.

c) Baffinland’s intention is to avoid and minimize any AIS/NIS introductions as a result of the Project and has committed to mitigate and monitor with this aim. Baffinland’s existing protocol (Appendix 8) dictates that species that exist on any AIS database are considered “high risk”. However, before triggering a rapid response plan, Baffinland considers it crucial to evaluate available biogeographic, ecological, and genetic evidence to resolve whether a species is invasive to the Milne Port area and whether the introduction is Project-related, because intervention activities can potentially be quite damaging to the environment (e.g., use of pesticides or sediment removal). If a species is proven to be invasive elsewhere but is possibly cryptogenic to the Canadian Arctic and not showing invasive behaviour locally, intervention activities would not be warranted. However, in

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Government of Canada

ID # Question Response Attachment such instances, the species would be put on a “Watchlist”, and subject to heightened monitoring efforts, as described in the response to part (a) above.

Through Commitment DFO 3.6.10 NEW, Baffinland has already agreed to work with the MEWG and DFO to establish species-specific Rapid Response Plans for Project-related introductions identified as high risk through ongoing AIS/NIS monitoring.

d) While it is certainly possible that earlier records of Marenzelleria spp. represent early records of Marenzelleria viridis, Baffinland cannot confirm this. It is important to note that it is not always possible to identify specimens to the species level due to a variety of limitations. Species descriptions are often based on adult samples, and immature specimens may lack the features present in the adult that are required for specific identification (Steinerstauch 2019, pers. comm.). Fragmented samples, or samples damaged during collection, may also be missing identifying features that would be used to determine species. Incomplete species records and descriptions also lead to limitations in identification (Steinerstauch 2019, pers. comm.). Given that there are six other species within the Marenzelleria genus, it is not possible to definitively state whether the early records were M. viridis. e) Refer to:

Brown TM, Edinger EN, Hooper RG, Belliveau K. 2011. Benthic Marine Fauna and Flora of Two Nearshore Coastal Locations in the Western and Central Canadian Arctic. Arctic 64(3): 281-301.

Chan FT, Bronnenhuber JE, Bradie JN, Howland KL, Simard N, Bailey SA. 2012. Risk Assessment for Ship-Mediated Introductions of Aquatic Nonindigenous Species to the Canadian Arctic. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Research Document 2011/105. VI + 93 p.

Chan F. 2014. A Comprehensive Assessment of Ship-Mediated Invasion Risk in the Canadian Arctic [PhD Thesis]. Windsor, ON: University of Windsor. 196 p.

Cusson M. 2018. Biodiversity of benthic assemblages on the Arctic continental shelf: historical data from Canada (1955 to 1977). v1.2. Canadian node of the Ocean Biogeographic Information System (OBIS Canada). Published by OBIS [Accessed February 2021]. http://ipt.iobis.org/obiscanada/resource?r=cusson_arcticbenthos&v=1.2.

GBIF (Global Biodiversity Information Facility). 2021. Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF). [Accessed February 2021]. https://www.gbif.org/ f) Miller R, Nozères C, Kennedy M. 2014. DFO Quebec Region MLI Museum Collection. Version 2. OBIS Canada Digital Collections. Published by OBIS. [Accessed February 2021]. http://ipt.iobis.org/obiscanada/resource?r=dfo_que_mli_museumBaffinland considers evidence of species spread to include: increase in the relative abundance of M. viridis in areas it currently exists, detecting M. viridis in a greater proportion of samples (in 2020, it was only found in 4 out of 62 stations sampled), detecting M. viridis in locations where it has not previously been observed, and changes in benthic community indices. Baffinland also welcomes DFO’s opinion on what constitutes evidence of species spread.

Marenzelleria spp. was first detected in 2016 while Marenzelleria viridis was first detected in 2019. It should be noted that sampling efforts and locations have changed considerably since baseline surveys were conducted, and approximately 560 new taxa (i.e., that were not documented in previous surveys) have been added to the Milne Inlet taxonomic inventory since baseline and pre-Project shipping, such that initial detection of the genus/species post-shipping cannot be construed as a recent introduction. Despite the strong biogeographic and ecological evidence indicating M. viridis is not behaving invasively at Milne Port (and may be native or cryptogenic in the Canadian Arctic), Baffinland has taken this detection seriously and has undertaken a number

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Government of Canada

ID # Question Response Attachment of monitoring actions including: detailed review of the literature and historical taxonomic records, consulting externally with global polychaete specialists, and targeted sampling to obtain specimens for genetic barcoding. This species is on Baffinland’s current AIS “watchlist” and will continue to be subject to heightened monitoring efforts moving forward. GoC-6 Question: What steps did you take to ensure that this new component would be adequately Based on the limited, incidental usage of Store Hellefiskebanke in relation to the Phase 2 Proposal (i.e less than 10 days GOC-6 Attachment 1: CIRNAC assessed? Did it inform the development of any mitigation measures, including monitoring plans or per year), an effects assessment was not included as part of the Environmental Impact Statement Addendum. A detailed Store Hellefiskebank adaptive management plans and, if so, how? If potential impacts were considered, please describe description of the potential use of Store Hellefiskebanke is attached to this response that supports the finding that the Anchoring your findings in relation to relevant valued ecosystem components such as benthic habitats, Project-environment interactions are well understood, are common to projects of this nature, and can be addressed marine mammals and birds. Did the assessment of the anchorage areas consider the possible through the application of standard, proven mitigation or prevention approaches, which are also described in impacts of disturbance, such as the deposition of black carbon and vessel noise, and how were Appendix 8. confounding influences such as climate change or predation considered in the assessment? How Further information on this subject can be found in the Espoo Report for the Phase 2 Proposal - Mary River Project, were cumulative effects assessed? submitted by the Northern Projects Management Office to the NIRB, posted to the NIRB registry on March 18, 2021

(NIRB Registry No. 334015). Scoping document: NIRB Document ID Number 318152 Marine Environment Presentation: NIRB Document ID Number 332553 GoC-7 Baffinland has indicated that its adaptive management plan has “Predetermined Indicators and A tiered approach to adaptive management that establishes indicators and defined low, moderate and high risk PC Thresholds” and will “Implement Predetermined Responses as Necessary” (e.g.: slide 21, Adaptive thresholds is well positioned to understand what changes are the results of natural or manmade trends (climate change, Management Presentation). Please explain how, or if, these will be responsive to the context of tourism) or anomalies (heavy ice season), and those that are project induced. In setting low thresholds just above what’s climate change and cumulative effects, particularly to the marine environment. Note that by understood to be natural variation, exceedances allow investigations to occur while there is still an agreeably low risk to cumulative effects we mean effects from the Mary River project in combination from those of the environment. Through this investigation, Baffinland, along with the Inuit Committee and the Environmental Working other past, present, and future projects/activities in the area. Groups can aim to determine within a reasonable degree of certainty if the change is the result of the project, or if there is another natural or manmade cause. The outcomes of this process can be further studies that support a better understanding of climate change and cumulative effects, or actions that Baffinland can implement that may reliably address the projects contributions to the impacts within the evolving circumstances. At the same time, parties with the jurisdiction to address regional and national issues (i.e. the Government of Canada) like climate change and cumulative effects (cruise ships, commercial shipping, harvesting, etc.) should be equally responsive. GoC-8 On Day 11 of the hearing, representatives from Clyde River indicated that that they had asked to A representative of the Hamlet of Clyde River reached out with a request for observer status a day before a meeting that PC observe a MEWG meeting in December 2020 where new Terms of Reference were being discussed was planned to discuss the disposition of comments that had been submitted by MEWG Members in relation to the but that Baffinland had refused (lines 13-16, pdf p 194, public hearing transcript Vol 11). Given the Terms of Reference. Given the timing of the request, Baffinland did not believe it was possible to go through the process consensus based decision-making model of the working groups, could you please explain the to grant observer status, which according to the most recently approved Terms of Reference (2018) requires a written rationale behind reaching this decision and why MEWG members were not consulted? request by the potential observer be submitted to the entire MEWG and a vote to be held at the succeeding MEWG meeting. It is also required that all parties must be in favour of granting the observer status. In the response to Clyde River, Baffinland offered In lieu of participation in the Working Group meeting to arrange a meeting with the Mayor to discuss the terms of reference and anything of interest with respect to the technical portion of the Phase 2 assessment. As was discussed during the December 2020 Working Group meeting, through the commitments made in the ICA, funding will be provided for the development of an Inuit Committee that will work in parallel with the Environmental Working Groups. Through the development of that process, communities, including the Hamlet of Clyde River will have an opportunity to set the Terms of References for that Committee. GoC-9 Clyde River provided a supporting document; “Problems with the environmental working groups The primary purpose of the working groups is to function as an advisory group. They are not strictly adaptive PC for the Mary River mine” (NIRB Registry document ID: 332592). Please provide comments on this management working groups, although they are expected to contribute to development of adaptive management report and the applicability of its recommendations to the current MEWG TOR revision. responses, when necessary. Consistent with the terms and conditions associated with the Working Groups, and the outcome of effects monitoring, to date the main function of the Working Groups have been to advise on the development and continued improvement of Baffinland’s monitoring programs. As described in response to GoC-8 above, Clyde River is not presently a member or observer in Baffinland’s working groups. Baffinland notes that issues identified by Clyde River are not based on direct observations of how the working groups function. Further, the comments do not give balanced consideration to the systems established by the Inuit Certainty Agreement which will enhance participation by the affected communities in monitoring and interpretation of monitoring results. Baffinland has provided its response to some of the points raised in NIRB Registry ID 332592 below: • “Control” of working groups by the proponent

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Government of Canada

ID # Question Response Attachment • While Baffinland takes on the significant responsibility of organizing and chairing the working groups, we do not 'control' them. Members are free to bring topics of interest and materials they deem relevant to the group for discussion, and to make recommendations on Baffinland’s programs as they see fit. They are also free to bring any concerns that they feel are not addressed at the working group to NIRB for further consideration (for example, via the annual report comment process). • It is Baffinland’s responsibility to operationalize the Working Groups. All members are provided an opportunity to comment on the agenda and to bring their own research forward for discussion. • Baffinland is also responsible for updating its own management plans and monitoring programs, as per its regulatory obligations. Input is sought from the Working Groups and recommendations are implemented where it is reasonable and feasible to do so. Baffinland also notes the updated ToR provided to the Working Group is on the NIRB Registry, contrary to what is suggested by Clyde River. • Transparency of Working groups • Working Group meeting minutes are made available as part of Baffinland’s Annual Report to the NIRB. All comments received on the monitoring reports, and Baffinland’s responses are also appended to each of the final monitoring reports. • Participation of community-level organizations in the working groups • The NIRB Project Certificate established members of the Working Group – Baffinland did not determine the members. As described in response to GOC-8 above, there is a process to be followed to add members where appropriate, taking into consideration the purpose and functionality of the group. • Note that the development of the Inuit Committee will significantly enhance participation of community level organizations in project monitoring and mitigations and enhance IQ integration. • Enhancing trust in working groups • The issues raised are outside the scope of the Working Group’s mandate, but as a general comment. it is Baffinland’s hope that the revisions to the TOR that we have suggested will help address this concern • Consensus about ‘big picture’ goals and objectives • Consensus about “bigger picture” objectives is an ongoing discussion at the Working Groups and is guided in part by the regulatory authorizations for the Project and jurisdiction of the various members. • It is also expected that through the development of the Objectives, Indicators, Thresholds and Responses being integrated into the Adaptive Management Plan as committed to under the ICA, this shared vision between Working Group members and Inuit will be increasingly realized. GoC-10 1. Could Baffinland please (a) provide a detailed explanation of the short-comings or gaps in 1. The response by Ms. Udlu Hanson was in relation to the Pond Inlet Country Food Baseline Study, an initiative PC the existing baseline studies, (b) outline what necessary information is missing, and (c) agreed to through the Inuit Certainty Agreement. This is a community driven study focused on the collection of explain why new baseline is now required. baseline data on community country food consumption and country food quality. This is consistent with the 2. For the proposed new baseline study work, please explain: data gaps and research priorities outlined in Section 9 of Baffinland’s Food Security Assessment (Oct 2018). The a. Which components of the project (e.g.: geographical extent and locations, Assessment in particular noted that quantified information regarding the Project’s effects on Inuit consumption marine mammals, terrestrial ecosystem, socio-economic and cultural of both country food and store-bought food is a data gap. To this end the Pond Inlet Country Food Baseline components) this new baseline study will encompass; Study will address that data gap, as well as other that persist. It is important to note that while this baseline data b. How it will link with previous baseline studies (e.g. how information from this is valuable to Baffinland’s ongoing monitoring initiatives, the Food Security Assessment was based on the best new study would be integrated into existing baseline for the project and from available information and appropriate for assessment purposes. Food security in particular is a global issue with other relevant studies/IQ in the area); many responsible parties. This is best exemplified by the wide and diverse membership in Nunavut's Food c. When will the study be conducted and by whom; Security Coalition. d. What reference locations will be used; 2. The Pond Inlet Country Food Baseline Study is a joint study between the QIA and Pond Inlet. As such Baffinland e. How Baffinland will use Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) and western science is not in a position to respond to the requested details. methods to design, observe, record, and analyze/interpret this data; and f. Who will review and approve this baseline (e.g.: how it will be peer reviewed and 3. Upon the completion of the Pond Inlet Country Food Baseline Study the initial Inuit objectives, indicators, approved from IQ and Western Science perspectives). thresholds and responses outlined in the Adaptive Management Plan (AMP) and Environmental Management 3. Given that the project has been operational since 2015, how will Baffinland ensure that Plans (EMP) will be revised, as necessary, to reflect the outcomes of the Study. Once operational, the AMP and actions taken as a result of a new adaptive management plan based on this new baseline

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Government of Canada

ID # Question Response Attachment study will sufficiently modify project activities to prevent or reverse environmental effects EMP's will define the indicators of measurement and thresholds of acceptable change where pre-established so they do not exceed a common understanding of benchmarks. response actions will be implemented to address unforeseen impacts caused by the project. GoC-11 a. Will advice developed by the working groups (MEWG/TEWG/FEWG) be considered and a. Baffinland has proposed that recommendations made from Environmental Working Groups will go through the Appendix 12 PC/CIRNAC implemented by Baffinland as proposed by these working groups (direct consideration) or Inuit Committees to provide an Inuit lens before recommendations are implemented. With the introduction of TARPs and Toolkits, AMP will this advice only be considered for implementation after it has been reviewed and the Inuit Committees and ISPs – we expect that the Environmental Working Groups will continue to serve as possibly reshaped by the Inuit Committee structure articulated in the Inuit Certainty advisory bodies to the Inuit Committee as decision makers where it makes sense to do so. Other Agreement. recommendations for monitoring will be evaluated by BIM and overseen by the expertise of the NIRB to ensure b. ID 34 of the ICA outlines the Expedited Arbitration process. How will this process affect Baffinland is meeting all requirements for monitoring the Project. See Appendix 12 for a full overview of what recommendations provided by the working groups (MEWG/TEWG/FEWG)? Baffinland has proposed with respect to the roles the Inuit Committee and the Environmental Working Groups c. Will the proponent or QIA propose a term and condition or modify an existing terms and will have in monitoring and adaptive management oversight for Phase 2. condition that would make some of the Inuit Certainty Agreement processes, or b. ID 34 of the ICA has no relationship to, or bearing on recommendations provided by the Environmental Working recommendations made under the Inuit Certainty Agreement, enforceable under Groups. c. NuPPAA? QIA Final hearing Presentation: NIRB Document ID Number 332998 c. Yes. Several of the commitments made in the ICA have been included as proposed Terms and Conditions in the Note - also directed to QIA updated draft Project Certificate Terms and Conditions provided by Baffinland (NIRB Registry No. 332729).

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Oceans North

OCEANS NORTH

ID # Question Response Attachment ON-1 1. a) Can the proponent confirm that part of the combined monitoring plan to be developed with the a) In support of Phase 2 operations on the Northern Shipping Route, Baffinland will provide an Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Marine Environmental Working Group will focus on thresholds indicator and threshold for ship strikes on these species, but for no other effects (e.g., changes and indicators for other marine species such as walrus, beluga, and bowhead? in behavior or abundance) given that these animals are found to be present in low numbers in b) What actions have been taken since 2015, the first year of shipping, to comply with Terms and Condition 109 the RSA. to develop thresholds and indicators for narwhal, walrus, beluga, and bowhead within Phase 1? b) b) The focus of threshold and indicator development under Phase 1 has been specific to c) The proponent mentioned that narwhal may be habituating to vessel noise since increased shipping began in narwhal given that they are the marine mammal species that are known to inhabit the RSA in 2015, and then responded to the Mittimatalik Hunters and Trappers Organization that they are considering high numbers throughout the open water season. The occurrence of beluga, bowhead and studying habituation. Would the proponent classify the 2018 tagging data or the Bruce head visual data as walrus within the RSA is infrequent (as indicated by Baffinland’s marine mammal monitoring behavioural responses that are habituating or habituated to shipping? programs and by IQ), thereby providing an inadequate sample size to effectively evaluate changes in abundance or distribution or potential behavioural responses of these species to vessel traffic (including habituation effects). c) Baffinland would not classify behavioral data obtained through the 2017-2018 Integrated Narwhal Tagging Study (Golder 2020a) or the Bruce Head Shore-based Monitoring Program (Golder 2020b) as indicating narwhal habituation to shipping to date. In the Tagging Study, habituation was assessed through analyzing the length of time that an identified behavioral response was shown to persist (if present). For example, as noted in section 4.2.3.4 of the Tagging Study, a seasonal decrease over time in the distance between a narwhal and the closest point of approach (CPA) of a vessel was predicted to be suggestive of habituation. Results indicated that a marginal decrease in the CPA over time was evident (i.e., 12-15 meters/day), suggesting potential habituation, although the findings were not statistically significant. Habituation was also assessed through analyzing habitat re-occupation of vessel tracks following an active transit (section 4.2.3.5 of Tagging Study). Again, while marginal habituation was potentially evident, findings were not statistically significant. Baffinland looks forward to continuing these studies and reporting additional findings on habituation. ON-2 The proponent, in this hearing, has acknowledged that there are other pressures on narwhal. The proponent If narwhal are being impacted by shipping at the population level, than one would assume that indicated that if, through thresholds or early warning indicators, a population level change is detected, that significant behavioral responses to shipping should be evident (i.e., detectable) in narwhal through one they can trace back to the behavioural responses in their monitoring program and make a connection to of Baffinland’s comprehensive marine mammal monitoring programs (e.g., Bruce Head Shore-based population level effects. How will that link be made? How would those behavioural responses be linked to Monitoring Program, Aerial Survey Program, Narwhal Tagging Program, Ship-based Observer Program). population level effects? For example, if survey results were to indicate that the proportion of immatures had decreased annually, and significant behavioral responses of immatures to shipping had been observed through the Bruce Head Shore-based Monitoring Program (including through the UAV Program), the expectation would be that shipping may have some effect on the population, potentially including impacts on reproductive success. Based on the most recent monitoring results from Bruce Head, however, critical life functions such as nursing by calves and yearlings have not shown to be disrupted by shipping activities and the proportion of immatures observed through the Bruce Head Program has remained stable. Therefore, in assessing early warning indicators such as the proportion of immatures in the population, no behavioral responses have been detected that are expected to have consequences at the population level. ON-3 3. a) The proponent has recently clarified that triggering adaptive management will happen in a tiered a) Baffinland does not agree this is a “recent clarification”. Baffinland's tiered approach towards approach, including reducing ship numbers if necessary, and that conclusive evidence about the cause is not adaptive management has been available for review since the draft Adaptive Management required before action is taken. It was also mentioned that Inuit will have their own tiered thresholds for Plan was submitted in August 2019. The concept of Inuit specific objectives, indicators, adaptive management. If a threshold is triggered through Inuit-led monitoring, will action be taken right away, thresholds and responses was developed with the QIA and has been available for public review and will Baffinland need to investigate the triggering of this threshold prior to taking adaptive management since July 2020 through the QIA's website, and since September 2020 through the NIRB's public action? registry for Phase 2. b) Currently, 10% drop in the proportion of calves to adults in the narwhal population is the threshold for what is considered to be a significant change, necessitating adaptive management action. This threshold was If Inuit led monitoring indicates an Inuit threshold has been triggered, the responses will depend on the circumstances, but a combined investigation and action would be an option.

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Oceans North

ID # Question Response Attachment developed and agreed to be the Proponent and DFO. In regard to Early Warning indicators or thresholds, will The actions described in the Adaptive Management Plan will be taken right away and could the Inuit Stewardship plan enable Inuit to develop their own early warning indicators and include their own include implementation of specified additional mitigation measures and/or investigation. The definitions of significance? triggering of an Inuit threshold would be taken seriously and promptly responded to. b) Yes. ON-4 4. a) Could the proponent please clarify if their cumulative effects assessment evaluated repeated daily a) Three different sound level thresholds were considered when computing daily acoustic exposures to underwater noise from inside the acoustically modeled ranges from project ships to a received exposure periods to assess the effects of repeated vessel exposures. Specifically, daily acoustic sound pressure levels of 120dB ranges only? exposure periods were calculated based on an assumed vessel transit speed of 9 knots and the b) An unresolved technical issue concerns robust integration of existing empirical data from the monitoring modelled R95% distances from the vessels to the isopleths for 135 dB re 1 μPa SPL, 120 dB re 1 programs. The video of the nursing narwhal calf is an important example of this. The proponent provided one μPa SPL, and 110 dB re 1 μPa SPL. These results were provided in a Technical Memo on 15 July distance measurement for this occurrence. Did the calf continue nursing at closer distances than shown in the 2019 (Golder 2019) in response to Technical Comment DFO 3.5.6. When assessing the video? From the monitoring data, what was the range of sound levels for that cow calf pair at the distances that potential for behavioural disturbance from vessel noise it is important to also note that the southbound transiting ship passed (3.9km being one of those distances)? Did the calf continue nursing at responses to vessel noise may not be fully predictable with a fixed received sound level closer distances? Was there a difference in behaviour between bow and stern exposure? These are questions threshold. The monitoring data collected to date indicated that narwhal responses to vessels which can be answered from existing monitoring data collected by the Proponent. were variable and that the probability of response was affected by differences among c) In the adaptive management plan, will the proponent move away from using assumptions about marine individuals and contextual aspects (e.g. behavioural state). This is consistent with the most mammal disturbance, namely the predicted 120dB disturbance zone, to integrating and applying the data and current understanding of this topic within the scientific community, that context is an findings from the years of acoustic and behavioural monitoring on this project? important factor when predicting the probability of behavioural effects (Williams et al. 2014; Gomez et al. 2016; Southall et al. 2007; 2019; Finneran et al. 2017). This means that factors d) Can the proponent confirm their statements that sound levels below broadband received levels of 120dB are such as the proximity to the source, familiarity with the sound, perceived threat, behavioural considered what they call ‘quiet time?’ And to confirm that they see this ‘quiet time’ occurring along the state, etc can all have an effect on the probability for behavioural response. northern shipping route at all times except for <2hrs per day in the open water season and <5hrs per day in the shoulder season? What is the proponent’s understanding of narwhal response to sounds less than 120dB? b) The video presented at the hearing of the calf nursing from its mother was captured via an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV or drone) as part of the 2020 Shore-based Monitoring Program at Bruce Head. The pair was observed during one of the focal follow surveys (i.e., survey #106) conducted on August 30th at 9:50 a.m. (EDT), approximately 4 km from an ore carrier transiting southbound near Bruce Head. Throughout the survey, the pair is observed in close association with one another, resting and occasionally engaged in slow travel, as the calf continually nurses from its mother. The survey was approximately 10 minutes in duration, after which the individuals dove out of sight and the survey was terminated. Therefore, it was not possible to observe the pair for the entire extent of the vessel passage and it is unknown whether the calf continued to nurse at closer distances to the vessel.

In regard to the range of received sound levels likely experienced by narwhal during an encounter with a vessel, this information is currently being worked up as part of a technical memorandum by JASCO Applied Sciences and Golder Associates, on behalf of Baffinland. Specifically, using individual vessel source levels measured by Austin and Dofher (2021), narwhal dive data previously analyzed as part of the 2017-2018 Integrated Tagging Study (Golder 2019) were plotted in relation to received sound levels (including, but not limited to the 120 dB re: 1 µPa disturbance threshold). Source levels provided by Austin and Dofher (2021) included separate measurements for individual vessels when transiting south toward Milne Port (i.e. ore carriers in ballast) and when transiting north from Milne Port (i.e. bulk carriers laden with ore), as well as separate source level measurements taken at the bow of the vessel (i.e. forward) and at the stern/aft of the vessel. c) Baffinland uses empirical evidence from its comprehensive monitoring programs. This specific questions are answered in the technical review of the Draft Jones 2020 Report prepared by Golder (NIRB Registry No. 332558). A brief summary of the clarification provided in that memo is as follows:

Inclusion of the scientifically accepted disturbance threshold for marine mammals (120 dB re 1µPa SPLrms; NMFS 2018) has simply been incorporated into analyses conducted to date to delineate vessel exposure vs. non-exposure zones as an index for disturbance. These zones

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Oceans North

ID # Question Response Attachment have been continually refined based on best available science. Of note, to assess narwhal responses observed at Bruce Head during periods of vessel exposure compared to non- exposure, the spatial extent of “exposure” was set to 15 km in 2017, as it captured the maximum zone of acoustic disturbance (i.e., received sound levels exceeding 120 dB re 1µPa SPLrms; NMFS 2018) based on acoustic modelling results provided by Quijano et al. (2017). Following a review of passive acoustic monitoring data collected during the 2018 and 2019 shipping seasons at Bruce Head and in Koluktoo Bay (Frouin-Mouy et al. 2019, 2020), it was determined that the acoustic modelling estimates were overly conservative by a factor of approximately two to three times when compared to measured sound levels. As such, it was decided that a more appropriate zone of “exposure” for assessing narwhal behavioral disturbance to vessel traffic in future monitoring programs would be 10 km, which was within the upper range of modelled R95% values. Specifically, the R95% values indicated a disturbance zone of between 5.9 and 11.2 km for ore carriers transiting at 9 knots through Milne Inlet. A range limit of 10 km was therefore incorporated as the distance to delineate exposure vs. non-exposure in analyses conducted in 2018 and 2019. The vessel exposure zone was further constrained to 7 km in the analysis conducted on 2020 Bruce Head data, corresponding to the farthest distance from an ore carrier that sound levels were shown to meet or exceed 120 dB re: 1μPa (Austin and Dofher 2021). Further constraining the range limit to 7 km was validated by findings from the 2017-2018 Integrated Tagging Study which indicated that behavioral responses by narwhal were typically evident within 5 km of a vessel. d) The term “quiet time”, as used in the context of the Phase 2 effects assessment, has been clearly defined as the time in which animals would not be exposed to ship noise above the disturbance threshold of 120 dB re 1 µPa (Golder, 2020). Based on the measurements from the 2019 Passive Acoustic Monitoring program, under a Phase 2 scenario the exposure period at a sound level of 120 dB re 1 µPa is expected to be 5 hours during the shoulder season (leaving 19 hours of “quiet time” per day) and 2 hours for an average day of shipping or 2.5 hours for a busy day of shipping (“Max case”) during the open water season (leaving 22 hours of “quiet time” per day on an average day or 21.5 hours of “quiet time” for the Max case). Modelled exposure period estimates were very conservative compared to these estimates derived from acoustic measurements. Based on the acoustic modeling analysis, there would be 12 hours of “quiet time” per day during the shoulder season, and in the open water season there would be 13 hours of “quiet time” on an average day of shipping and 8 hours of “quiet time” for the Max shipping case. We acknowledge that broadband sound levels below 120 dB re 1 µPa are above the audible hearing range, and that it is possible that narwhal could exhibit some behavioural response at levels below 120 dB re 1 µPa. However, these responses are expected to be rare and, when they occur, they would be of low-level severity. This assertion is supported by analysis of the Integrated 2017-18 Narwhal Tagging Study data and 2018-2019 Acoustic Monitoring Program results, which will be presented in a forthcoming technical report. ON-5 The proponent noted that narwhal that temporarily leave an area and then return, may not be as disturbed as Oceans North reference to the precautionary principle demonstrates a fundamental lack in another species, like a beluga, that stays away for a longer period. But is it also possible that due to the area understanding of what it is. Between the Rio Declaration, the NIRB and Baffinland and QIA’s joint being habitat that supports critical life cycle requirements, like nursing or shelter from predators, that narwhal definition in Adaptive Management Plan, the single common, consistent theme in the definition of the may be returning to the area and enduring a larger effect, which may become significant over time? If the precautionary principle is that a lack of full scientific certainty is not reason for delaying the precautionary principle is to be applied to the management of this project, which assumption is more implementation of measures to prevent potential effects. As incorrectly inferred by Oceans North, the precautionary? precautionary principle does not require the use of the most precautionary assumptions that can be thought of in decision making, especially when there is evidence to the contrary. In this case, Baffinland does possess evidence through its monitoring programs that supports its assumptions, and while that evidence has been collected, Baffinland has implemented significant mitigations to address the uncertainty it fully acknowledges exists. That is a precautionary approach. ON-6 6. a) The Term and Condition 109 of the current project certificate states that surveys shall continue over a a) Baffinland’s comprehensive marine mammal monitoring programs (e.g., Bruce Head Shore- sufficient period to determine the extent to which habituation occurs for narwhal, beluga, bowhead, and based Monitoring Program, Aerial Survey Program, Narwhal Tagging Program, Ship-based

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Oceans North

ID # Question Response Attachment walrus. Concern #17 of the Baffinland Audit Report records this commitment as met, citing an interview with Observer Program) address Term and Condition 109 of the current project certificate that the Environmental and Regulatory Compliance Manager that suggests the 2019 Annual Report will address the states — “The Proponent shall conduct a monitoring program to confirm the predictions in the compliance of term and Condition 109.However the 2019 -2020 monitoring report does not mention FEIS with respect to disturbance effects from ships noise on the distribution and occurrence of habituation in the context of marine mammals. How has the proponent implemented this part of Term and marine mammals. The survey shall be designed to address effects during the shipping seasons, Condition 109 for the existing certificate and how will it be implemented for Phase 2 if it has not yet been and include locations in Hudson Strait and Foxe Basin, Milne Inlet, Eclipse Sound and Pond implemented for the current Phase? Inlet. The survey shall continue over a sufficiently lengthy period to determine the extent to b) How will the Phase 2 monitoring programs differ from monitoring to date if the Proponent cannot currently which habituation occurs for narwhal, beluga, bowhead and walrus”. Overall, monitoring make conclusive determinations about habituation for the populations of marine mammals in the regional results collected to date, in concert with available modelling data, supported impact study area for any of the species cited in Term and Condition 109? predictions made in the FEIS Addendum for ERP shipping operations, in that no marine mammal mortalities are anticipated to occur in the RSA from ship strikes, and that acoustic impacts from shipping on marine mammals will be limited to temporary, short-term avoidance behaviour, consistent with low to moderate severity responses (Southall et al. 2007; Finneran et al. 2017).

The tagging program specifically investigated narwhal habituation to Project-related vessel traffic following repeated exposure (Golder 2019, 2020). It assumed that a seasonal decrease in the CPA (distance between narwhal and a transiting vessel) would suggest habituation to shipping activities along the Northern Shipping Route and a seasonal increase would suggest longer-term avoidance and/or displacement effects. In assessing narwhal habituation to vessel traffic over the 2017 and 2018 shipping seasons, temporal changes to the time series of CPA distances were modeled. Unlike the seasonal decrease in CPA of 39 m/day reported in Golder (2019), the current model (2017 and 2018 data combined) estimated a seasonal decrease in the CPA of 12-15 m/day (minimum CPA = 0.1 km), though the effect of day/time and the effect of year were determined to be not significant (P=0.1 and P=0.6, respectively). The tagging program predicted that re-occupation of vessel tracks by narwhal would indicate potential habituation to shipping activities along the Northern Shipping Route. Overall, narwhal crossed the vessel track both shortly before and shortly after vessel passage (minimum value of 4 min), suggesting no long-term avoidance of shipping activities along the Northern Shipping Route. Narwhal may have exhibited marginal seasonal habituation to vessel passage (i.e, decrease in re-occupation time over season), although neither the effect of day/time or the effect of year were shown to be statistically significant (P>0.4).

b) Phase 2 monitoring programs will continue to address Term and Condition 109 project certificate through Baffinland’s comprehensive marine mammal monitoring programs as it has been doing with the current phase (see response to ON6a). ON-7 In regard to the proposed agreement with the Hamlet of Pond Inlet to ramp up shipping; was the decision to The proposal was intended to satisfy the specific request of the Hamlet of Pond Inlet in a way that is ramp up over two years with 30 ships per year based on economics, or based on the effectiveness of consistent with the draft Adaptive Management Plan and respects our needs to secure financing. This is monitoring programs to detect changes over each year? Since the concern was environmental, was the decision explained in further detail in the Baffinland Response to Hamlet of Pond Inlet (Mittimatalik) based on environmental factors or economic factors? Announcement with regard to Support for Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation Phase 2 Expansion of the Mary River Project, submitted to the NIRB on January 27, 2021. While Baffinland is confident in its original proposal as configured, the response respects the views of the Hamlet that a slower ramp up would be preferable. Baffinland and the Hamlet of Pond Inlet continue to work towards a resolution on this condition and look forward to providing an update to the NIRB as available. ON-8 What efforts have been made to engage with community-based monitoring groups and with programmes such Baffinland is open to discussing the IMMP program with NTI further. All ship track data currently as the NTI IMMP to improve upon or expand the monitoring of project impacts? provided by Baffinland is publicly available in real-time throughout the shipping season and reported on in Baffinland’s Annual Report to the NIRB.

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Oceans North

ID # Question Response Attachment ON-9 Baffinland previously described its offer of annual payments to affected communities of $1,200,000.00 to be a There is some confusion here. In 2019 Baffinland offered a direct benefits package to the communities figure calculated based on seasonal ship transits to and from Milne Inlet and in recognition both of shipping- of $1.2 million annually per affected community. This was based on a series of engagements where related impacts on communities and communities’ desire for direct benefits. Does Baffinland consider its offer communities expressed their need for direct community benefits from the Project. This offer was of annual payments of $1,200,000.00 per affected community to violate the Nunavut Agreement? Where does separate from the $10,000 per vessel that is paid to the Tasiuqtiit Working Group for each vessel that Baffinland now stand in relation to this offer? passes Pond Inlet above what is required to ship 4.2 Mtpa. The Tasiuqtiit Working Group is led and composed of the Hamlet of Pond Inlet and the MHTO, and funds are meant to address community priorities.

Since 2019 the concept of a direct benefit fund for affected communities was integrated into the Inuit Certainty Agreement, with QIA leading revisions to its internal funding policies to accommodate the new program. As such, Baffinland’s 2019 offer has been superseded and replaced. The Tasiuqtiit Working Group, however, will continue to be funded under the same arrangements discussed throughout the review process, with up to approximately $1.18 million ($10,000x(176-58)) in payments being made on an annual basis.

Baffinland does not consider the expired 2019 offer to violate the Nunavut Agreement. ON-10 To what extent do capital expenditures on and related to the Phase 2 expansion impact Baffin’s current (1) Any expenditures whether they are capital or operational decrease the profitability of the company. profitability and (2) financial viability? Capital expenditures related to both the Early Revenue Phase and Phase 2 capital have relied on significant third party investment (debt via bonds, equipment leases, etc…). Operational revenues are required to repay these debts. As Baffinland is in its early years of operation, having spent significant upfront capital expenditures to conduct exploration, environmental studies, engineering design, permitting and construction of the operation, financial viability through an extended period of time to repay this investment is of concern. It is essential that investors who are performing due diligence from all angles, including geology, engineering, permitting, global iron ore market and financial economics are able to confirm that under conservative assumptions, the operation will be able to meet its financing obligations and begin to make a profit. ON-11 To what extent do capital expenditures on and related to the Phase 2 expansion impact Inuit subsurface Royalties payable to the Qikiqtani Inuit Association (QIA) are on a Net Sales Revenue basis and thus royalties and projected royalties at deposit 1? capital expenditures have no impact on the expected $900 million in royalties payable to QIA. Similar to mining tax paid in other provinces in Canada, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated resource royalties are based on net profits. This means that any capital investment can be deducted in accordance with the appropriate rules and policies outlined by NTI. The Phase 2 expansion will increase Baffinland’s profitability and in turn result in royalties payable to NTI being made sooner than if operations continued at lower production levels. Baffinland suggests that any questions about the royalty policies of NTI and QIA are most appropriately directed to those intervenors. ON-12 When did Baffinland first plan for what is now described as “operational flexibility” (i.e. shipping over 12 mtpa Operational flexibility has been built into this project since the beginning with the Approved Project and via Milne Inlet)? the Early Revenue Phase. It is an important concept for any Arctic mining operation, given the variability of the environment in which we operate. Based on its operational experience Baffinland has always planned for the possibility that some years would support more or less shipping depending on a number of factors including ice coverage, market vessel availability and necessary adaptive management/mitigation matters. Baffinland’s approach since the beginning of the Phase 2 process has been to suggest that NIRB should implement terms and conditions that placed limits on activities, the primary source of effects, rather than ore quantities. This was the approach originally taken towards the Steensby operation, as evidenced by the vessel transit restrictions in term and condition 179. In response to a specific request from NIRB on what was meant by “operational flexibility” arising out of the November 2019 public hearings, Baffinland included detailed information on this topic in its January 6, 2020 supplemental Phase 2 submission to the Board. Baffinland has proposed operational flexibility for Phase 2 that would permit the ability to make up transportation shortfalls within any given year (i.e.

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Oceans North

ID # Question Response Attachment years where less than 12 Mtpa of ore is shipped via Milne Port) in the following year by up to 20% (i.e. 14.4 Mtpa). The same overall activity limits would apply (e.g. 176 vessels, 20 daily ore train transits).”

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Nunavut Independent Television Network

NUNAVUT INDEPENDENT TELEVISION NETWORK

ID # Question Response Attachment NITV-1 Can BIMC confirm that the TSM Indigenous and Community Relationships Protocol will continue to Yes. As a Mining Association of Canada member, Baffinland will continue to take part in the “Towards Sustainable be used as a relevant framework for ongoing evaluation and public reporting of its community Mining” (TSM) mandatory standard for Canadian operations by publicly reporting annual performance results for the engagement activities with Inuit communities? various protocols applicable to Mary River operations. NITV-2 Are there other internal or external evaluation frameworks that BIMC currently uses or intends to TSM is the current external evaluation framework used by Baffinland. Using a continuous improvement approach which use to support continuous improvement of its community engagement efforts? aligns with a core Company value, “Pursue Performance Excellence”, Baffinland is always internally reviewing how it can improve community engagement efforts. The Company has also committed to the development of Community Specific Engagement Guidelines which may include an evaluation framework if desired by the community with which the Engagement Guidelines will be developed. NITV-3 On the MAC website page dedicated to BIMC’s performance, there is information related to BIMC’s Baffinland confirms that as of March 4 2021, TSM information relevant to Baffinland for externally verified results for NITV-3: TSM DOCUMENTS 2019 TSM Results. However, the link to the report (externally verified) is not working at the time of 2019 is available on the MAC Website. PDF copies of these documents have been provided in Attachment XX and are writing. Would you be able to provide us with a copy of this report? listed below: https://mining.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Baffinland-TSM-2019-Letter-of-Assurance.pdf https://mining.ca/companies/baffinland-iron-mines-corporation/?tsm_year=2019 Information about the key performance indicators used in the TSM report on this topic can be found in the “Aboriginal and Community Outreach Protocol” found here: https://mining.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Aboriginal-and-Community-2017-EN.pdf Additional protocol information can be found at this location https://mining.ca/towards-sustainable-mining/protocols-frameworks/tsm- protocol-reporting-schedule/ Baffinland believes that the web link on the MAC website referenced by NITV can be found on this page: https://mining.ca/towards-sustainable-mining/tsm-progress-report/. NITV-4 On the same MAC website page, there is a summary graphic that shows that BIMC’s performance A two-way open dialogue and a willingness to learn, listen and be heard is critical to a respectful relationship with related to the TSM Indigenous and Community Relationships Protocol has received the top “AAA” affected communities. Affected communities must be engaged in an ongoing manner with relevant up to date rating for all 4 indicators. Apart from information available in the above-noted report about the information that is transparent and easily understood. Frequent engagement on all topics is important to a sustained and 2019 TSM Results, what are BIMC’s key lessons-learned for building and maintaining respectful, meaningful dialogue with affected communities, Reporting back to communities on the outcome of discussions is also strong and trusting partnerships with affected communities? critical to the development of a meaningful understanding of the Project, communities, and establishing a path of trust and partnership. NITV-5 Can BIMC provide further information about description of the “risk communication strategy” that The risk communication strategy is being developed in response to a commitment Baffinland has made to the QIA, was mentioned during the technical session of the public hearings? In addition to details about this wherein the QIA requested that the proponent commit to developing and funding a CRLU Risk Communication strategy, we would appreciate information about the timeline and the process for engaging with Strategy/Program with Inuit, focused on the gathering and sharing of information to Inuit on the health of the land and stakeholders for the development of the strategy. country foods. The strategy will be developed in consultation with Inuit, to ensure it is Inuit focused. During the Technical hearings in January 2021, the QIA indicated that the program needs to be Inuit driven, combining scientific data with Inuit knowledge and providing information about the health of country foods and water in a way that is meaningful and credible to Inuit, by Inuit. The program and approach has not yet been developed, and Baffinland looks forward to working with the communities and QIA in developing a communications program that addresses their needs. Regarding the timeline, Baffinland indicated in the final technical hearings in January 2021 that a time frame of approximately 6 months from Project Approval to develop a draft framework. Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Question Form Responses

QUESTION FORM RESPONSES

Baffinland completed a review of all Question Forms submitted to the NIRB and posted after the close of the February 2021 Public Hearing. The following questions were identified as directed to Baffinland and responses have been provided.

Intervenor Question/Comment No. Question/Comment Response

Philippa Ootoowak 2 Who is acting as Customs Officers with all the overseas ships arriving and departing from Milne Port? The ore carriers arriving and departing from Milne Port are not cruise ships and thus the Federal All cruise ships arriving in Pond Inlet from Greenland have to be inspected as per Federal Regulations Regulations that apply to cruise ships are not applicable to ore carriers. While the majority of the ore why not ships arriving in Milne Port. carriers transiting to Milne do not have a Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) inspection in port, all foreign crewed vessels entering Canadian waters must be cleared for entry into Canada and adhere to CBSA regulations. Under the Arctic Shipping Electronic Commercial Clearances (ASECC) Program, Vessel Owners can apply to the CBSA for electronic reporting of marine cargo and conveyances without the requirement of physically reporting to a Commercial Vessel port upon arrival to Canada. Subject to the CBSA pre-approving the Vessel Owner and their requested vessels under the ASECC program, the vessels transiting to Milne must file a pre-arrival notice to the CBSA 96-hours prior to arrival. Fednav on behalf of the Vessel Owner collect, review and submit the necessary paperwork to CBSA starting from pre-arrival until post-departure Milne Inlet. As part of this process, Fednav keep CBSA up-to-date with the berthing schedule for each vessel to ensure the necessary procedures are carried out without delay. Examples of the types of information that must be provided to CBSA include vessel details (name, IMO number, registry, etc.), cargo tonnage, certificate expiry dates, port arrived from, name of master, crew list (name, nationality, passport, age, rank), ship’s stores declaration, crew’s effects declaration and a maritime declaration of health. Restricted/controlled items are to be reported under the CBSA regulations and are subject to seizure or criminal charges. Typically, one vessel heading to Milne each season is requested by the CBSA to first call at a Canadian port other than Milne for a CBSA inspection.

While not customs related, Transport Canada (TC) under the Port State Control (PSC) program is responsible for boarding and inspecting foreign vessels entering Canadian waters. Port State Control inspections involve verifying the condition and operation of a vessel is in compliance with the applicable international maritime regulations to ensure maritime safety and security and pollution prevention. TC send Marine Safety inspectors to site for part of the shipping season to conduct PSC inspections of the Baffinland trade vessels. In the case where deficiencies are found, PSC officers can impose remedial measures on the vessel to ensure they comply with the applicable maritime regulations.

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Question Form Responses

Intervenor Question/Comment No. Question/Comment Response

Philippa Ootoowak 3 Who is making sure no people are entering the country illegally, or illegal items being imported or Baffinland is deeply committed to the safety of its employees, contractors and visitors and to the exported to or from Canada? This is just as important as elsewhere in the country, maybe even more so security of its operations on Baffin Island. As such, access to Baffinland’s Mine and Port facilities is due to the remote location giving the impression that any such actions will not be noticed. strictly controlled and monitored and governed by internal policies and procedures such as Baffinland’s Site Access Policy, Standing Instructions to Masters (SITM), Milne Inlet Marine Facility Security Plan; external regulations from the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), Transport Canada Marine Safety and contractual obligations for Baffinland Service Providers to abide by Baffinland’s policies and rules including a zero tolerance to illegal drugs and alcohol abuse.

Baffinland’s Site Access Policy applies to all employees, visitors and contractors requiring access to site. Any individual requiring access to site must be pre-screened and pre-authorized. The pre-screening process involves reviewing the submitted medical questionnaire, background check (if applicable) and deployment approval form to determine if the individual is fit and has the necessary pre-approvals from the applicable Baffinland departments. Individuals travelling to site will be made aware of the Code of Conduct that is to be adhered to while at site. This includes a zero tolerance to illegal drugs, alcohol and prohibited weapons. Any individual that violates the Code of Conduct, Baffinland policies or rules may face immediate removal from site. Upon arrival to site, all persons must check-in with Security and sign into site. All luggage, carry-ons and jackets will be searched for prohibited items including illegal drugs, alcohol and weapons. While at site, all visitors must be guided / supervised by a Baffinland employee during their stay.

Vessels loading iron ore at Milne Inlet must comply with Baffinland’s Standing Instructions to Masters (SITM) and the Terminal Information Handbook for Milne Inlet. Below is an excerpt from the 2020 version of the SITM regarding port regulations making it clear that access to site will only be permitted in case of emergencies.

PORT REGULATIONS

Please note that Milne Inlet Port has an absolute zero tolerance drug and alcohol policy. No alcohol is to be consumed while the vessel is north of 60 degrees latitude and all Masters are advised to ensure the bond is sealed prior to crossing this point.

Other regulations include: Ø No shore leave permitted (emergencies excepted) Ø No crew changes permitted (emergencies excepted) Ø Only authorized Baffinland personnel permitted onboard Ø No fishing tolerated in Nunavut waters Ø No shore services will be available

PORT OPERATIONS

As mentioned earlier services for the vessel are extremely limited at Milne Inlet. There are no local agents at the port, however Baffinland personnel will assist in the event of any urgent, unpredicted need arising.

Milne Inlet is a certified Marine Facility under the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code (ISPS). The ISPS Code is a framework regulated by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) with the objectives of safety and security of ships, ports, cargo and crew. The ISPS Code requires the ship and port facility staff to gather and assess security-related information, define communication protocols, prevent unauthorized access, prevent unauthorized weapons/explosives/incendiaries,

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Question Form Responses

Intervenor Question/Comment No. Question/Comment Response

provide ways to raise alarms, put in place security plans and training programs and conduct exercises and drills. Baffinland’s Milne Inlet Marine Facility Security Plan documents the security procedures to be followed at Milne Inlet to fulfill the requirements of the Marine Transportation Security Act and Regulations (MTSR). Transport Canada Marine Safety is responsible for certifying Canadian Marine Facilities and Ports as meeting the Marine Transportation Security Regulations including provisions of the ISPS Code. Baffinland last received this certification from Transport Canada in 2020.

While the majority of the ore carriers transiting to Milne do not have a physical CBSA inspection in port, all foreign crewed vessels entering Canadian waters must be cleared for entry into Canada and adhere to CBSA regulations. Part of these regulations require the reporting of certain information through the submission of declaration forms to the CBSA while the vessel transits to and from Canada. Examples of the types of information that must be provided to CBSA include vessel details (name, IMO number, registry, etc.), cargo tonnage, certificate expiry dates, port arrived from, name of master, crew list (name, nationality, passport, age, rank), ship’s stores declaration, crew’s effects declaration and a maritime declaration of health. Restricted/controlled items are to be reported under the CBSA regulations and are subject to seizure or criminal charges. Typically, one vessel heading to Milne each season is requested by the CBSA to first call at a Canadian port other than Milne for a CBSA inspection Philippa Ootoowak 4 Who is monitoring and enforcing environmental regulations at the Mine Site and port as legislated by Federal regulatory authorities visit Mary River to complete inspections at frequencies they feel are Environment Canada, Transport Canada, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans on a "day to day" basis? If necessary and consistent with the requirements of their legislation. Inspections are not the only inspections are only allowed with 2 weeks prior notice to Baffinland officials, this is not adequate manner that regulatory authorities maintain oversight over the project, Baffinland is also responsible monitoring of regulations. for providing regular reporting consistent with the terms of our various approvals, in addition to ad hoc reporting as requested by federal inspection officers. Additional insights into the powers of federal regulatory authorities, as well as the rationale behind their individual approaches to inspections and reporting should be directed directly to the regulatory authorities. Philippa Ootoowak 5 Who is monitoring and enforcing regulations of the ships anchored at Imilik (Ragged Island), those The regulations regarding anchorage and drifting locations (Ragged Island, Eclipse Sound, and off shore waiting in the middle of Eclipse Sound (up to 8 ships many times in the 2020 season)? It seems these Baffin Island) are not Canadian regulations, thus are not governed by the Canadian government. These ships are not being regulated at this time. Would government officials rather wait until an accident regulations were put in place by Baffinland, thus are regulated by Baffinland and their contractor happens before frequent monitoring and enforcement occurs? This body of water, named Tallurutiup Fednav, who provides port management services at Milne Inlet. Baffinland issues a document titled Imanga, is a marine conservation area as per the Federal Government agreement and the marine life, Standing Instructions to Masters to all vessels which come to Milne Port. This document provides rules the land and ultimately the people living in the area must be protected from possible damage caused and guidelines for vessels sailing to Milne Inlet, it also provides specific coordinates for locations where by all shipping in this area. the vessels are allowed to sail and safely anchor (maximum of 3 vessels are allowed to anchor or drift at Imilik, not 8) as well as specific places where the vessels are prohibited from sailing, drifting and anchoring. In addition, prior to a vessel arriving to Baffin Island, the Port Captain at Baffinland provides specific instructions on where and when the vessel can drift or anchor, and when they are allowed to sail. All of the vessels are heavily monitored, and if any vessel does not comply with the Port Captain’s instructions, they are immediately contacted so that the situation can be rectified. Since the area is being heavily monitored and since there are limited anchorage locations, there is little vessel traffic or vessels crossing paths, especially when compared to ports around the world. It is important to note however, that Masters of the vessels have overall authority, and will deviate from the rules for reasons of emergency and safety of the crew and vessel.

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal Error! No text of specified style in document.

APPENDIX 1 NUNAVUT IMPACT REVIEW BOARD IR ATTACHMENTS

March 2021

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal

NIRB-1 ATTACHMENT 1: MARY RIVER ORE CONTENT ANALYSIS

March 2021

NIRB -1

Mary River Ore Content Analysis This pie diagram is representative of 9,700 samples of ore from Deposit #1

Iron

Trace Contaminants, 0.04% Silicon Other Elements, 0.65% Magnesium Manganese, 0.25% Aluminum Sulfur, 0.38% Aluminum, 2.1% Sulfur Magnesium, 2.6% Manganese

Other Elements

Silicon, 7.4% Trace Contaminants Iron, 69.3% Other Elements (0.65%): hydrogen, titanium, phosphorous, chloride, potassium, sodium, calcium

Trace Contaminants (0.04%): arsenic, bismuth, cadmium, cobalt, chromium, copper, molybdenum, nickel, lead, tin, thallium, vanadium, zinc

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal

NIRB-10 ATTACHMENT 1: FULL RESPONSE

March 2021

Question NIRB 10 When looking at all of the socio-economic mitigations, it appears Baffinland has many programs aimed at compensating hunters for fuel and equipment. However, there don’t appear to be benefits for women, and yet if the project has effects on animals, this will impact women and their ability to make traditional clothing and eat country food. Can Baffinland explain why there are not more programs in place to support women who may be affected by the Project?

Support Programming

Baffinland appreciates the concern identified by the NIRB and wants to be clear that the programs Baffinland has in place to support hunters are intended to benefit the community as a whole. When hunters are successful they bring home more country food, as well as the materials to support traditional clothing making, and traditional arts and crafts.

Baffinland provides funding to a variety of programs through the Mary River IIBA (QIA), the Tasiuqtiit Workging Group (Hamlet of Pond Inlet and MHTO) as well as its own Sponsorship and Donation Program. All of these programs are intended to benefit the communities as a whole, and should be equally receptive to funding requests that support male or female (or both) oriented initiatives.

While Baffinland recognizes that certain genders tend towards certain activities, Baffinland would never intend to create a barrier or division through its programming.

Employment

Inuit women have benefited directly from the Project through employment opportunities. There were 211 female full time equivalents (FTE) in 2019, representing 9.8% of the total workforce. This was a substantial increase over 2018, when there were 112 female FTEs (7.3% of the total workforce). The female workforce in 2019 included approximately 80 Inuit FTEs (up from 60 in 2018) and 130 non-Inuit FTEs (up from 52 in 2018). Inuit women earned ~ $3.6 million in wages the same year.

In 2018, Baffinland and QIA agreed to carry out an “Arnait Action Plan” to address barriers to Inuit women seeking careers at the Project. This is a 3-year Project, implementation of which began in 2020. Two on site committees have being formed to serve as Baffinland Arnait Action Plan Advisory Committees. These committees will provide advice and support on implementing change to address identified barriers and further supports for Inuit women.

Table 1 below describes current Project support programs that can be accessed by Inuit women. These include programs which may provide support for cultural activities (i.e. traditional clothing making) as well as address impacts to harvesting which may supply country food for men and women. Table 2 provides information about future program and initiatives that have been proposed and which will support Inuit women specifically.

Baffinland is always open to suggestions, and ideas for new programs that may better support Inuit in the affected communities, including Inuit women.

Table 1- Existing Project Support Programs Project Support Program Name Description Established By Tasiuqtiit Working Group Baffinland has provided $540,000 to 2018 Agreement between the Tasiuqtiit Working group since Baffinland, Hamlet of Pond Inlet, 2018. and Mittimatalik Hunters and Trappers Organization These funds are available to the Hamlet and MHTO to implement programs in Pond Inlet that;

- Benefit the community and members of the community - Respect the customs and traditions of the members of Pond Inlet - Support the traditional hunting culture and enhancements of community wellness - Support the growth and education of youth Ilagiiktunut Nunalinnullu Funding is available for organizations, Mary River Project Inuit Impact and Pivalliajutisait Kiinaujat committees, associations, and Benefit Agreement Article 12 individuals based in or working in partnership with Arctic Bay, Clyde River, Sanirajak, Igloolik, and Pond Inlet.

Projects selected will demonstrate positive impacts for Inuit in the five impacted communities aiming towards resilient communities, strong families, and job readiness.

This program is administered by the Qikiqtani Inuit Association. Business Capacity Start-up The Business Capacity Start-Up Fund Mary River Project Inuit Impact and Fund allots monies to Inuit who wish to Benefit Agreement Article 6 improve their business or start-up a new business.

The Fund is administered by QIA’s subsidiary, Kakivak Association which leverages this program along with other existing programs to deliver business support. Baffinland Scholarship Program Annually Baffinland provides $25,000 Mary River Project Inuit Impact and towards scholarships for Inuit youth Benefit Agreement Article 8 pursuing post-secondary education. Harvesters Enabling Fund Through the Mary River Inuit Impact Mary River Project Inuit Impact and Benefit Agreement, the Harvesting Benefit Agreement Article 17 Enabling Fund was created. This fund provides 300 litres of gas per year for Inuit over the age of 12 living in Pond Inlet. Wildlife Compensation Fund Inuit in communities impacted by the Mary River Project Inuit Impact and Mary River mine can apply for funding Benefit Agreement Article 17 if an incident of loss or damage to wildlife occurs. The incident must be caused directly or indirectly by activities related to the Mary River Mine. Baffinland Sponsorship and Baffinland contributes funding and in- Baffinland Iron Mines Donation Program kind supports to various initiatives, activities, and programming throughout the North Baffin Region and Iqaluit.

Priority areas of focus include for sponsorship include, Health and Safety, Education, Arts, Sports and Culture, Community Engagement, Mining Events/Mining Education

Table 2- Proposed Support Programs Project Support Program Name Description Established By Early Childhood Care Baffinland will provide $3 million in Inuit Certainty Agreement Infrastructure funding for early childhood care centre construction in each of the 5 affected communities. These centres will remove a critical barrier to employment in the communities, while at the same time providing direct employment opportunities. Early Childhood Care Subsidy Baffinland Inuit employees residing in Inuit Certainty Agreement Nunavut will receive a minimum of $19/ per day, per child under the age of 14. Social Monitoring under the Baffinland will fund the development Inuit Certainty Agreement Inuit Stewardship Plan and implemented of the inuit Stwardship Plan, which will include a Social Monitoring Stream, supported by an Inuit Social Oversight Committee and a Community Action Research Teams. Should the Social Monitoring Program observe unexpected changes in the communities that can be reasonably attributed to the Project, Baffinland will respond with predefined responses as outlined in the Final Adaptive Management Plan.

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal

NIRB-75 ATTACHMENT 1: ICEBREAKING IMPACTS ON RINGED SEAL

March 2021

As stated in the icebreaker assessment (Golder 2019), icebreaking impacts on ringed seal during the fall freeze-up are predicted to occur; these being limited to low to moderate severity disturbance effects triggered when in close proximity to the icebreaker (localized temporary avoidance response), and a temporary loss in sea ice habitat in the immediate footprint of the icebreaker, equivalent to approximately 0.33 % of available sea ice habitat in the RSA. This does not represent a significant amount of lost habitat (for breathing hole maintenance or other functional habitat uses such as resting) and is not expected to result in a population-level effect on ringed seal.

The following is supportive evidence from the literature regarding the variable responses of ringed seal (and other polar phocid species) to icebreaking activity in the Arctic:

• No evidence of reduced ringed seal numbers was observed during a spring survey in landfast ice undertaken in the Beaufort Sea and Labrador Sea where icebreakers had travelled through landfast ice during the previous winter (Alliston 1980, 1981). • A study by DFO in Admiralty Inlet demonstrated that seals tended to remain on the ice or in their breathing holes just a few tens of meters away from a ship moving through the pack ice. After the ship had passed, seals tended to move into the ship's track, similar to their response to natural openings (Strandberg et al. 1984). • Fay and Kelly (1982) reported incidences of ringed and bearded seals hauling out onto the ice when approached by an icebreaker. • Ringed seal densities were shown to be higher along old icebreaker tracks of the CCGS Sir John Franklin icebreaker than in other adjacent areas unaffected by icebreaking (Boles et al. 1983). • Artificial leads formed in land-fast ice by industrial drill rigs and icebreaking vessels in the eastern Beaufort Sea have been reported to attract ringed seal throughout the winter (Stirling 1988). • Ringed seals may be attracted to the track of icebreakers in consolidated sea ice because of the ease at which breathing holes can be maintained. Icebreaking activities during the fall freeze-up can result in broken ice fragments and rubble along an otherwise smooth land-fast ice surface. These areas of fractured ice can provide suitable habitat for ringed seal breathing holes and subnivean birth lairs during winter (McLaren 1958; Smith and Stirling 1978; Hammill and Smith 1989, 1991). • Lomac-MacNair et al. (2017) examined the behavior of ringed seal exposed to icebreaking in Northwest Greenland in July and August 2015. Behavioral responses were demonstrated in 45 of 217 ringed seal observations following icebreaker exposure (21% of cases involving both seals resting on ice and seal in water). Of the 14 ringed seal that were resting on ice during exposure, four individuals exhibited a flush response (i.e., went from resting behaviour on ice to entering the water), where the remaining exhibited no response (i.e., remained on ice). There were fewer flush responses by seals to the icebreaker at distances approximately >600 m and no flush responses at distances >800 m. • Ringed seals hauled out on ice floes often showed short-term escape reactions when a ship came within 250–500 m (Brueggeman et al. 1992) but remained on the ice when an icebreaker was 1-2 km away (Kanik et al. 1980). • Seal mortality will only result from collision with an icebreaking vessel if the seal has nowhere to escape. However, this is not likely given the agility of seals and the fact that adult ringed seals use an average of 3.4 holes per seal for breathing (Hammill and Smith 1989). If one breathing hole is threatened, they may escape through another hole. As well, ringed seal pups (25-57 days old) use an average of 8.7 breathing holes, up to 900 m apart (Lyderson and Hammill 1993). • During the open-water season in the Beaufort Sea, ringed (and bearded) seals are commonly observed close to vessels (e.g., Harris et al., 1997, 1998, 2001, 2007, 2009). • During active icebreaking in Milne Inlet and Eclipse Sound during the 2018 and 2019 shipping shoulder seasons, ringed seals were regularly observed along the nominal shipping route in close proximity to the icebreaking vessel (Golder 2020). In 2018, a total of 2,588 seals were recorded by Inuit Marine Wildlife Observers (MWOs) for a corresponding sighting rate of 0.821 seal/km. In 2019, a total of 2,263 seals were recorded by Inuit MWOs for a corresponding sighting rate of 0.733 seal/km. Sighting distances for ringed seal in 2019 ranged from 30 m to 2,000 m from the icebreaker (mean = 224 m during early summer and 416 m during fall for seals in water; mean = 831 m for early summer and 400 m during fall for seals on ice). • Ringed seal were reported to approach vessels out of apparent curiosity, including noisy vessels such as those operating airgun arrays (Moulton and Lawson 2002). • Harbour seals hauled out on floating ice in fjords in Disenchantment Bay, Alaska were more likely to enter the water when a cruise ship approached within 500 m (Jansen et al. 2010). Seals that were approached as close as 100 m were 25x more likely to enter the water than those approached at 500 m. Cruise ships that approached directly vs. abeam of hauled out seals resulted in more seals entering the water. • The effects of on-ice industrial noises on ringed seals were investigated to determine the extent to which such industrial noise disturbance increases the rates at which ringed seals abandon subnivean lairs along the Beaufort Sea coast of Alaska (Kelly et al. 1988). The rate of abandonment was compared over six years (1982-1987). The study concluded that ringed seal abandon breathing holes and lairs in response to naturally occurring conditions such as minimal snow cover, shifting ice, and the activities of predators. However, they abandon these sites at higher rates in response to anthropogenic noises. The abandonment rate was demonstrated to be 4.0% in undisturbed land-fast areas, and 13.5% in areas subjected to industrial noise. Ringed seal would be most adversely affected by noise disturbance in late March through June when the amount of time they spend out of the water is increasing and movements, especially of females and their dependent young, are limited to small areas.

References:

Alliston, W. G. 1980. The distribution of ringed seals in relation to winter icebreaking activities near McKinley Bay, N.W.T., January-June 1980. Rep. from LGL Ltd., Toronto, ON., for Dome Petrol. Ltd., Calgary, AB. 52 p.

Alliston, W. G. 1981. The distribution of ringed seals in relation to winter icebreaking activities in Lake Melville, Labrador. Rep. from LGL Ltd., St. John's, NL., for Arctic Pilot Project., Petro-Canada, Calgary, AB. 13 p.

Boles, B. K., L. Jackson, and M.A. Mackey. 1983. Offshore Labrador Biological Studies, 1979: Seals/A study and review of the distribution and ecology of pinnipeds in Labrador. Rep. from Atlantic Biol. Serv. Ltd., St. John's, Newf., for Total Eastcan Explor. Ltd., Calgary, AB. 109 p.

Brueggemann, J.J., G.A. Green, R.A. Grotefendt, M.A. Smultea, D.P. Volsen , R.A. Rowlett and C.C. Swanson. 1992. 1991 Marine Mammal Monitoring Program (seals and whales) Crackerjack and Diamond Prospects Chukchi Sea. Final Report prepared for Shell Western E&P Inc. and Chevron USA Inc. Fay, F.H. and B.P. Kelly. 1982. Herd composition and response to disturbance of walruses in the Chukchi Sea. Cruise Report, K/S Entuziast, 25 July - 23 August. NOAA-OCSEAP/R.U. 611, 13 p. Alaska office, OCSEAP, Juneau, AK

Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder). Golder. 2019. 2018 Ship-based Observer Program. Technical Data Report No. 1663724-088-R-Rev0. 19 May 2019. 36 p. + appendix. Golder. 2020. 2019 Ship-based Observer Program. Technical Data Report 1663724-185-Rev0-31000. Mary River Project. 24 July 2020.64 p. + appendix. Hammill, M.O. and T.G. Smith. 1989. Factors affecting the distribution and abundance of ringed seal structures in Barrow Strait, Northwest Territories. Canadian Journal of Zoology 67:2212-2219.

Hammill, M.O., and T.G. Smith. 1991. The role of predation in the ecology of the ringed seal in Barrow Strait, Northwest Territories, Canada. Marine Mammal Science 7(2):123-135.

Jansen, J. K., P. L. Boveng, S. P. Dahle and J. L. Bengtson. 2010. Reaction of harbor seals to cruise ships. Journal of Wildlife Management. 74: 1186– 1194.

Kanik, B., M. Winsby, and R. Tanasichuk. 1980. Observations of marine mammal and sea bird interaction with icebreaking activities in the High Arctic July 2-12, 1980. Rep. from Hatfield Consultants Ltd., West Vancouver, BC, for Petro-Canada, Calgary, AB. 53 p

Kelly, B.P., J.J. Burns and L.R. Quakenbush. 1988. Responses of ringed seal (Phoca hispida) to noise disturbance. Port and Engineering under Arctic Conditions. Volume II. Symposium on Noise and Marine Mammals. The Geophysical Institute – University of Alaska Fairbanks. 13p.

Lomac-MacNair, K., J.P. Andrade and E. Esteves. 2019. Seal and polar bear behavioral response to an icebreaker vessel in northwest Greenland. Huma-Wildlife Interactions. 13(2): 277-289.

Lydersen, C. and M.O. Hammill. 1993. Diving in ringed seal (Phoca hispida) pups during the nursing period. Can. J. Zool. 71(5): 991-996.

McLaren, I.A. 1958. The biology of the ringed seal (Phoca hispida Schreber) in the eastern Canadian Arctic. Bulletin of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada No. 118. 97 p.

Moulton, V.D. and J.W. Lawson. 2002. Seals, 2001. In: W.J. Richardson (ed.). Marine mammal and acoustical monitoring of WesternGeco’s open-water seismic program in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, 2001. Report from LGL Ltd., King City, Ont., and Greeneridge Sciences Inc., Santa Barbara, California, for WesternGeco, Houston, Texas, and National Marine Fisheries Service, Anchorage, Alaska, and Silver Spring, Maryland. LGL Rep. TA2564 4. 3-1 to 3-48. Stirling, I. 1988. Attraction of polar bears Ursus maritimus to offshore drilling sites in the eastern Beaufort Sea. Polar Record 24(148):1-8.

Strandberg, A.G., U. Embacher, and L. Sagriff. 1984. Spring Ice-breaking Operations of the Ship M.V. Arctic and Concurrent Inuit Hunting in Admiralty Inlet, Baffin Island. Prepared by FMS Engineers Inc. for Canarctic Shipping Ltd., Ottawa.

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal

NIRB-79 ATTACHMENT 1: A SUMMARY OF KEY MONITORING-RELATED FEEDBACK/SUGGESTIONS PROVIDED TO BAFFINLAND BY THE WORKING GROUPS SINCE 2018

March 2021

Table 1: Summary of Program Components and/or Program Design Modifications in Consideration of Terrestrial Environment Working Group (TEWG) Feedback

Summary of New Program Components and/or Program Design Modifications in Response Monitoring Program Year TEWG Feedback (annual program reports or meetings) Reported in to TEWG Feedback GENERAL General pre-2018 Monitoring components developed with input from TEWG and N/A Captured through annual reports integrated into the Terrestrial Environmental Effects Monitoring to the NIRB (e.g., 2017, 2018, Plan (TEEMP). 2019). 2018 1. Challenges with dust control is noted and new mitigations 1. Baffinland is implementing new dust control measures including use of calcium chloride (and Captured through annual reports should be considered for inclusion to reduce dustfall (T-03222018; other options) for dust suppression, and engineering controls such as installation of shrouds at ore to the NIRB (e.g., 2017, 2018, T-05062018; 2018 TEAMR comments); transfer points, reducing drop heights, etc.; 2019). 2. Baffinland requests input from TEWG on evaluation of annual 2. Baffinland to explore application of new types of dust suppressants to those previously used. trends to determine if any programs should be changed on results observed thus far. (T-22032018);

2019 Ongoing challenges with dust control remains (MHTO, QIA; 2018 Baffinland to be piloting application of a new dust suppressant on Tote Road (Dust Stop®). Captured through annual reports to TEAMR comments, T-04242019, T-20062019). the NIRB (e.g., 2017, 2018, 2019). 2020 1. Ongoing challenges with dust control remains (MHTO, QIA; 2019 1. Baffinland to be piloting application of a new dust suppressant on ore pile at Milne Port TEAMR comments, T-24062020, T-12102020). (DusTreat). Additional detailsto be provided as 2. Baffinland to consider correcting for wind when using sound 2. Use of acoustic recording units (ARUs) initially used for the Red Knot surveys to be used for pilot part of 2020 reporting efforts. recorders during noise pilot study (ECCC; T-24062020). noise study in combination with audiomoths.

DUSTFALL MONITORING PROGRAM Dustfall Monitoring Program pre-2018 Monitoring components developed with input from TEWG and Existing program includes monitoring of dustfall at 33 sites through summer and 16 year-round. N/A Relevant to PC conditions 36, 50, integrated into the Terrestrial Environmental Effects Monitoring 54d, 85c, 60 Plan (TEEMP). 2018 1. Tote Road traffic should be monitored and presented as part of 1. Traffic monitoring was included as part of reporting starting in 2018. Improvements were made See 2018 Terrestrial Environment dustfall results (QIA; T-22032018); to the traffic logs to better quantify road traffic; Annual Monitoring Report 2. Request that dustfall be monitored at all sites year-round (GN, 2. Baffinland restricts winter sampling to only those stations found most valuable (i.e., those (TEAMR). 2018 TEAMR, T-24042019); located nearest project development areas) given the inherent safety risks associated with visiting sites in the dark winter months and lack of access by helicopter. Accordingly, dustfall sampling is completed year-round at 16 of the 33 monitors.

2019 1. Request that additional dustfall samplers be added along the 1. Six new additional dustfall samplers were added along the Tote Road at 1,000 m distance in See 2019 TEAMR. Tote Road to better define the magnitude of dustfall at 1,000 m 2019; samplers were placed at 1,000 m from each side of the road at km 25, 56 and 75. Locations distance from Project activities (QIA; 2018 TEAMR comments; T- were selected based on input from the MHTO during an August 2018 Mary River Site visit; 24042019) 2. Sampler (DF-P-01) located at Milne Port near ore stockpile relocated to account for expansion of 2. Request that Baffinland consider installation of dustfall samplers stockpile area (now called DF-P-08). that are at lower heights than the standardized 2 m apparatus 3. Baffinland will continue to use dustfall samplers installed at heights of ~2 m high based on currently being used (GN, QIA; T-20062019); standardized methods (ASTM International 2019).

Notes: Bolded items indicate that discussions may still be ongoing or that Baffinland will not be addressing the request (with Baffinland response). The key source of the Terrestrial Environment Working Group (TEWG) feedback received is provided by referencing either TEWG meeting date(s) (e.g., T- ddmmyyyy), when change(s) were requested and/or comments were raised (though may not necessarily include all meetings over which topic was discussed) or through comments received during the Terrestrial Environment Annual Monitoring Report (TEAMR) review process (e.g., 2018 TEAMR and 2019 TEAMR).

Page 1 of 7 Table 1: Summary of Program Components and/or Program Design Modifications in Consideration of Terrestrial Environment Working Group (TEWG) Feedback

Summary of New Program Components and/or Program Design Modifications in Response Monitoring Program Year TEWG Feedback (annual program reports or meetings) Reported in to TEWG Feedback Dustfall Monitoring Program 2020 1. Request that Baffinland continue to consider installation of 1. Baffinland will continue to use dustfall samplers installed at heights of ~2 m high based on Additional details to be provided Relevant to PC conditions 36, 50, dustfall samplers that are at lower heights than the standardized standardized methods (ASTM International 2019). Baffinland has also communicated with as part of 2020 reporting efforts. 54d, 85c, 60 2 m apparatus currently being used (GN, QIA; T-26022020, T- Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) to learn further about relevant research methods being 24062020, T-10122020); completed to monitor dust, including feasibility of using satellite imagery. As part of the 2. Baffinland to better investigate dust extent on snow given visual December 10, 2020 TEWG meeting agenda, NRCan planned to present their research that is observation as reported by land users (MHTO, QIA; T-26022020, T- relevant to dust monitoring however due to delays in the meeting schedule, the agenda item will 24062020) be moved to a future TEWG meeting. 3. Request that Baffinland include longer-term air temperature 2. Baffinland has also included, as part of its 2020 reporting effects, an analysis of satellite imagery trends and other weather variables that go back further than 2018 examining dust on snow to better understand the extent of dust deposition related to Project (QIA: TEAMR 2019, T-26022020); activities; 4. Request that Baffinland consider investigating soil and 3. An update to the analysis and presentation of weather data is planned as part of 2020 reporting vegetation base metals data to, for example, traffic levels and efforts. Baffinland will endeavor to show longer-term climate trends instead of summarizing a weather conditions that influence dust deposition, and integrate single year and comparing solely to the previous year. with data on dust extent (T-26022020). 4. Baffinland will continue to investigate the relationship between dustfall and metals concentrations in soil and vegetation in future monitoring programs and analysis, and integrate information with new sampling analyses (e.g., dustfall extent through satellite imagery).

VEGETATION Vegetation pre-2018 1. GN and QIA request additional vegetation abundance sites to be Baffinland completed third year of vegetation monitoring in 2017 and requests input from TEWG See 2017 TEAMR. Vegetation Abundance monitored in 2018 from 2017. on future sampling frequency once results are available for review; Vegetation abundance trend Monitoring analysis will be completed to assess potential changes in percent plant cover and plant group Relevant to PC Conditions 36, 38, composition. 50 and Project Commitments 67, 69, 107 2018 1. Request that Baffinland include assessment of soil moisture at 1. Baffinland to include soil moisture as part of future vegetation abundance study design; See 2018 TEAMR. vegetation abundance monitoring sites (ECCC; 2018 TEAMR Vegetation and Soil Base Metals comments, T-24042019, T-20062019); 2. Baffinland to consider addition of new reference sites in 2019 to reduce variability. Monitoring 2. Request that Baffinland add additional reference sites in order Relevant to PC Conditions 34, 36, to control for the potential effects of soil moisture on plant cover 3. The point quadrat method for monitoring vegetation abundance is considered one of the most 38, 50 and Project Commitments and composition (GN, ECCC; 2018 TEAMR comments, T-24042019); objective and repeatable methods for monitoring vegetation. This statement is supported by 67, 69, 107 3. Request that Baffinland justify use of the point quadrat method several resources across multiple decades from 1933–2013; for vegetation monitoring (GN; 2018 TEAMR comments, T- Exotic Invasive Vegetation 24042019); 4. Baffinland will consider exploring green-up as part of future vegetation monitoring. Monitoring and Natural 4. Request that Baffinland consider exploring the timing of Revegetation snowmelt and green-up in future monitoring efforts (QIA; 2018 Relevant to PC Conditions 32, 37, TEAMR comments, T-24042019). 38, 50 and Project Commitments 67, 68, 69, 70

Notes: Bolded items indicate that discussions may still be ongoing or that Baffinland will not be addressing the request (with Baffinland response). The key source of the Terrestrial Environment Working Group (TEWG) feedback received is provided by referencing either TEWG meeting date(s) (e.g., T- ddmmyyyy), when change(s) were requested and/or comments were raised (though may not necessarily include all meetings over which topic was discussed) or through comments received during the Terrestrial Environment Annual Monitoring Report (TEAMR) review process (e.g., 2018 TEAMR and 2019 TEAMR).

Page 2 of 7 Table 1: Summary of Program Components and/or Program Design Modifications in Consideration of Terrestrial Environment Working Group (TEWG) Feedback

Summary of New Program Components and/or Program Design Modifications in Response Monitoring Program Year TEWG Feedback (annual program reports or meetings) Reported in to TEWG Feedback Vegetation 2019 1. Request that Baffinland include assessment of soil moisture at 1. Baffinland added a soil moisture assessment as part of the vegetation abundance study design See 2019 TEAMR. Vegetation Abundance vegetation abundance monitoring sites to determine if there are and analysis. Soil moisture regime was incorporated into vegetation analyses as a covariate to Monitoring moisture differences between Near and Reference sites (ECCC, account for associations with some plant groups. Further discussions with ECCC confirmed that Relevant to PC Conditions 36, 38, QIA; 2018 and 2019 TEAMR comments, T-24042019, T-20062019, T- additional analysis adequately addressed initial concerns. 50 and Project Commitments 67, 02262020); 2. Baffinland added 9 new vegetation monitoring references sites in 2019 (up from six). 69, 107 2. Request that Baffinland expand the number of Reference sites as 3. Baffinland is in support of completing another year of vegetation and soils base part of the vegetation abundance monitoring program in 2019 (GN, metals/metalloids monitoring in 2020 to further investigate observed potential trends; ongoing Vegetation and Soil Base Metals ECCC; 2018 TEAMR, T-11122018, T-24042019, T-20062019). discussions regarding frequency of monitoring. Monitoring 3. Discussions on frequency of monitoring for the vegetation Relevant to PC Conditions 34, 36, abundance monitoring program are ongoing (2019 TEAMR 38, 50 and Project Commitments comments, T-7102019, T-26022020). 67, 69, 107 2020 1. Baffinland to consider alternative methods to analyzing 1. Baffinland will investigate alternative methods for analyzing vegetation abundance in 2020 Additional details to be provided Exotic Invasive Vegetation vegetation abundance in 2020 (2019 TEAMR comments, T- though this will not result in changes to 2020 monitoring plans. as part of 2020 reporting efforts. Monitoring and Natural 26022020, T-24062020); 2. Vegetation and soil based metals sampling completed in 2020. Integration of dustfall and Revegetation 2. As part of additional year of vegetation and soil base vegetation being addressed through pairing of vegetation sites and new analyses to investigate Relevant to PC Conditions 32, 37, metals/metalloids monitoring in 2020, Baffinland to include a more trace metals to dustfall at paired sites; Further direction from the TEWG regarding sampling 38, 50 and Project Commitments detailed description of sample locations, concentrations and frequency, number of representative reference sites, soil moisture regime, and integration with 67, 68, 69, 70 trends, screening for specific metals, in addition to relevant context dustfall monitoring can be discussed at future TEWG meetings upon review of newest data; should specific sample values be above or below analytical 3. Baffinland completed green-up analysis to better understand timing of vegetation growth. detection limits (QIA, ECCC; 2019 TEAMR comments, T-24062020). 3. Request that Baffinland consider exploring the timing of snowmelt and green-up in future monitoring efforts (QIA; 2018 TEAMR comments, T-24042019, T-26022020).

BIRDS Birds pre-2018 1. Bird surveys are most successful through collaborations N/A Cliff-nesting raptor occupancy and established with ECCC-CWS and Arctic Raptors Inc. Raptor program productivity surveys influenced by QIA and TEWG input (QIA; T-05062018). Relevant to PC conditions 50, 73, 74, and Project Commitment 75

Pre-clearing Nest Surveys Relevant to PC conditions 66, 70

Notes: Bolded items indicate that discussions may still be ongoing or that Baffinland will not be addressing the request (with Baffinland response). The key source of the Terrestrial Environment Working Group (TEWG) feedback received is provided by referencing either TEWG meeting date(s) (e.g., T- ddmmyyyy), when change(s) were requested and/or comments were raised (though may not necessarily include all meetings over which topic was discussed) or through comments received during the Terrestrial Environment Annual Monitoring Report (TEAMR) review process (e.g., 2018 TEAMR and 2019 TEAMR).

Page 3 of 7 Table 1: Summary of Program Components and/or Program Design Modifications in Consideration of Terrestrial Environment Working Group (TEWG) Feedback

Summary of New Program Components and/or Program Design Modifications in Response Monitoring Program Year TEWG Feedback (annual program reports or meetings) Reported in to TEWG Feedback Birds 2018 1. Continue cliff-nesting raptor occupancy and productivity surveys 1. Baffinland continues to collaborate with University of Alberta researchers (through Arctic See 2018 TEAMR. Cliff-nesting raptor occupancy and (T-03222018); Raptors Inc.) to assess cliff-nesting raptor occupancy and productivity surveys; productivity surveys 2. Consider inclusion of small mammal trapping as part of raptor 2. Small mammal trapping included as part of raptor monitoring program design. Relevant to PC conditions 50, 73, studies to assess whether raptor occupancy is associated with 3. Collaboration with ECCC-CWS continues through PRISM surveys in 2018; 74, and Project Commitment 75 natural small mammal cycle (T-03222018) 4. Red knot surveys deferred to 2019 field season; 3. Request for Baffinland to continue collaborating and provide Pre-clearing Nest Surveys funding and logistical support to regional shorebird monitoring Relevant to PC conditions 66, 70 conducted by ECCC-Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) for improved efforts (T-05062018); 4. Investigate potential presence of Red Knot within the Mary River Project regional study area through vocalization study in collaboration with ECCC-CWS (ECCC; 2018 TEAMR, T-05062018);

2019 1. Investigate potential presence of Red Knot within the Mary River 1. Baffinland, in collaboration with ECCC-CWS, deployed 9 passive sound recording devices as an See 2019 TEAMR. Project regional study area through vocalization study in attempt to detect Red Knot vocalizations throughout the breeding season. Based on 2019 results, collaboration with ECCC-CWS in 2019 (ECCC; 2018 TEAMR additional Red Knot surveys are not necessary along the northern transportation corridor and comments, T-24092019, T-20062019); active Project areas (e.g., Mary River, Milne Port). 2. Request that Baffinland investigate alternative means to small 2. Baffinland considered other methods (e.g., live trapping, indices) however snap-trapping mammal snap-trapping (ECCC: 2018 TEAMR report comments); remains most suitable method considering program objectives, timing, and feasibility.

2020 1. Request that Baffinland re-deploy sound recorders in the 1.Baffinland will consider the re-initiation of vocalization surveys in suitable Red Knot habitat N/A Steensby Port area and along the south rail line to collect baseline prior to initiating development-related activities in the Steensby Port and south rail line areas. data on Red Knot and other species in those areas (QIA, ECCC- Note that ARUs were used for noise pilot study completed in 2020. CWS; 2019 TEAMR report comments). MAMMALS Mammals pre-2018 1. All carnivore monitoring programs put on hold in 2015 based on 1. All carnivore monitoring programs put on hold in 2015 due to low abundance of wolves based on Snow Track Surveys TEWG feedback due to low abundance of wolves. Studies to be TEWG feedback. Baffinland will reinitiate surveys upon feedback from the TEWG, GN or through Relevant to PC conditions 54dii, reinitiated in the future should changes occur in wolf abundance local knowledge that numbers are increasing and/or high enough to monitor. 58f and after further discussion with the GN and TEWG. 2. Increase in HOL survey locations from 16 to 24 and survey time (~15 mins to 20 mins) per station Snow Bank Height Monitoring 2. Request Baffinland enhance efforts for observing caribou during by survey team. Relevant to PC conditions 53ai, HOL surveys. 53c Height of Land (HOL) caribou surveys Relevant to PC conditions 53a, 53b, 54b, 58b

Notes: Bolded items indicate that discussions may still be ongoing or that Baffinland will not be addressing the request (with Baffinland response). The key source of the Terrestrial Environment Working Group (TEWG) feedback received is provided by referencing either TEWG meeting date(s) (e.g., T- ddmmyyyy), when change(s) were requested and/or comments were raised (though may not necessarily include all meetings over which topic was discussed) or through comments received during the Terrestrial Environment Annual Monitoring Report (TEAMR) review process (e.g., 2018 TEAMR and 2019 TEAMR).

Page 4 of 7 Table 1: Summary of Program Components and/or Program Design Modifications in Consideration of Terrestrial Environment Working Group (TEWG) Feedback

Summary of New Program Components and/or Program Design Modifications in Response Monitoring Program Year TEWG Feedback (annual program reports or meetings) Reported in to TEWG Feedback Mammals 2018 1. Request to increase snowbank monitoring frequency (GN; T- 1. Baffinland increased snowbank monitoring frequency from one annual survey to at least once See 2018 TEAMR. Snow Track Surveys 22032018; 2018 TEAMR) per month (November through May), though depends on snow conditions adequate for surveying. Relevant to PC conditions 54dii, 2. Baffinland to complete snow track surveys to not only look for in early 2018, banks were assessed in Jan, Feb, April and May. 58f caribou and other wildlife tracks but also assess potential 2. To better assess concerns related to road permeability, snow bank height will be recorded at all interactions with Tote Road (i.e., deterrence) (GN; 2018 TEAMR locations where snow tracks are observed in addition to completing a deterrent assessment (i.e., Snow Bank Height Monitoring comments, T-24042019). assess whether animal deterred by road based on direction of tracks). Relevant to PC conditions 53ai, 3. General ongoing request to expand caribou monitoring 3. Baffinland will consider expanding site-specific caribou monitoring programs when North Baffin 53c programs, including, though not exclusively, consideration of caribou numbers increase. Three caribou aerial surveys were completed out of Mary River in April expanded Height of Land (HOL) surveys (time at each station, 2018. To help define caribou monitoring at the regional level, Baffinland, in coordination with the Height of Land (HOL) caribou addition of new stations and/or frequency of visits since sites only Government of Nunavut (GN), remains committed to developing a Memorandum of Understanding surveys visited once (GN; T-05062018, T-03082018); (MoU) that outlines a collaborative approach to mutually-sponsoring regional-level information Relevant to PC conditions 53a, 4. Baffinland to evaluate the addition of "daily species logs" or needs. Methods for regional-level monitoring would be determined in conjunction with the TEWG 53b, 54b, 58b driver sightings as part of general wildlife incidental sighting and specifics identified in a future MoU (under development). records, while correcting for daylight hours, visibility and search 4. Baffinland will investigate potential ways for standardizing incidental observations to contribute effort (ECCC; 2018 TEAMR comments, T-24042019). to continual site monitoring of wildlife encounters going forward.

2019 1. Specific request to expand HOL survey effort at 24 stations given 1. Baffinland doubled its efforts in 2019, by visiting each HOL site at least twice (double effort from See 2019 TEAMR. that no caribou have been observed since 2013 during HOL 2018) over the surveyed calving season period. Consultation on HOL program design will be surveys; specific considerations should be made to incorporate considered as part of future TEWG meetings and subsequently considered for implementation in historical migration and calving patterns, and any new information 2021. relevant to HOL goals and methodologies (MHTO, QIA; 2019 2. Baffinland will sample snowbank heights using a randomized approach starting in winter 2019. TEAMR comments, T-24042019, T-20062019); Baffinland notes that snowbank surveys are conducted randomly and opportunistically based on 2. Request for snow bank height sampling locations to be safe driving conditions along the Tote Road and Site Environment staff availability. Surveys are randomized for each monthly sampling period instead of revisiting completed independently of road maintenance activities. the same locations (GN; 2019 TEAMR comments, T-07102019, T- 3. Baffinland's existing vegetation health monitoring program (includes vegetation and soil base 26022020). metal monitoring) is an integral component for measuring potential pathways of effects leading to 3. General ongoing discussions for Baffinland to expand caribou metals uptake in wildlife, including caribou. Caribou health as evaluated through caribou tissues monitoring programs including caribou health assessments and body condition measurements would need to be investigated at a regional level to adequately through contaminant (metals) monitoring (T-24042019, T- assess regional trends and provide context for assessing causality and potential impacts related to 20062019). Baffinland activities. Baffinland notes that previous attempts dating to 2015 were made to obtain 4. Baffinland to consider completing fox den surveys as part of sample kits from hunters travelling through Project areas but none were available. Baffinland has raptor monitoring program (GN, MHTO; T-20062019). insisted that collaboration by numerous parties (e.g., MHTO, GN) is critical for the successful implementation of a caribou tissue monitoring program. Accordingly, Baffinland initiated discussions for potential collaboration with the caribou contaminants project lead funded through the Northern Contaminants Program (NCP) in December 2019. 4. Terrestrial program already expanded in 2019 to include avian distance surveys, raptor productivity and occupancy, winter nest counts, and small mammal trapping. To be considered in future years only if relevant to do so.

Notes: Bolded items indicate that discussions may still be ongoing or that Baffinland will not be addressing the request (with Baffinland response). The key source of the Terrestrial Environment Working Group (TEWG) feedback received is provided by referencing either TEWG meeting date(s) (e.g., T- ddmmyyyy), when change(s) were requested and/or comments were raised (though may not necessarily include all meetings over which topic was discussed) or through comments received during the Terrestrial Environment Annual Monitoring Report (TEAMR) review process (e.g., 2018 TEAMR and 2019 TEAMR).

Page 5 of 7 Table 1: Summary of Program Components and/or Program Design Modifications in Consideration of Terrestrial Environment Working Group (TEWG) Feedback

Summary of New Program Components and/or Program Design Modifications in Response Monitoring Program Year TEWG Feedback (annual program reports or meetings) Reported in to TEWG Feedback Mammals 2020 1. General ongoing request to expand caribou monitoring 1. In order to address questions related to caribou contaminant levels, Baffinland partnered with Additional details to be provided Snow Track Surveys program including HOL survey effort, contaminant monitoring, co-leads (Gamberg Consulting and ECCC) of the proposed Caribou Contaminant Monitoring as part of 2020 reporting efforts. Relevant to PC conditions 54dii, etc. (QIA; TEAMR 2019 report comments, T-24042019, T- Program (CCMP) to obtain funding through the Northern Contaminant Program (NCP) in 2020. 58f 20062019, T-24022020, T-24062020, T-10122020). Through collaboration with the GN, CCMP will be obtaining caribou tissue samples from Pond 2. Request to integrate further Inuit observations into monitoring Inlet hunters to assess their contaminant levels (including metals). As of February 22, 2021, no Snow Bank Height Monitoring efforts moving forward (QIA; TEAMR 2019) data is available. Relevant to PC conditions 53ai, 3. Request that Baffinland continue to re-evaluate usefulness of 53c existing snow track survey methods including whether this Baffinland is conducting analyses to determine the statistical power of various monitoring captures potentially more distant avoidance responses and options to measure potential changes in caribou movement across Project infrastructure. The Height of Land (HOL) caribou whether existing survey method should be modified to consider results of this work will inform decisions regarding future caribou impact monitoring effort; surveys alternative approaches such as with surveys completed by Relevant to PC conditions 53a, snowmobile, drone, etc. (QIA; 2019 TEAMR comments, T- 2. Baffinland will discuss further with the TEWG potential options for integrating Inuit 53b, 54b, 58b 24042019, T-20122020) observations into future reporting efforts.

3. Baffinland notes that the primary purpose of snow track surveys is to monitor how caribou and other wildlife may interact with the Tote Road and associated traffic at close proximity. Accordingly, other surveys may be better suited to assess potential impacts at higher distances such as Height of Land when caribou are seen at higher numbers; Baffinland also notes that use of snowmobiles had been considered during early methodology development but was ultimately deemed unsuitable. Baffinland remains open to considering other suitable alternative options should they be brought forward.

HELICOPTER FLIGHTS Helicopter Flights pre-2018 Ongoing efforts to improve flight height compliance tracking and Flight height data cross-referenced with pilot logs from daily timesheets to help justify non- Relevant to PC conditions 59, 71, performance. compliant transits. 72 2018 1. Request to improve helicopter pilot flight rational entries in pilot 1. Baffinland enhanced communications to ensure all personnel are made aware of flight height See 2018 TEAMR. logs including descriptions of rationale (2018 TEAMR, T-22032018, requirements and reasoning, flight corridors,etc.; Additional pilot oversight provided by Site T-05062018); Environment team to ensure rationale is provided to improve reporting relevant to meeting 2. Request that both horizontal avoidance (to Snow Goose [SNGO] compliance on flight height requirements. Specific examples provided in report to explain low-level areas) and height restrictions should actively be considered as part flights (e.g., weather, slinging, staking, drop-off/pick-up); of helicopter flight requirements (GN, ECCC; 2018 TEAMR 2. Baffinland reports on individual helicopter flight tracks as part of annual reporting, in addition to comments). advising pilots to stay outside of the defined SNGO area boundary that is buffered by the required 1,500 m horizontal avoidance distance.

Notes: Bolded items indicate that discussions may still be ongoing or that Baffinland will not be addressing the request (with Baffinland response). The key source of the Terrestrial Environment Working Group (TEWG) feedback received is provided by referencing either TEWG meeting date(s) (e.g., T- ddmmyyyy), when change(s) were requested and/or comments were raised (though may not necessarily include all meetings over which topic was discussed) or through comments received during the Terrestrial Environment Annual Monitoring Report (TEAMR) review process (e.g., 2018 TEAMR and 2019 TEAMR).

Page 6 of 7 Table 1: Summary of Program Components and/or Program Design Modifications in Consideration of Terrestrial Environment Working Group (TEWG) Feedback

Summary of New Program Components and/or Program Design Modifications in Response Monitoring Program Year TEWG Feedback (annual program reports or meetings) Reported in to TEWG Feedback Helicopter Flights 2019 1. Ongoing request to improve helicopter pilot flight rational 1. As part of helicopter briefings, Baffinland provides Snow Goose area boundaries for entry into See 2019 TEAMR. Relevant to PC conditions 59, 71, entries in pilot logs including descriptions of rationale for non- individual helicopters' GPS systems in order to clearly denote SNGO boundaries. 72 compliance flights (QIA, GN, QIA; 2019 TEAMR comments, T- 2. Baffinland continues to work through requests related to improving helicopter flight rationale 24042019, T-02262020); entries in pilot logs and modifying analyses in order to better understand overall helicopter use and 2. Request that both horizontal avoidance (to SNGO areas) and how compliance and non-compliance data is recorded, analyzed and reported. Results presented in height restrictions should actively be considered as part of 2019 are preliminary and analyses will continue into 2020, including a review of historical data. The helicopter flight requirements (GN, ECCC, QIA; 2019 TEAMR 2019 TEAMR does include detailed breakdown of rationale for low-level flights, categorizing comments, T-24042019). compliance into fully compliant, non-compliant with rationale, and non-compliant without rationale.

2020 1. Ongoing request to improve helicopter pilot flight rational 1. Baffinland continues to work through requests related to improving helicopter flight rationale Additional details to be provided entries in pilot logs including descriptions of rationale for non- entries in pilot logs and adapting analyses in order to better describe overall helicopter use, assess as part of 2020 reporting efforts. compliance flights and the provision of total transits (ECCC, QIA; how compliance and non-compliance data is recorded, analyzed and reported, in addition to 2019 TEAMR comments, T-02262020, T-24062020, T-10122020); summarizing total transits. Baffinland intends to include historical data as part of 2020 data 2. Request that Baffinland consider other areas of observed analysis and reporting efforts. This includes changing how helicopter flight data is analyzed and concentrations of migratory birds that are separate from the reported (e.g., from points to line segments), and flight duration (i.e., the number of flight hours of identified SNGO area boundaries (QIA, MHTO, ECCC); 2019 compliant and non-compliant flying); TEAMR comments; T-26022020, T-24062020). 2. Baffinland will consider other areas that may be identified by the TEWG as part of future discussions with the TEWG. WILDLIFE INTERACTION AND MORTALITY REPORTING Wildlife Interaction and Mortality 2019 1. Request that Baffinland investigate how fox mortality numbers 1. Baffinland notes that assessing the fundamental ecological question of predator/prey See 2019 TEAMR. Reporting across years compare with data on population cycles and prey relationships is beyond the scope of Project effects monitoring and thus TEAMR, thus will not be Relevant to PC conditions 53a, availability (lemming cycles) (QIA; 2019 TEAMR comments) considered for inclusion into existing programs. 53b, and 57d HUNTERS AND VISITORS LOG Hunters and Visitors Log 2019 1. Concern that data for number of hunters and visitors are not 1. Baffinland notes that the hunter and visitor log is voluntary to respect individuals' privacy and See 2019 TEAMR. Relevant to PC conditions 54f collected in a way that allows any statement to be made about does not represent a complete record of all visitors passing through the Project area. Regardless, whether people are avoiding the mine and road or not (QIA; 2019 Baffinland will continue to manage access to the Project in a manner consistent with Article TEAMR comments). 13.3.1 of the Mary River Inuit Impact and Benefit Agreement.

Notes: Bolded items indicate that discussions may still be ongoing or that Baffinland will not be addressing the request (with Baffinland response). The key source of the Terrestrial Environment Working Group (TEWG) feedback received is provided by referencing either TEWG meeting date(s) (e.g., T- ddmmyyyy), when change(s) were requested and/or comments were raised (though may not necessarily include all meetings over which topic was discussed) or through comments received during the Terrestrial Environment Annual Monitoring Report (TEAMR) review process (e.g., 2018 TEAMR and 2019 TEAMR).

REFERENCES Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation (Baffinland), 2018. 2017 Annual Report to the Nunavut Impact Review Board. March 31, 2018. Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation (Baffinland), 2019. 2018 Annual Report to the Nunavut Impact Review Board. March 31, 2019. Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation (Baffinland), 2020. 2019 Annual Report to the Nunavut Impact Review Board.May 15, 2020. EDI Environmental Dynamics Inc. (EDI). 2018. 2017 Mary River Project Terrestrial Environment Annual Monitoring Report (TEAMR). July 2018. EDI Environmental Dynamics Inc. (EDI). 2019. 2018 Mary River Project Terrestrial Environment Annual Monitoring Report (TEAMR). July 2019. EDI Environmental Dynamics Inc. (EDI). 2020. 2019 Mary River Project Terrestrial Environment Annual Monitoring Report (TEAMR). July 2020.

Page 7 of 7 Table 2: Summary of Program Components and/or Program Design Modifications in Consideration of Marine Environment Working Group (MEWG) Feedback

Summary of New Program Components and/or Program Design Modifications in Consideration of MEWG Monitoring Program Year MEWG Feedback (annual program reports or meetings) Feedback Reported in GENERAL General 2018-2020 Assess existing program design statistical power by running Power analyses were completed for MEEMP, Aerial Survey Program, Bruce Head Shore-based Monitoring refer to Bruce Head, Aerial power analyses on all relevant program datasets Program and 2017-2018 Integrated Narwhal Tagging Program. See specific program component for additional Survey, MEEMP/AIS sections detail on when power analyses were introduced and how the results influenced changes to program design for specific details. (e.g., Marine Environmental Effects Monitoring Program/Aquatic Invasive Species Program [MEEMP/AIS]); and/or were not necessary based on program objective (e.g., no power analyses completed on Ship-based Observer [SBO] data). Request further consideration of Inuit perspectives into 1. Hired increasing number of Inuit researchers in marine monitoring programs (2017 = 12; 2018 = 11; 2019 = Captured through annual marine monitoring programs (M-15032018) 23; Inuit from Nunavut communities could not be hired in 2020 due to COVID-19 restrictions); reports to the NIRB (e.g., 2017, 2. Annual pre-shipping and End of shipping season and/or monitoring program-specific meetings held 2018, 2019) and meeting between 2018 and 2020 (end of season TBD) which included discussion of monitoring programs; minutes. 3. Workshop in Pond Inlet was held in 2017 (included MHTO) to gain more information on area, marine mammals and marine monitoring programs, which influenced planning of 2018 programs; 4. Baffinland included as part of 2017 integrated marine mammal report a summary of marine mammal IQ form community workshops held by Baffinland; 5. End of season Inuit participant interviews participating in programs in 2019 including: Bruce Head Shore- based Monitoring Program, Ship-based Observer (SBO) Program, Marine Mammal Aerial Survey Program and Marine Environmental Effects Monitoring Program (MEEMP)/Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) Program. 6. Since 2018, Golder technical lead travels to Pond Inlet for in-person meeting with the MHTO (exclusively, not part of MEWG) to discuss aspects of each monitoring program. There are a minimum of two meetings per year for this, one during fall to discuss each of the summer programs that were completed and review preliminary data/discuss Inuit perspectives/etc; and one on the spring to present that year's proposed monitoring programs and to gain Inuit perspectives on the program, discuss hiring initiatives, and request a Letter of Approval for each program. (Note these meetings could not occur in 2020 due to COVID-19 restrictions). Following the HTO meeting, Golder meets with the Inuit participants in Pond Inlet to discuss the same topics as outlined above with HTO, as well as to discuss their potential enhanced involvement in the program (e.g. as Inuit Leads for the program, to get more involved in data analysis and reporting, and overall to garner their input into program design etc for the following year). Golder also maintains regular contact with its Inuit participants via telephone calls, social media and email to exchange information, request information, insight, input, and perspectives.

Improve MEWG functioning including feedback processes (M- 1. In 2018, Baffinland introduced the Working Group Comment Response Form, which provides MEWG the 15032018, M-21062019, M-8052020) opportunity to provide specific comments on each of the annual draft marine monitoring program reports. Responses to each of these comments are provided by Baffinland, and if responses have resulted in a change to the monitoring program for future years, this is noted in the response. 2. Multiple iterations have occurred on the existing Terms of Reference related to the working group as led by the GN. Status is ongoing.

Notes: Bolded items indicate that discussions may still be ongoing or that Baffinland will not be addressing the request (with Baffinland response). The key source of the Marine Environment Working Group (MEWG) feedback received is provided by referencing either MEWG meeting date(s) (e.g., M- ddmmyyyy), when change(s) were requested and/or comments were raised (though may not necessarily include all meetings over which topic was discussed) or through comments received during the various marine monitoring program report review processes, including Annual Reports to the NIRB.

Page 1 of 12 Table 2: Summary of Program Components and/or Program Design Modifications in Consideration of Marine Environment Working Group (MEWG) Feedback

Summary of New Program Components and/or Program Design Modifications in Consideration of MEWG Monitoring Program Year MEWG Feedback (annual program reports or meetings) Feedback Reported in General 2018-2020 General request that seal monitoring be reflected through the Ship-based Observer (SBO) sightings data from 2018 and 2019 records sighting locations of where seals were see 2018, 2019 Ship-based various programs (Qikiqtani Inuit Association [QIA], observed during Botnica transits. Seal sightings were also recorded through aerial surveys completed in 2019 Observer (SBO) reports; Mittimatalik Hunters and Trappers Organization [MHTO]); M- and 2020, and included sightings summary (detection rates) and spatial distribution (locations where they 2019 Marine Mammal Aerial 06062018, M-10122018, M-02252020, M-21062019, M- were observed). Note that Baffinland will also be implementating a dedicated systematic aerial-based ringed Survey Program report; 09122020; 2018 and 2019 Annual Report to the NIRB seal survey in 2021 (photographic and infrared aerial surveys) to identify ringed seal abundance/density and 2020 Marine Mammal Aerial comments) distribution in the RSA including identification of seal hot spots. Baffinland will also be analyzing data collected Survey report in preparation from a dedicated 2014 ringed seal aerial survey conducted by LGL Limited in the RSA. Both the 2021 and 2014 and to be submitted as part of datasets will be reported in a single ringed seal abundance and distribution report in Q4 2021). Note that the 2020 Annual Report to the Baffinland did not complete ringed seal aerial surveys since 2014 because DFO completed dedicated ringed NIRB. seal aerial surveys in the RSA in 2017 and 2018 (photographic and infrared aerial surveys) and so this information has been published and thus is available to Baffinland (and the public/NIRB) to inform seal density and distribution in the RSA (no need to duplicate these surveys). Note that Baffinland previously completed ringed seal baseline aerial surveys over a three-year period pre-operations (2006, 2007 and 2008). The 2021 and 2014 ringed seal aerial survey data will be compared to previous DFO survey datat (2017 and 2018) and Baffinland baseline survey data (2006-2008). Baffinland has also developed multiple ringed seal specific indicators, thresholds and response actions for its monitoring programs as part of the adaptive management plan for the Phase 2 Proposal, and has been actively engaged with QIA in this process, and once these are vetted by the QIA, will be put forward to the MEWG for their input/vetting (as part of Marine Mammal TARP and Toolkit package). Early Warning Indicators (EWIs) are to be selected by Baffinland has had ongoing engagement with the MEWG to discuss various monitoring variable(s) that may be Baffinland submitted to the Baffinland (Relevant to PC conditions 110 and 112) most suitable to use as an EWI. Calving rate has been deemed the most suitable variable to use as an EWI at NIRB in August 2020 a memo (M-13092019, M-1110208, M-10122018, M-25012019, this time, though does not prohibit consideration of other variables being actively monitored. Baffinland has entitled "Early Warning M23042019, M-21062019, M-02252020, M-25062020) also developed multiple ringed seal specific indicators, thresholds and response actions for its monitoring Indicators for Marine programs as part of the adaptive management plan for the Phase 2 Proposal, and has been actively engaged Mammals" describing its with QIA in this process, and once these are vetted by the QIA, will be put forward to the MEWG for their process and reasoning for input/vetting (as part of Marine Mammal Trigger Action Response Plan [TARP] and Toolkit package). In identifying narwhal calving December of 2020, Baffinland submitted to the QIA the Marine Mammal TARP and Toolkit for their review, rate as an EWI. In December of input and approval. Several teleconference meetings were held between Baffinland, Golder and QIA prior to 2020, Baffinland submitted to this to discuss specifically development of the Marine Mammal TARP and toolkit, including ringed seal the QIA the Marine Mammal indicators, thresholds and response actions. TARP and Toolkit for their internal review, input and approval. Test sampling of ballast water salinity should be undertaken Baffinland purchased new water quality instrumentation in 2018 to meet industry-standard requirements for see BWMP (Baffinland 2019) on all vessels discharging in Milne Port (DFO, QIA, Parks reliably measuring temperature and salinty, in addition to a second identical unit. A comprehensive, stand- and annual reports to the NIRB Canada [PCa]). alone Standard Operating Procedure manual was developed for Baffinland's ship-based sampling program. (e.g., 2018-2019; 2020 in Subsequently, Baffinland issued a Ballast Water Management Plan (BWMP) in 2019 and accordingly preparation) formalized a standard compliance testing program, with results reported as part of annual reporting efforts to the NIRB.

Notes: Bolded items indicate that discussions may still be ongoing or that Baffinland will not be addressing the request (with Baffinland response). The key source of the Marine Environment Working Group (MEWG) feedback received is provided by referencing either MEWG meeting date(s) (e.g., M- ddmmyyyy), when change(s) were requested and/or comments were raised (though may not necessarily include all meetings over which topic was discussed) or through comments received during the various marine monitoring program report review processes, including Annual Reports to the NIRB.

Page 2 of 12 Table 2: Summary of Program Components and/or Program Design Modifications in Consideration of Marine Environment Working Group (MEWG) Feedback

Summary of New Program Components and/or Program Design Modifications in Consideration of MEWG Monitoring Program Year MEWG Feedback (annual program reports or meetings) Feedback Reported in MARINE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS MONITORING PROGRAM Marine Environmental Up to 2017 Request geographical expansion of the AIS monitoring 1. Baffinland implemented a number of changes to the previous 2015-2016 AIS sampling approach (noting see 2017 Marine Effects Monitoring Program program to Ragged Island (MHTO and Fisheries and Oceans that 2010, 2013 and 2014 are considered baseline years) including addition of numerous sampling sites at Environmental Effects (MEEMP)/Aquatic Invasive Canada [DFO]) Milne Port; Monitoring Program (MEEMP) Species (AIS) Program NIRB 2. Program was expanded to include AIS sampling at Ragged Island; and Aquatic Invasive Species Project Certicate (PC) No. 3. Addition of tidal gauge and vertical physical profiles of physical oceanographic parameters in Milne Port. (AIS) Monitoring. 005 Terms and Conditions 2018 General request following 2017 sampling year to increase 1. a) Two new sediment sampling stations added along East Transect to account for future expansion (Freight see 2018 Marine 76, 83 (a), 85, 87, 99, 113, sampling (QIA; M-15032018), including: Dock); Environemental Effects 114, 126 1. Request addition of benthic infauna as an Environmental b) Addition of benthic infaunal sampling to the distance-gradient design, replacing epifauna and macroflora Monitoring Program (MEEMP) Effects Monitoring (EEM) indicator for the MEEMP program previously completed through towed underwater video transect surveys. Infaunal samples collected along and Aquatic Invasive Species (QIA, Environment and Climate Change Canada [ECCC], DFO; three transects (North, West, East) with programs radial design, and in concert with sediment sampling. Program report. 2017 MEEMP/AIS report comments, M-06062018); Sediment sampling and infaunal sampling was increased from 5 sampling stations on each transect to 15 2. Request establishment of permanent belt transects in the sampling stations per transect based on input from MEWG and requirement to increase statisticial power (and MEEMP program in lieu of epibenthic/epifloral underwater hence increase sampling intensity/sample sizes. Baffinland also relocated several benthic infaunal sampling towed video surveys along historical transect lines (un- stations (15-25 m) that were part of the 2014-2017 AIS monitoring to new locations along the three existing marked) (QIA, PCa; 2017 MEEMP/AIS report comments, M- MEEMP transects used for EEM; 06062018). 2. Addition of a Before-After-Control-Impact (BACI) approach along transect lengths, using 10 permanent belt 3. Request to extend duration of the fish monitoring program transects (5 Exposure and 5 Reference locations) and monitoring using a remotely operated vehicle (ROV) to occur over a longer extent of the open-water seaosn than in underwater video system and removal of towed video surveys for benthic epifauna and epiflora along previous years of monitoring and expand types of sampling transect lengths. gear used (2017 MEEMP/AIS report comments; M-06062018); 3. Baffinland extended its fish sampling program to run over four weeks in 2018, therefore doubling of 4. Request to use other species other than char in tissue/body duration from 2017 over which fish sampling occurs. New sampling gear/existing sampling method burden monitoring as part of MEEMP program, given that modifications (eg., gillnetting, Fukui traps, angling, beach seines) to improve fish catch rates and expand Arctic char are not resident in marine environment throughout diversity of species captured. year (2017 MEEMP/AIS report comments; M-06062018, M- 4. Addition of local shellfish species H. Arctica in addition to incidental mortalities of Arctic char for tissue 06212019); sampling. 5. Request expansion of AIS program including undertaking 5. Baffinland expanded AIS program to include remotely operated vehicle (ROV) with underwater video ship hull biofouling through dive program (2017 MEEMP/AIS capacity in 2018 to assess biofouling on ships as an alternative monitoring tool to proposed dive program report comments; M-06062018); due to unamanageable safety concerns and administrative restrictions. Taxonomic data collected through 6. Request integrating into AIS program the use of an increased sampling used to inform Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) / Non-indigenous species (NIS) surveillance independent secondary taxonomic lab for taxonomic monitoring; deployment of AIS settlement plates in sets so their recovery can be staggered to allow for longer verification of potential AIS. At DFO’s request, Université Laval soak duration and thereby the collection of older specimens of the fouling taxa that are easier to identify. (Dr. Philippe Archambaults’ Benthic Ecology Lab) was selected 6. Baffinland has integrated into the AIS program the use of an independent taxonomic lab for taxonomic for this purpose, as this is DFO’s arctic specialist lab which verification of potential AIS since 2018, and specifically has sent samples to Université Laval (Dr. Philippe they rely on for their invasive species work (DFO, QIA, PC, Archambaults’ Benthic Ecology Lab), as recommended through MEWG review. Oceans North [ON], World Wildlife Fund (WWF); 2018 MEEMP/AIS report comments).

Notes: Bolded items indicate that discussions may still be ongoing or that Baffinland will not be addressing the request (with Baffinland response). The key source of the Marine Environment Working Group (MEWG) feedback received is provided by referencing either MEWG meeting date(s) (e.g., M- ddmmyyyy), when change(s) were requested and/or comments were raised (though may not necessarily include all meetings over which topic was discussed) or through comments received during the various marine monitoring program report review processes, including Annual Reports to the NIRB.

Page 3 of 12 Table 2: Summary of Program Components and/or Program Design Modifications in Consideration of Marine Environment Working Group (MEWG) Feedback

Summary of New Program Components and/or Program Design Modifications in Consideration of MEWG Monitoring Program Year MEWG Feedback (annual program reports or meetings) Feedback Reported in Marine Environmental 2019 1. Evaluate existing program design's statistical power by 1. Baffinland completed an a priori power analysis in 2018 which informed the 2019 sampling design (power see 2019 Marine Effects Monitoring Program running power analyses on existing datasets with each year of analysis results indicated a need to increase sampling effort). The MEEMP sampling design was subsequently Environmental Effects (MEEMP)/Aquatic Invasive sampling (QIA, DFO, PC; 2018 MEEMP/AIS report comments, modified in 2019 to satisfy statistical power requirements for detection of Project effects, as outlined in the Monitoring Program (MEEMP) Species (AIS) Program NIRB M-23042019, 2018 MEEMP Report. Note that following the analysis of MEEMP data collected in 2019, power analyses were and Aquatic Invasive Species Project Certicate (PC) No. M-21062019); completed and included in the 2019 MEEMP Report: (AIS) Monitoring Program 005 Terms and Conditions 2. Request adding additional sampling stations along each 2. Following the results of the power analysis, benthic infauna and sediment sampling stations were changed (including Appendix O). 76, 83 (a), 85, 87, 99, 113, transect for benthic and sediment sampling to increase power to a larger radial gradient design increasing from four transects with 5 stations to five transects with 15 114, 126 of detection (DFO, QIA; 2018 MEEMP/AIS report comments, M- stations (i.e., tripling of samples) to improve statistical power and the ability to detect Project-related effects 23042019, M-21062019, M-25022020); (though only 10 of 15 were completed in 2019 due to logistical constraints). Separate AIS stations were not 3. Request addition of a new offshore transect in the MEEMP sampled due to the expansion of the benthic sampling program. Benthic infauna and sediment samples were benthic and sediment quality sampling program-extending in a collected using a standard Ponar grab and a Van Veen grab, increasing the sample volumes and surface areas; northeast direction from the ore dock. This was to cover new Also change in composite sampling where 3 subsamples composited into single sample for each station; area where floating freight dock and proposed second ore 3. Addition of 5th transect (Northeast Transect) in consideration of Freight Dock and potential future second dock will be located (QIA, DFO; 2018 MEEMP/AIS report Ore Dock. North Transect renamed to Northeast Transect; comments; M-23042019, M-21062019, M-25022020); 4. Modification to Fukui traps implemented explored and change in fish sampling gear to include fyke net to 4. Request modifications to Fukui traps to increase catch rate assess its potential for eventual replacement of Fukui traps. Baffinland incorporated feedback in 2019 on (literature shared by QIA – incorporated into sampling increased jigging and gill net sampling effort to allow for more consistent and repeatable fish sampling methods), and also varying sampling methodology (location, between monitoring years in MEEMP Program; depth, bait, checking frequency) to increase catch rate (QIA; 5. Baffinland expanded sampling methods in 2019 and included the use of fyke nets. 2018 MEEMP/AIS report comments; M-23042019; M- 6. Baffinland expanded program design in 2019 and implemented in 2020 (could not be done in 2019 due to 21062019); late arrival of research vessel) to included bottom trawls to MEEMP fish sampling program to target other 5. Request addition of hoop/fyke nets to MEEMP fish sampling potentially missed species (e.g., Arctic cod). program to compensate for low catch in Fukui traps (DFO, 7. Fish tissue sampling expanded to include sculpin species in 2019; QIA; 2018 MEEMP/AIS report comments, M-23042019, M- 8. Shellfish H. arctica samples submitted for age analysis instead of collecting length and weight 21062019); measurements in the field and in consideration of aging protocol; Consideration of unique Arctic char age 6. Request introduction of bottom trawls to MEEMP fish reading by aging lab. sampling program (QIA, DFO) to target other potentially 9. Baffinland modified program design in 2019 to use higher resolution video equipment with improved missed species (e.g. Arctic cod) (DFO, QIA; 2018 MEEMP/AIS lighting for ship hull monitoring. Baffinland also investigating a reasonably practical and safe means to collect report comments; M-23042019; M-21062019); biological samples from ship hulls for taxonomic identification. Ship hull monitoring effort increased to 6 7. Recommendation to do ageing study of H. arctica so this vessels. (An even higher resolution ROV was also used in 2020 to further address concerns.) information can be used to interpret any changes in growth 10. Vertical physical profiles of water quality parameters including temperature, salinity, conductivity, and metal update. This was because this species was shown to turbidity, pH, chlorophyll-a, and dissolved oxygen were taken north of Ragged Island in Eclipse Sound in have an extended lifespan (+100 years) in Greenland and August and September. Increased spatial coverage of vertical physical profiles of conductivity/salinity, therefore might not be an ideal indicator species for Project temperature and depth (i.e. CTD profiles) near Milne Port following deployment and recovery of Physical body burden tracking. (QIA) Oceanographic moorings; 8. Arctic char age determinations be verified by expert with 11. Background review of potential sea level rise in Nunavut to provide context to ongoing continuous extensive experience reading char otoliths as they can be fairly monitoring of water levels at Milne Port Ore Dock in the open-water season. Background review of hydrology long-lived species (methodology provided). (QIA; 2018 and geomorphology in Phillips Creek Estuary to assess the potential for natural sediment redistribution at the MEEMP/AIS report comments); head of Milne Inlet;

Notes: Bolded items indicate that discussions may still be ongoing or that Baffinland will not be addressing the request (with Baffinland response). The key source of the Marine Environment Working Group (MEWG) feedback received is provided by referencing either MEWG meeting date(s) (e.g., M- ddmmyyyy), when change(s) were requested and/or comments were raised (though may not necessarily include all meetings over which topic was discussed) or through comments received during the various marine monitoring program report review processes, including Annual Reports to the NIRB.

Page 4 of 12 Table 2: Summary of Program Components and/or Program Design Modifications in Consideration of Marine Environment Working Group (MEWG) Feedback

Summary of New Program Components and/or Program Design Modifications in Consideration of MEWG Monitoring Program Year MEWG Feedback (annual program reports or meetings) Feedback Reported in Marine Environmental 9. Recommendation of using higher resolution video 12. Additional water quality sampling completed as part of 2019 monitoring at 4 standard stations in radial Effects Monitoring Program equipment for ship hull monitoring for biofouling including pattern offshore from discharge point and sampled 6 times over ~ 6 weeks (1 week longer than in 2018, as (MEEMP)/Aquatic Invasive improved lighting systems was incorporated into AIS Program recommended by MEWG). Species (AIS) Program NIRB (QIA, DFO, WWF, ON; 2018 MEEMP/AIS program report Project Certicate (PC) No. comments); 005 Terms and Conditions 10. Installation of oceanographic moorings in study area and 76, 83 (a), 85, 87, 99, 113, increased CTD depth profiling to better understand physical 114, 126 oceanographic conditions in Milne Inlet, to be used to further inform monitoring programs and ballast water dispersion (including modelling). (QIA; 2018 MEEMP/AIS program report comments); M-21062019) 11. Undertake further study to determine influence of Phillips Creek on MEEMP results (QIA; 2018 MEEMP/AIS report comments, M-21062019, M-05032020); 12. Additional water quality sampling requested. Will tie into general monitoring and ballast water dispersion model prediction including a sensitivity analysis using actual ballast water volume, temperature and salinity measurements recorded during 2018 shipping operations (QIA, PC, DFO; 2018 MEEMP/AIS program report comments; M-21062019, M- 25022020).

2020 1. Follow-up request adding additional sampling stations along 1. Following the results of a power analysis in 2019, benthic infauna and sediment sampling stations were Additional details to be each transect for benthic and sediment sampling to increase changed to a larger radial gradient design increasing from four transects with 5 stations to five transects with provided as part of 2020 power of detection (DFO, QIA; 2018 MEEMP/AIS report 15 stations each to improve statistical power and the ability to detect Project-related effects. All stations were reporting efforts. comments, M-23042019, M-21062019, M-25022020); successfully sampled in 2020; 2. Suggestion for collection of specimens for DNA analysis 2. Baffinland has modified sampling program to include the retention of samples for subsequent DNA analysis. (DFO; 2019 MEEMP/AIS report comments, M-25062020) 3. Baffinland will continue to discuss the development of a biological sampling plan with DFO. Baffinland 3. Suggestion that water sampling be timed to occur during had previously committed to implementing a program based on DFO guidance and this was intended to be active discharging ballast water for subsequent eDNA completed in 2020. Due to logistical limitations associated with COVID-19, Baffinland was unable to sampling (though limitation in discrimating between live complete this program. Initial resolution with DFO is that DFO will lead a field program in support of the versus dead samples) (DFO; 2019 MEEMP/AIS report development of a risk-based approach for future compliance monitoring. comments, M-25062020).

Notes: Bolded items indicate that discussions may still be ongoing or that Baffinland will not be addressing the request (with Baffinland response). The key source of the Marine Environment Working Group (MEWG) feedback received is provided by referencing either MEWG meeting date(s) (e.g., M- ddmmyyyy), when change(s) were requested and/or comments were raised (though may not necessarily include all meetings over which topic was discussed) or through comments received during the various marine monitoring program report review processes, including Annual Reports to the NIRB.

Page 5 of 12 Table 2: Summary of Program Components and/or Program Design Modifications in Consideration of Marine Environment Working Group (MEWG) Feedback

Summary of New Program Components and/or Program Design Modifications in Consideration of MEWG Monitoring Program Year MEWG Feedback (annual program reports or meetings) Feedback Reported in BRUCE HEAD SHORE-BASED MONITORING PROGRAM Bruce Head Shore-based Up to 2018 1. Request to supplement visual observations with drone Baffinland to consider these during future Bruce Head implementation since shore-based program was not see 2014-2017 Final Data Monitoring Program footage as a means to verify observation counts and correct possible in 2018. Integration Report: Bruce Relevant to PC Conditions for observation bias under conditions of low visibitiy or Head Shore-based Monitoring. 99, 101, 109, 110, 111, 112, increased distance. 126 2. Consider alternate locations for the observation platform to allow for the inclusion of new strata that would allow to assess non-travel-based narwhal behaviour (e.g., sedentary types such as milling, foraging, etc.); 3. Shore-based monitoring approach better than alternative method used in 2018 (MHTO; M-09132019)

2019 1. Consideration of integrating passive acoustic monitoring 1. Baffinland resumed its shore-based monitoring program at Bruce Head in 2019 and 2020 with modifications see 2019 Bruce Head Shore- with marine mammal observations made at Bruce Head and to the study design to provide a more comprehensive approach for assessing potential effects to narwhal based Monitoring Program tagging program (M-10122018); from Project-related activities. JASCO undertook a passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) in 2019 and 2020 that Report (Golder Report); 2020 2. Assess existing program design statistical power by running was run concurrently with the Bruce Head Program and involved the deployment of underwater recording Bruce Head Shore-based power analyses on existing datasets (M-06212019) stations directly in front of the Bruce Head survey platform within sighting range of Bruce Head observers Monitoring Report (Golder 3. General request to improve Bruce Head monitoring surveys such to be able to integrate changes in narwhal vocal behaviour in concert with observed changes in relative Report, pending); 2017-2018 to better characterize marine mammal behavioural responses abundance, distribution and behaviour (as recorded by Bruce Head observers). Related to this work, Golder Integrated Narwhal Tagging to vessel exposure events, group composition estimates, and JASCO, on behalf of Baffinland, have partnered with the University of New Brunswick (UNB) to undertake Program; 2019 Passive Relative abundance and distribution (RAD), etc. including several investigations that aim to link shipping noise levels obtained from the multi-year PAM program and Acoustic Monitoring Program installation of physical oceanography mooring at Bruce Head changes in narwhal behaviour as recorded from the Bruce Head program (i.e., to investigate the relationship (JASCO Report); 2020 Passive to correlate narwhal behaviour with tide/current levels between behavioural responses observed in the monitoring programs and estimated received sound levels Acoustic Monitoring Program (QIA/DFO; M-06212019, M-02252020); experienced by marine mammals). Two Master of Science (MSc) graduate students from UNB are leading this Report (JASCO Report, 4. Develop a means to determine detection in furthest work under the direction of Dr. John Terhune (Professor Emeritus in the Department of Biology, UNB). Sam pending), Golder Technical offshore strata (PC, QIA; M-06212019). Sweeney (MSc Candidate #1) is specifically looking at broadband noise perception by narwhal related to Memorandum: Movement of 5. Request to increase survey effort to capture more ship Baffinland shipping in the Regional Study Area (RSA). This work has involved applying a narwhal-specific tagged narwhal (Monodon transit events and increase overall samples size (MHTO, QIA, auditory weighting function to ship noise recorded at the Bruce Head PAM recorders to determine the monoceros ) in relation to DFO, WWF) durations and amplitudes of broadband noise from individual ore carriers as they transit over the recording icebreaking operations and 6. Suggest further increasing survey effort so that more stations (representing the sound levels that would be perceived by narwhals in their receiving environment). associated vessel traffic during transits are recorded over the sampling season (DFO; 2019 Using this information, Sam Sweeney has integrated ship movement data (available from Automatic the 2018 fall shoulder season; Bruce Head Shore-based Monitoring Program comments). Identification System [AIS] ship tracking system) to assess the sound output from transiting vessels as a Golder Technical 7. MEWG has questioned the validity of using a 10 km function of vessel distance, vessel travel direction and vessel orientation. Using existing Bruce Head Memorandum: Summary exposure zone behavioural datasets from 2017 and 2019 and existing PAM datasets from 2014, 2015, 2018 and 2019, Sam results for the 2019 Marine 8. Consideration of including assessment of potential hunting Sweeney's overall study objective is to evaluate if there is a relationship between perceived broadband noise Mammal Monitoring Programs effects into analysis going forward (QIA; 2019 Bruce Head levels and observed surface behavioural responses of narwhal to shipping. This work is presented in Sam Shore-based Program report comments). Sweeney's MSc thesis which was formally submited to UNB and his committee in January 2021.

Notes: Bolded items indicate that discussions may still be ongoing or that Baffinland will not be addressing the request (with Baffinland response). The key source of the Marine Environment Working Group (MEWG) feedback received is provided by referencing either MEWG meeting date(s) (e.g., M- ddmmyyyy), when change(s) were requested and/or comments were raised (though may not necessarily include all meetings over which topic was discussed) or through comments received during the various marine monitoring program report review processes, including Annual Reports to the NIRB.

Page 6 of 12 Table 2: Summary of Program Components and/or Program Design Modifications in Consideration of Marine Environment Working Group (MEWG) Feedback

Summary of New Program Components and/or Program Design Modifications in Consideration of MEWG Monitoring Program Year MEWG Feedback (annual program reports or meetings) Feedback Reported in Bruce Head Shore-based 9. Suggest including the distance of vessel from monitored Sam's MSc defense is planned for April 2021. Sam's research on this topic is expected to be submitted for see Golder Technical Monitoring Program animals during surveys - Baffinland has indicated limitations to publication in a scientific journal in 2021. Crystal Prieur (MSc Candidate #2) is using existing 2018 and 2019 Memorandum: Summary Relevant to PC Conditions this approach through use of UAVs in 2020 and by assessing PAM data from Bruce Head and concurrent ship movement (AIS) data to evaluate potential changes in results for the 2019 Marine 99, 101, 109, 110, 111, 112, received noise levels and associated changes in behaviour narwhal vocal behaviour in relation to Baffinland shipping activities. This work will be presented in Crystal Mammal Monitoring 126 (2019 Bruce Head Shore-based Program report comments). Prieur's MSc thesis which is scheduled for completion in Q4 2021. Crystal Prieur's MSc defense will occur Programs; Golder Technical shortly thereafter and her research is expected to be submitted for publication in a scientific journal in early Memorandum: Golder Review 2022. Golder and JASCO have also been engaged in a collaborative study that aims to correlate mother-calf of Jones (2020) Draft Report: behavioural information collected by visual observers at Bruce Head with narwhal vocalization data collected 'Passive Acoustic Monitoring in 2019 and 2020. This represents an exploratory analysis of mother-calf contact calls based on an integration of Underwater Radiated Noise of visual behavioural data from Bruce Head and passive acoustic data from Bruce Head. This study aims to from Ships in Eclipse Sound, identify unique mother-calf contact calls (similar to those reported in beluga) which could then subsequently Nunavut (2018-2019). be used to test for changes in mother-calf vocal communication relative to ship noise. Finally, Golder/JASCO, on behalf of Baffinland, have undertaken additional analyses to incorporate measured ship sound levels collected as part of JASCO's PAM Program with numerical acoustic modelling, in order to link behavioural responses observed in tagged narwhal (as collected from the 2017 and 2018 narwhal tagging program) with estimated received levels from shipping experienced by narwhal at specific exposure distances. Results from this work have been used to investigate whether or not specific broadband received sound levels are correlated to a consistent behavioural response demonstrated by narwhal in the presence of shipping. Results from this work are presented in a Golder Report entitled 'Narwhal Behavioural Responses Relative to Vessel Exposure Distances and the 120 dB Disturbance Threshold', which will be included as a companion document to Baffinland's 2020 Annual Report to NIRB (planned for submission in Q1 of 2021). This work serves to evaluate the appropriateness of using the exisiting 120 dB disturbance threshold for narwhal with respect to the assessment of ship noise on narwhal behavioural responses (and would validate whether there is need for a possible refinement /or adjustment of the existing 120 dB disturbance threshold). This is a complex exercise, and has taken considerable effort to date to achieve this objective with a reasonable level of confidence. As demonstrated above, Baffinland's marine mammal monitoring programs and PAM programs are inherently integrated. 2. Power analyses were completed for the 2019 Bruce Head program (as well as for Baffinland's other statistically-based marine mammal monitoring programs) to assess the statistical power for this program. This included performing a series of model simulations to quantify the model's statistical power to detect various effect sizes (see Appendix E for details). These will be continued into future years including 2020. 3. An unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) or drone-based survey component was introduced in 2019 (and continued in 2019) which was intended to improve monitoring of marine mammal behavioural respones and changes in group composition relative to shipping. The UAV was also used to ground truth sightability of narwhal in the various study strata from the vantage point of the observation platform (including testing for the ability for observers to detect narwhal in the furthest strata). The UAV also provided detailed information on narwhal presence in the vicinity of acoustic recorders in order to correlate visual observations of narwhal with acoustic behaviour. Further to this, the Stratified Study Area (SSA) boundary was expanded to include substrata (J1 and J2) at the mouth of Koluktoo Bay to further evaluate narwhal movements at the mouth of Koluktoo Bay in relation to vessel traffic (strata K and L too far as suggested by QIA); only strata J and exising

Notes: Bolded items indicate that discussions may still be ongoing or that Baffinland will not be addressing the request (with Baffinland response). The key source of the Marine Environment Working Group (MEWG) feedback received is provided by referencing either MEWG meeting date(s) (e.g., M- ddmmyyyy), when change(s) were requested and/or comments were raised (though may not necessarily include all meetings over which topic was discussed) or through comments received during the various marine monitoring program report review processes, including Annual Reports to the NIRB.

Page 7 of 12 Table 2: Summary of Program Components and/or Program Design Modifications in Consideration of Marine Environment Working Group (MEWG) Feedback

Summary of New Program Components and/or Program Design Modifications in Consideration of MEWG Monitoring Program Year MEWG Feedback (annual program reports or meetings) Feedback Reported in Bruce Head Shore-based A-I will be included going forward into 2020. An oceanographic mooring was installed in 2019, and data was Monitoring Program collected and analyzed as part of the 2019 Bruce Head monitoring study to incorporate potential influence of Relevant to PC Conditions tide in the model. 99, 101, 109, 110, 111, 112, 4. See response above. 126 5. See response to #6 6. Golder increased its survey effort in 2019 by extending the period of daily observations from 8-10 hours in 2017 to 16 -18 hours in 2019 and 2020. To accomplish this, Baffinland had to relocate the living camp from 1.5 km inland to the cliff site so that observers were closer to the observation platform (and eliminate the 1 hour walk each way each day). Baffinland also doubled the number of observers starting in 2019 (and extending into 2020) to achieve 16 to 18 hours of sampling effort per day (compared to 8 to 10 hours in 2017). Also improved down time due to weather. Due to logistical constraints of maintaining an operational camp, the field program cannot be extended over the entire shipping season. 7. Analysis approach based on restriction of exposure zone from 15 km to 10 km based on noise modeling and tagging efforts. Baffinland has provided multiple lines of evidence supporting its approach to narwhal-vessel exposure event analyses. This is described in detail in Golder's review of Jones (2020) draft report (Golder 2021). 8. Hunting effect has been considered in the Bruce Head analyses since 2015. However, this was more systematically integrated starting in 2019 by installing in-air acoustic recorders above the Bruce Head hunting camp which serve to record gun shots from local hunting activities, which is then processed and integrated into the Bruce Head database. This allowed for hunting to be included in the analyses with hunting included as a co-variable in the model. 9. Distance from vessel is more adequately analyzed as part of the narwhal tagging program, as this is the only program in which precise locations are simulteanously available for both narwhal and ships. This metric is already integrated in the tagging report. Distance between narwhal and vessel is also evaluated indirectly in the Bruce Head Program by considering in the analysis the relative distance between individual survey strata and Project vessels - in relation to observed changes in relative abundance, group composition and behaviour.

Notes: Bolded items indicate that discussions may still be ongoing or that Baffinland will not be addressing the request (with Baffinland response). The key source of the Marine Environment Working Group (MEWG) feedback received is provided by referencing either MEWG meeting date(s) (e.g., M- ddmmyyyy), when change(s) were requested and/or comments were raised (though may not necessarily include all meetings over which topic was discussed) or through comments received during the various marine monitoring program report review processes, including Annual Reports to the NIRB..

Page 8 of 12 Table 2: Summary of Program Components and/or Program Design Modifications in Consideration of Marine Environment Working Group (MEWG) Feedback

Summary of New Program Components and/or Program Design Modifications in Consideration of MEWG Monitoring Program Year MEWG Feedback (annual program reports or meetings) Feedback Reported in Bruce Head Shore-based 2020 1. Request that noise from different vessel types be assessed 1. Sampling design to include higher daily observer effort (up to ~20 hours of daily coverage per day); due to Additional updates to be Monitoring Program through noise monitoring (QIA; 2019 Bruce Head Monitoring logistical constraints of maintaining an operational camp, the field program cannot be extended over the provided as part of 2020 Relevant to PC Conditions Program report comments); entire shipping season and is therefore restricted to run over ~4 weeks during peak narwhal activity. reporting efforts. 99, 101, 109, 110, 111, 112, 2. Consider use of UAV to assess the difference in narwhal 2. Use of UAV to monitor changes in group composition and behavioural in the Behavioural Study Area (BSA) 126 response to north- and southbound vessels to the difference relative to shipping activities, monitor the study area concurrently with shore-based observations to confirm in vessel noise propagation (QIA; 2019 Bruce Head Monitoring sightings information, monitor changes in abundance and behaviour of marine mammals in a defined study Program report comments). area in Koluktoo Bay (outside of visual range of the platform), evaluate detection performance (i.e., ability to 3. Support for continuation of behavioural data (QIA; M- effectively detect animals) in the distal portions of the study area, and assess vocal behaviour of of narwhal 02252020) groups in relation to vessel traffic through visual-acoustic correlation (VAC) study report. 3. Further restriction of the exposure zone to better assess close proximity effects (≤3 km) with the goal of increasing statistical power to detect potential effects of shipping on narwhal behaviour and group composition (supporting EWI work). 4. Hunting effect to be considered for subsequent analyses (though for 2019 onwards only) given that wildlife acoustic recorders were only installed starting in 2019. 5. Inclusion of animal density estimates as part of RAD analyses completed in SSA to account for potential differences in relative density between stratum. 6. Assessment of noise emitted by different vessel types (QIA); Baffinland notes that this is being pursued as part of graduate student's thesis at UNB, as described further above for year 2019. PASSIVE ACOUSTIC MONITORING PROGRAM Passive Acoustic Monitoring 2018 Request for acoustic recorders to be deployed in various Acoustic recorders deployed at 5 sites in Milne Inlet in 2018 (near Bruce Head, south Milne Inlet and Koluktoo see 2018 Passive Acoustic Program locations in Eclipse Sound and Milne Inlet (M-06062018) Bay). Acoustic recorders deployed at 5 sites in 2019 (3 near Bruce Head and Koluktoo Bay, 1 near Ragged Monitoring Program Report. Relevant to PC conditions Island and 1 near Bylot Island. The Ragged and Bylot recorders stayed in over winter to record icebreaker 101, 105, 109, 110, 111, noise during shoulder seasons. Acoustic recorders deployed at 1 site in 2020 near Bruce Head. In 2021, there 112, 184 are plans to deploy several acoustic recorders at the floe edge east of Pond Inlet. 2019 1. Request to deploy additional acoustic recorders in 1.a) Address previous data gaps related to vessel-related disturbance effects on narwhal into program designsee 2019 Passive Acoustic other parts of the RSA to better understand ship noise levels through deployment of three underwater acoustic monitoring stations near Bruce Head over a two-month Monitoring Program - Final in those areas, including proportion of time sound levels period to measure shipping noise levels and underwater vocalizations in concert with visual-based Report. exceeded 120 dB. (QIA, DFO, PC, ON, WWF; 2019 Bruce Head observations from the platform. Also see response above for 2018. Monitoring Program report comments; M-23042019, M- b) Baffinland also installed one AMAR in Eclipse Sound (near Bylot Island) and one AMAR in Northern Milne 06212019, M-07102019). Inlet (near Ragged Island) during the 2019 field season (and two units redeployed to overwinter from 2019- 2020 during freeze-up and break-up), with recordings collected over ice-covered periods and during open water period. c) Integration of acoustic data collection and Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) survey into program design to ground truth sightability of narwhal from the vantage point of the observation platform and provide snapshots of number of animals in the vicinity of acoustic recorders in order to correlate visual observations of narwhal with acoustic behaviour (carried over into 2020 due to logistical challenges related to UAV operation in 2019). d) JASCO has been contracted by Baffinland to improve the detector (work in progress) based on improved training algorithms

Notes: Bolded items indicate that discussions may still be ongoing or that Baffinland will not be addressing the request (with Baffinland response). The key source of the Marine Environment Working Group (MEWG) feedback received is provided by referencing either MEWG meeting date(s) (e.g., M- ddmmyyyy), when change(s) were requested and/or comments were raised (though may not necessarily include all meetings over which topic was discussed) or through comments received during the various marine monitoring program report review processes, including Annual Reports to the NIRB.

Page 9 of 12 Table 2: Summary of Program Components and/or Program Design Modifications in Consideration of Marine Environment Working Group (MEWG) Feedback

Summary of New Program Components and/or Program Design Modifications in Consideration of MEWG Monitoring Program Year MEWG Feedback (annual program reports or meetings) Feedback Reported in Passive Acoustic Monitoring 2020 1. Avoid/reduce number of deployed acoustic stations in 2020 1. Limit monitoring to single underwater acoustic monitoring station deployed and retrieved in 2020 during Additional updates to be Program due to concerns that they emit noise and displace marine open-water season. provided as part of 2020 Relevant to PC conditions mammals (MHTO; End of 2019 Shipping Meeting; M- 2. In Q4 of 2020, JASCO prepared a technical memorandum entitled 'Vessel Source Level Estimates for the reporting efforts; JASCO 101, 105, 109, 110, 111, 02252020, M-25062020); 2018 and 2019 Shipping Seasons' which is considered a supplement to the 2018 and 2019 Passive Acoustic Technical Memorandum: 112, 184 2. Assess individual vessel noise scapes (ON; 2019 Passive Monitoring reports (Frouin-Mouy et al. 2019, 2020). This memo provides a more specific characterization of Vessel Source Level Estimates Acoustic Monitoring Program report comments); the sound emissions from individual Project vessels (all project vessel types), including an analysis of for the 2018 and 2019 3. Suggest improvements for the automated vocalization individual vessel noise sound signatures. Shipping Seasons: Baffinland detector to better refine calls from different species (e.g. killer 3. In 2020, JASCO undertook additional work to improve/enhance the automated vocalization detector to Mary River Project – 2018 and whale vs. narwhal). (QIA/DFO; 2019 Passive Acoustic better refine narwhal vocalizations and calls from other species, based on improved training algorithms. The 2019 Open Water Shipping Monitoring Program report comments). detector is now being used reliably as part of the ongoing PAM programs and acoustic assignments/analyses. Seasons.

SHIP-BASED OBSERVER PROGRAM Ship-based Observer (SBO) Up to 2017 Revisit implementation of program when opportunities for N/A N/A Program safe vessel boarding are available in addition to vessel Relevant to PC conditions providing marine wildlife observers adequate sighting 106, 108, 121, 122, 123, 126 opportunities 2018 1. Support for re-establishing the SBO program provided 1. Program was resumed in 2018 and was implemented from the icebreaker MSV Botnica (due to COVID-19 see 2018 Ship-based Observer adequate vessel is secured. restriction, the SBO program could not be completed in 2020). Deployed marine wildlife observers (MWOs) Program Report. 2. General ongoing request to maximize Inuit participation in including Inuit researchers on MSV Botnica when in transit. These MWOs were trained in both marine wildlife programs; and seabird data collection techniques. 3. Request to include daily or weekly ice charts as part of SBO 2. Baffinland hired increasing number of Inuit researchers in marine monitoring programs (2017 = 12; 2018 11;= technical report to compare sightings data with ice conditions 2019 = 23; Inuit from Nunavut communities could not be hired in 2020 due to COVID-19 restrictions); (QIA, PC, DFO; 2018 SBO Monitoring report comments). 3. Ice conditions included in 2018 reporting but reporting format will be reevaluated for 2019. 4. Request to adopt standardized methods (i.e., the 4. Seabird surveys were completed according to ECSAS protocols for moving platforms and data was providedto Environment Canada Seabird at Sea (ECSAS) survey protocol Canadian Wildlife Service-Environment Climate Change Canada (CWS-ECCC). for seabird surveys as part of the SBO program (QIA and ECCC; M-06062018)

Notes: Bolded items indicate that discussions may still be ongoing or that Baffinland will not be addressing the request (with Baffinland response). The key source of the Marine Environment Working Group (MEWG) feedback received is provided by referencing either MEWG meeting date(s) (e.g., M- ddmmyyyy), when change(s) were requested and/or comments were raised (though may not necessarily include all meetings over which topic was discussed) or through comments received during the various marine monitoring program report review processes, including Annual Reports to the NIRB.

Page 10 of 12 Table 2: Summary of Program Components and/or Program Design Modifications in Consideration of Marine Environment Working Group (MEWG) Feedback

Summary of New Program Components and/or Program Design Modifications in Consideration of MEWG Monitoring Program Year MEWG Feedback (annual program reports or meetings) Feedback Reported in Ship-based Observer (SBO) 2019 1. General request to modify the data collection methodology 1. Inclusion of representative ice conditions during time of surveys based on 2018 feedback (QIA); (i) Ice cover see 2019 Ship-based Observer Program for the analysis regarding marine mammal behavior including data was collected during active watch periods at two spatial scales ( ice cover in near (< 100 m) and far fields Program Report. Relevant to PC conditions movement characteristics relative to a vessel (by lowering the (> 100 m) 106, 108, 121, 122, 123, 126 number of categories) (2018 SBO report comments; M- ice cover in the far field (> 100 m); (ii) Median and mean ice conditions were used to define sea ice normal 21062019) values; (iii) weekly ice chart maps were produced for inclusion in the annual monitoring report. The 2. Reporting of group sizes to be included when feasible (QIA) relationship between sightability parameters and detection rates was evaluated; with a description of whether these are based on single 2. Seal group size was defined in the SBO training manual and data collection methods for seal group size observations of numerous individuals, or small groups hauled were explained to Inuit researchers during SBO training program. out on large ice floe, though typically group size is considered 3. Inclusion of comparisons of relative marine mammal abundance as part of annual reporting efforts. a collective of animals roughly uniformly distributed within one to five body lengths of one another (Group sizes and definitions should be clearly defined as part of data collection (QIA; 2018 SBO report comments, M-21062019)

2020 - SBO not completed in 2020; alternative incidental sightings program organized through Marine Mammal N/A Observation Network (MMON). MARINE MAMMAL AERIAL SURVEY REPORT Marine Mammal Aerial 2019 1. General request by the MEWG for Baffinland/DFO to re- 1.a) Inclusion of early shoulder season conditions including period of potential narwhal staging at floe edge see 2019 Marine Mammal Survey Report establish marine mammal aerial surveys along the Northern and/or migraion into Eclipse Sound. Aerial Survey Program Report. Relevant to Project Shipping Route to allow for more regular monitoring of b) Aerial surveys to include modifications to transect spacing and grid orientation in the Admiralty Inlet South Certificate Conditions 99, narwhal abundance in the Project area through the life of the stratum, and increasing number of transects in Tremblay Sound, from one to four photographic (DFO); 101, 109, 111, 126 Project (M-15032018, M-23042019). c) Admiralty Inlet originally divided into 3 strata will be changed to two strata (DFO and QIA); 2. Surveys to follow historical survey methods completed by d) Reconnaissance flights to be flown in Eskimo Inlet and White Bay if time allows; DFO (M-23042019, M-21062019). e) Reconnaissance flights of Tay Sound, Paquet Bay, Oliver Sound, added along with northern fjords in 3. General request for Baffinland to assess program design Admiralty Inlet (QIA); statistical power by running power analyses on all relevant 2. Completion of surveys in 2019 using similar methods to historical surveys completed by DFO. program datasets. 3. Completion of power analyses to determine if aerial surveys had sufficient power to determine if negative impacts as a result of vessel noise are occurring.

2020 1. Baffinland to consider running aerial surveys should DFO 1. Similar aerial survey approach to 2019 aerial surveys completed in 2020. Survey dates are based on Additional details to be not be able to complete them in 2020 (M-02252020); restricted flight schedule due to COVID-19 restrictions (Aug 18-Sept 1, 2020). provided as part of 2020 2. Suggestion that surveys be completed earlier in August 2. Power analyses to be undertaken as done in 2019. reporting efforts. (DFO; M-25062020)

Notes: Bolded items indicate that discussions may still be ongoing or that Baffinland will not be addressing the request (with Baffinland response). The key source of the Marine Environment Working Group (MEWG) feedback received is provided by referencing either MEWG meeting date(s) (e.g., M- ddmmyyyy), when change(s) were requested and/or comments were raised (though may not necessarily include all meetings over which topic was discussed) or through comments received during the various marine monitoring program report review processes, including Annual Reports to the NIRB.

Page 11 of 12 Table 2: Summary of Program Components and/or Program Design Modifications in Consideration of Marine Environment Working Group (MEWG) Feedback

Summary of New Program Components and/or Program Design Modifications in Consideration of MEWG Monitoring Program Year MEWG Feedback (annual program reports or meetings) Feedback Reported in NARWHAL TAGGING STUDY Narwhal Tagging Study 2017, 2018 1. Discussions on type of tags to be used during tagging 1. Baffinland worked in collaboration with DFO over two field seasons on the tagging program (2017 and see 2017-2018 Integrated Relevant to Project program led by DFO of which Baffinland is a collaborator (M- 2018). Narwhal Tagging Study. Certificate Conditions 109, 15032018; 2017 Tagging program comments); 2. Two MOTE stations were installed in 2017 (Tremblay and Bruce Head), and two more were installed in 2018 110, 111 2. Recommendation to install shore-based MOTE stations to (Herodier and Emmerson Island). increase tag data recovery for narwhal tagging study (DFO; M- 3. Baffinland committed to completing power analyses to assess whether integrated (2017-2018) had 15032018). sufficient power to detect vessel effects under effect sizes. As requested through MEWG discussions, a power 3. Assess existing program design statistical power by running analysis was completed for each model using simulations that quantified the relevant model's statistical power analyses on existing datasets (general comment power to detect various effect sizes (results available in Appendix C of 2017-2017 Narwhal Tagging Integrated applicable to all programs; M-06212019); report); 4. Baffinland to consider expanding analyses to cover a wider 4. As suggested by DFO, full extent of the Regional Study Area is included in the analysis, though 10 km was region since currently limiting analysis to within 10 km (DFO; defined as the suitable exposure zone based based on a number of factors. Golder is keeping analyses M-06212019); restricted to control for more factors (ie. account for more than just vessels such as hunting, small vessels). 5. Baffinland to consider running aerial survey at the 5. Baffinland planned for and completed aerial surveys in 2019 and 2020. completion of the narwhal Tagging Program (DFO; M- 15032018)

Notes: Bolded items indicate that discussions may still be ongoing or that Baffinland will not be addressing the request (with Baffinland response). The key source of the Marine Environment Working Group (MEWG) feedback received is provided by referencing either MEWG meeting date(s) (e.g., M- ddmmyyyy), when change(s) were requested and/or comments were raised (though may not necessarily include all meetings over which topic was discussed) or through comments received during the various marine monitoring program report review processes, including Annual Reports to the NIRB.

REFERENCES Austin, M and T. Dofher. 2020. Technical Memorandum - Vessel Source Level Estimates for the 2018 and 2019 Shipping Seasons: Baffinland Mary River Project – 2018 and 2019 Open Water Shipping Seasons. Document 02235, Version 1.2. Technical report by JASCO Applied Sciences for Golder Associates Ltd. Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation (Baffinland), 2018. 2017 Annual Report to the Nunavut Impact Review Board. March 31, 2018. Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation (Baffinland), 2019. 2018 Annual Report to the Nunavut Impact Review Board. March 31, 2019. Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation (Baffinland), 2019. Ballast Water Management Plan. Rev 1. March 31, 2019. Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation (Baffinland), 2020. 2019 Annual Report to the Nunavut Impact Review Board. May 15, 2020. Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder), 2018. 2017 Marine Environmental Effects Monitoring Program (MEEMP) and Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) Monitoring. Report submitted to Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation. Report No. 1663724-048-R-Rev0. 20 February 2018. Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder), 2019. 2014-2017 Final Data Integration Report: Bruce Head Shore-based Monitoring. Report submitted to Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation. Report No. 1663724-081-R-Rev1-12000. 30 May 2019. Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder), 2019. 2018 Marine Environmental Effects Monitoring Program (MEEMP) and Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) Monitoring. Report submitted to Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation. Report No. 1663724-092-R-Rev1-14000. 31 May 2019. Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder), 2019. 2018 Ship-based Observer Program. Report submitted to Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation. Report No. 1663724-088-R-Rev0. 30 May 2019. Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder), 2019. Movement of tagged narwhal (Monodon monoceros) in relation to icebreaking operations and associated vessel traffic during the 2018 fall shoulder season. Technical Memorandum 1663724-162-TM-Rev0-12000 Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder), 2020. 2017–2018 Integrated Narwhal Tagging Study Technical Data Report. Report submitted to Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation. Report No. 1663724-188-R-Rev0-12000. 14 August 2020. Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder), 2020. 2019 Bruce Head Shore-based Monitoring Program. Report submitted to Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation. Report No. 1663724-199-R-Rev0-23000. 3 September 2020. Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder), 2020. 2019 Marine Environmental Effects Monitoring Program (MEEMP) and Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) Monitoring. Report submitted to Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation. Report No. 1663724-197-R-Rev0-24000. 27 August 2020. Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder), 2020. 2019 Marine Mammal Aerial Survey. Report submitted to Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation. Report No. 1663724-191-R-Rev0-22000. 5 August 2020. Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder), 2020. 2019 Ship-based Observer Program. Report submitted to Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation. Report No. 1663724-185-R-RevB-31000. 24 July 2020. Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder), 2020. Early Warning Indicators for Marine Mammals. Technical memorandum prepared for Baffinland Iron Mines. August 20, 2020. Technical Memorandum No. 1663724-231-TM-Rev0-38000. Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder), 2020. Summary results for the 2019 Marine Mammal Monitoring Programs. Technical Memorandum 1663724-186-TM-Rev3-38000. 25 May 2020. 73 p. Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder), 2021. Golder Review of Jones 2020 Draft Report: 'Passive Acoustic Monitoring of Underwater Radiated Noise from Ships in Eclipse Sound, Nunavut (2018-2019). 18 January 2021. Technical Memorandum No. 1663724-254-TM-RevA-38000 JASCO Applied Sciences (Canada) Ltd., 2019. 2018 Passive Acoustic Monitoring Program Report. Report submitted to Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation. 31 May 2019. JASCO Applied Sciences (Canada) Ltd., 2020. 2019 Passive Acoustic Monitoring Program Report. Report submitted to Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation. 26 August 2020.

Page 12 of 12 Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal

APPENDIX 2 THE QIKIQTANI INUIT ASSOCIATION IR ATTACHMENTS

March 2021

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal

QIA-1 ATTACHMENT 1: FIGURE

March 2021

Detection limits for iron in Arctic Char muscle tissue varied over time, ranging from 15 mg/kg wet weight in 2013, 2015 and 2016 to 0.25 mg/kg in 2018, 2019 and 2020 (Table 1). Detection limits for 2010 could not be determined, but were below observed concentrations for all samples, with a minimum observed concentration of 5.21 mg/kg ww.

Fish tissue chemistry data for Arctic Char were plotted by year using censored box plots. The censored box plots were defined using the minimum concentration, the quartiles, and the maximum concentration. Concentrations 1.5 times the interquartile range beyond the quartiles were considered extreme concentrations and were plotted individually. When extreme concentrations were present, the whiskers were truncated to the next concentration in the dataset that was within 1.5 times the interquartile range beyond the quartiles. The detection limits were plotted with a horizontal line. When concentrations were observed below the detection limit in a given year, the box plots were censored at the detection limit and the distribution of values below the detection limit were not shown, but were plotted at half the detection limit as open circles, with the number of below detection limit samples indicated.

Concentrations of iron appear to have decreased in the Milne Port area from 2010 to 2020 (Figure 1). While it is difficult to make direct comparisons between data collected from 2013 to 2016 to more recent data due to differing detection limits, baseline data collected from Arctic Char in 2010 exhibited greater concentrations of iron than have been observed in recent years.

Table 1: Iron Detection Limits for Arctic Char Muscle Tissue Samples Processed from the Milne Port area, 2010 to 2020.

Iron Detection Limit Year (mg/kg ww) 2010 <5.21 2013 15 2015 15 2016 15 2017 1 2018 0.25 2019 0.25 2020 0.25 mg/kg ww = millgrams per kilogram wet weight; < = less than.

Note: detection limits indicated with a horizontal line. Number of values below detection limits indicated with an open circle. mg/kg ww = milligrams per kilogram wet weight; n= sample size.

Figure 1: Iron Concentrations Measured in Arctic Char Muscle Tissue Sampled from the Milne Port Area, 2010 to 2020.

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal

QIA-8 ATTACHMENT 1: REFERENCE LIST

March 2021

Preamble: Several times during the Public Hearing, the Proponent stated that there is evidence that narwhal are able to habituate to underwater noise, and furthermore that there are numerous examples in the literature of Arctic marine mammals habituating to industrial disturbance.

Question: What evidence (i.e., sources) are there in the peer-reviewed scientific literature that provide empirical support for habituation of Arctic marine mammals, including narwhals and ringed seals, to underwater noise from industrial disturbance?

Response:

Comprehensive studies of narwhal and beluga behavioural responses to icebreaking activities were undertaken during June 1982, 1983 and 1984 in Lancaster Sound (LGL and Greeneridge 1986; Finley et al. 1990). Although strong reactions of narwhal and beluga were observed in responses to vessel noise, the fact that narwhal later returned to the area of disturbance when noise levels were higher than those to which they initially reacted suggests this initial reaction may have been a startle response and that some level of habituation or tolerance may have occurred (LGL and Greeneridge 1986). Finley et al. (1990) also suggested that narwhal and beluga sensitivity to ship noise in Lancaster Sound declined after subsequent exposures. Narwhals showed little or no reaction to ship activities such as start-ups or ice-breaking when the ships were operating within the fast ice away from the edge; they could not discern any influence of received noise levels as high as 120 dB on the level of narwhal vocal activity or on their surface behavior (Finley et al. 1990). Cosens and Dueck (1988) reported less intense reactions by narwhal (and beluga) to icebreakers in 1986 than in previous study years (1982 to 1984); possible explanations included easier avoidance opportunities by animals in 1986 due to sparser ice conditions and/or potential evidence of habituation to icebreaking noise.

As part of the 2017/2018 Integrated Narwhal Tagging Study, habituation was assessed through analyzing the length of time that an identified behavioral response was shown to persist (if present). For example, as noted in section 4.2.3.4 of the Narwhal Tagging Study Report (Golder 2020), a seasonal decrease over time in the distance between a narwhal and the closest point of approach (CPA) of a vessel was predicted to be suggestive of habituation. Results indicated that a marginal decrease in the CPA over time was evident (i.e., 12-15 m/day), suggesting potential habituation, although the findings were not statistically significant. Habituation was also assessed through analyzing habitat re-occupation of vessel tracks following an active transit (section 4.2.3.5 of Tagging Study; Golder 2020). Again, while marginal habituation was potentially evident, findings were not statistically significant.

Examples of ringed seals showing habituation or decreased sensitivity to industrial activity include:

• Richardson et al. (1990b, 1991) made some observation of ringed and bearded seal responses to playbacks of underwater drilling sounds. Their findings generally suggested a fairly high degree of tolerance by exposed pinnipeds to these sounds. • Blackwell et al. (2004) investigated behavioral reactions of ringed seals to impact sounds associated with the driving of steel pipes in the construction of an oil production facility. Multiple strikes were recorded under water at distances up to 3 km from the source. Unweighted peak pressure level, SPL, and SEL measurements were made at various distances. At the closest point (63m), RLs were 151 dB re: 1 uPa (RMS), 157 dB re: 1 uPa (peak), and 145 dB re: 1 ?Pa2- s (SEL). Pulses had measurable components extending to over 10 kHz, although more than 95% of the energy in the signals was below 225 Hz. Individual ringed seals demonstrated no or low- level behavioral responses to pile-driving sounds. Blackwell et al. noted, however, that their data were collected after a prolonged period of intensive construction activity and may reflect the least responsive part of the original population of seals that may have already habituated to the noise source. • Moulton et al. (2003, 2005) conducted surveys of ringed seal distribution before and during the construction and operation of the same oil production facility. Sound sources included nonpulse as well as multiple pulse sources (including impact pile driving). Their observations across multiple seasons indicated little or no behavioral avoidance of the area in response to various industrial activities, most of which emitted nonpulses.

Example of other marine mammals showing habituation or decreased sensitivity to industrial activity include:

• Some beluga populations may become habituated to vessel noise and traffic—particularly frequent passages by large vessels travelling in consistent directions (Burns and Seaman 1985 in Baffinland 2012; Pippard 1985). • Reports of habituation to vessel traffic for sperm whales and harbour porpoises (Richter et al. 2006; Evans et al. 1993 in Baffinland 2012) • Belugas may be habituated to aircraft, as they did not react to repeated overflights by a fixed- wing aircraft (Rugh et al., 2000). • Ringed seals were observed at nearly identical rates with no airguns, one airgun, or when a full airgun array was firing (Harris et al. 2001) • Harbour and grey seals at some haul-out sites appear to have habituated to close approaches by tour boats (Bonner 1982 in Baffinland 2012) • Bowhead whales tolerate increases in seismic survey noises depending on time of the year and the pursued activity (ie: summer feeding vs fall migration) (Weilgart, 2007) • Cuvier’s beaked whales demonstrate habituation to moderate vessel traffic noise levels in Savona and Genova ports, and show unusual deep-diving patterns when encountering ships up close (Soto et al. 2006) • Right whales exhibit strong reaction to alert signals, mild reaction to social cue playbacks, but no reaction to recorded ship sounds or actual ships (Nowacek et al. 2003) • Sperm whales off in Kaikoura area do not seem to experience severe disturbance or harassment from whale-watching activities, further studies needed (Richter et al. 2003) • Aquatic mammals’ behavioural responses shaped by principles of habituation and sensitization (Southall et al. 2007)

Although not requested by QIA, the following is a summary of available IQ that speaks to potential habituation of narwhal to vessel traffic:

“When the ships start entering the area, the narwhals listen to the noise. After the ship continues on, the narwhal return. That’s how they behave. It’s not like they are scared. Narwhals tend to move faster from cruise ships and merchant vessels. Iron ore vessels move a lot slower, so the narwhal seem to tolerate them more. Seals know when the ships are coming before the narwhals do. When the ships are travelling, you see more seals on the shoreline. That is something that we can clearly see… One thing that was evident two years ago, when they were building a dock at Milne Port, is that they would swim away when there were no ships in the area and also when there were no hunters in the area. They seem to tolerate the ships. I don’t want to say bad things about hunters, but narwhals move away from hunters when they hear shooting. When the iron ore carriers move through here, the narwhals always return.” (JPCS 2017)

“Ships don’t bother narwhal much anymore. When a ship is louder and starts its engine, the narwhals run away. They are more afraid when it’s leaving than when it’s coming in. That’s how we see them from Bruce Head. When the work started on the dock, the narwhal would run away because they were putting boulders in the water. The narwhals would come back in the evening. They are more afraid of rocks then ships. I guess they are used to ships now. Seals are braver than narwhal as long as they have distance between them. They will go underwater when the ship comes and then rise up again when it leaves. Narwhals take the newborn calf between them and force it to dive. As they grow they get left alone.” (JPCS 2017)

“The ship track was used by narwhal to migrate in because the ship was opening up the ice. But when the ice breaker came in the narwhals would scatter. After the ice breaker came in and things calmed down, the narwhal came back in. It had a very temporary impact.” (JPCS 2017)

“Regarding the proposed shipping route during the open water season – The people of Pond Inlet already approved the route for summer shipping. We have no objection to that route. The marine mammals, they get used to shipping noise. In the past, when the ships started coming to our area in the 1960s, wildlife would move somewhere else. Nowadays, seals are no longer going to different areas. Sometimes they go not far away, but this is temporary and then they return. We see ore carriers passing through Eclipse Sound. Calving areas for narwhal are near Bruce Head and Tremblay Sound. I’m not talking about winter shipping. We have monitors stationed at the Bruce Head.” (JPCS 2017)

"There was a merchant cargo vessel at Milne Inlet. The ship was unloading supplies and was not making any noise, but then when it moved the narwhal dispersed temporarily. They returned afterwards. They don’t migrate anywhere." (JPCS 2017)

“Narwhals will still have access, even if there is shipping. When we went to Labrador, someone harvested narwhal in the ship track… Narwhals get used to the ship sounds. Marine mammals not being hunted don’t get scared. Once population numbers increase, they are not afraid of anything. You won’t be able to block the route of narwhals, regardless.” (JPCS 2017)

“We can’t really say how much narwhals have been affected by shipping during the summer. I can’t say for certain whether you can see any more narwhals when there are ships in the area. Recently this past summer, as I was on my way home after teaching the younger generation about the procedures, we travelled by helicopter to Milne Inlet to refuel. There were some killer whales near the vicinity of Milne Inlet and there was a dead narwhal carcass floating. One orca had a narwhal in its mouth. One killer whale slammed a narwhal. Killer whales are very fast. Narwhals are more afraid of killer whales than ships. Narwhals don’t seem to mind ships. Once ships are in the area they sometimes disperse, but once the ships have passed they return to the area. The ship that had teeth that was painted on the hull, the narwhals were maybe scared of that ship. Maybe they assumed the narwhal would be bitten by that ship. Those were my observances.” (JPCS 2017)

"I think over time the marine mammals can get used to it. In the early days of the ships, animals used to go right to shore. We see seals behaving normally. It actually benefitted hunters because it herded narwhal close to shore." (JPCS 2017) "In the summer, this [shipping] is the only way to do it. Today there are seals and narwhal moving about normally, they’re used to it. They’re not threatened. If they hear something they don’t like, they’re going to go away from it. In open water, they can go anywhere. Summer is not a problem to me." (JPCS 2017)

"I go on a ship every summer up by Devon Island. We were travelling from Arctic Bay to Pond Inlet. From near Arctic Bay to Pond Inlet there were lots of narwhal, they seem to be trying to get away from us and we were travelling south near Clyde River and there were lots of them. They seem to be trying to get away. Some non-Inuit wanted to take pictures of them even when were not bothering them they seemed to be trying to get away. The next year, I also went on the same ship we travelled up near Alert, up there they didn’t seem to be scared of the ship. When they were going towards the front of the ship our captain had to turn the ship, they were not scared. Maybe they had never seen a ship or they were never hunted from. Those narwhal were not scared of the ship at all. I observed the ones that were scared and those that were not scared of a ship. Those narwhal that were not hunted were not scared and some that had been hunted were getting away fast." (Oolayou 2016)

Additional IQ available following submission of the marine mammal effects assessment and icebreaker assessment:

“"When they started shipping, the narwhal’s behaviour was, I think they were scared of the ships in the beginning, but after a while they weren’t really scared of them anymore, well they were still scared but not as much and I hear last year there was hardly any narwhals out on this area, especially around here and other parts close to Qikiqtaaluk, I think because of the ships. In spring time and summer last year, when I see they were parked just outside Baffin Bay, when the ice started to melt and when it melted, there was maybe three or four ships over here waiting." (QIA 2019)

References:

Blackwell, S.B., J.W. Lawson and M.T. Williams. 2004. Tolerance by ringed seals (Phoca hispida) to impact pipe-driving and construction sounds at an oil production island. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 115(5, Pt. 1):2346-2357.

Bonner, W.N. 1982. Seals and man/a study of interactions. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA. 170 p.

Burns, J. J. and G. A. Seaman. 1985. Investigations of Belukha whales in coastal waters of western and northern Alaska. II. Biology and ecology. Rep. from Alaska Dep. Fish & Game, Fairbanks, AK, for U.S. Natl. Oceanic & Atmos. Admin. (R.U. 612, Contr. No. NA 81 RAC 00049). 129 p.

Evans, P.G.H., E.J. Lewis and P. Fisher. 1993. A study of the possible effects of seismic testing upon cetaceans in the Irish Sea. Rep. by Sea Watch Foundation, Oxford, to Marathon Oil UK Ltd., Aberdeen. 35 p.

Finley, K.J., G. W. Miller, R. A. Davis, and C. R. Greene. 1990. Reactions of belugas, Delphinapterus leucas, and narwhals, Monodon monoceros, to ice-breaking ships in the Canadian high arctic. Canadian Bulletin of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 224:97-117

Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder). 2020. 2017-2018 Integrated Narwhal Tagging Study - Technical Data Report. Mary River Project – Phase 2 Proposal. Report prepared for Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation, Oakville, Ontario. 166 pp. Harris, R.E., G.W. Miller and W.J. Richardson. 2001. Seal responses to airgun sounds during summer seismic surveys in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Marine Mammal Science 17(4):795-812.

Jason Prno Consulting Services Ltd (JPCS). 2017. Technical Supporting Document (TSD) No. 03: Results of Community Workshops Conducted for Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation’s – Phase 2 Proposal. Report submitted to Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation. January 2017.

Moulton, V.D., W.J. Richardson, M.T. Williams, and S.B. Blackwell. 2003. Ringed seal densities and noise near an icebound artificial island with construction and drilling. Acoustic Research Letters Online 4(4):112–117. Available (including sound samples) at http://scitation.aip.org/arlo/.

Moulton, V.D., W.J. Richardson, R.E. Elliott, T.L. McDonald, C. Nations, and M.T. Williams. 2005. Effects of an offshore oil development on local abundance and distribution of ringed seals (Phoca hispida) of the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Marine Mammal Science 21(2):217-242.

Nowacek, D.P., M.P. Johnson, and P.L. Tyack. 2003. North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) ignore ships but respond to alerting stimuli. The Royal Society 271: 227-231.

Oolayou, S. 2016. Submission to the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board: Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit narwhal interviews. Nunavut Wildlife Management Board. 83 p.

Ottenhof J. 2019. Tusaqtavut Study Specific to Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal. Qikiqtani Inuit Association. 181 p.

Pippard, L. 1985. Status of the St. Lawrence River population of beluga, Delphinapterus leucas. Canadian Field Naturalist 99(3):438-450.

Qikiqtani Inuit Association (QIA). 2019. Tusaqtavut Study (Study) on the Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation’s (Proponent) Mary River Project (Project) Phase 2 Proposal. Report submitted to Nunavut

Richter, C., S. Dawson, and E. Slooten. 2003. Sperm whale watching off Kaikoura, New Zealand: effects of current activities on surfacing and vocalisation patterns. Science for Conservation 219. 78 p.

Richter, C., S. Dawson, and E. Slooten. 2006. Impacts of commercial whale watching on male sperm whales at Kaikoura, New Zealand. Marine Mammal Science 22(1):46-63.

Rugh, D. J., K. E. W. Shelden, and B. A. Mahoney. 2000. Distribution of beluga whale, Delphinapterus leucas, in Cook Inlet, Alaska, during June/July 1993-2000. Marine Fisheries Review 63(3):6-21.

Soto, N.A., M. Johnson, P. T. Madsen, P. L. Tyack, A. Bocconcelli, J. F. Borsani. 2006. Does intense ship noise disrupt foraging in deep-diving Cuvier’s beaked whales (Ziphius cavirostris)? Marine Mammal Science. 10 p.

Southall B.L., A.E. Bowles, W.T. Ellison, J. J. Finneran, R. L. Gentry, C.R Greene Jr., D. Kastak, D.R. Ketten, J.H. Miller, P.E., Nachtigall, W.J. Richardson, J. A. Thomas, and P.L Tyack. 2007. Marine Mammal Noise Exposure Criteria: Initial Scientific Recommendations. Aquatic Mammals 33(4): 521 p.

Weilgart, L. S. 2007. A brief review of known effects of noise on marine mammals. International Journal of Comparative Psychology 20(2). 11 p.

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal

QIA-9 ATTACHMENT 1: RINGED SEAL MOULTING

March 2021

For marine mammals, which can be described as having simple life cycles unlike more complex ones seen in lower trophic marine species, there are four main critical life cycle stages. This includes birth, growth, reproduction and death. If the question being asked here is: Does the spring moulting period for ringed seal represent a critical life cycle period for this species? To answer that, let’s consider what seal activity looks like at this time of year (seals on ice for 30% of the day), and then take into consideration what it would look like if seals were disturbed by ship noise during this period, that is what behavioural changes would be expected during this period (potential entry into water at close interaction distances) and what repercussions would this have on seal survival, fecundity (fertility; the ability to produce an abundance of offspring or new growth), and/or movement rates that in turn may result in a change at the population level. The answer to this is that shipping does not directly overlap with pupping, mating and nursing periods, during which imposed behavioural changes may result in reduced reproductive output. During basking, no mortality is going to occur from seals entering the water marginally more than normal, given seals are already in the water for a large proportion of the day at this time of year.

The following is a summary of literature sources used as a basis for inferring that the ringed seal molt period is largely completed by mid-July. Baffinland notes this information was previously filed with the Board by NTI when the information was supplied to NTI by Golder on behalf of Baffinland via email during the September 2020 Technical Meeting.

Heide-Jorgensen, M.P., B.S. Stewart and S. Leatherwood. 1992. Satellite tracking of ringed seals Phoca hispida, off Northwest Greenland. Ecography. 15(1) 56:61

• We monitored movements and haul-out patterns of four ringed seals Phoca hispida, off Northwest Greenland between 5 June and 31 October 1988 using the Argos Data Collection and Location System. • The seals remained within the fjord where they were tagged, and hauled out often until early July. Thereafter, as fast-ice disappeared, they dispersed widely and spent less time hauled out. Time of day had no significant effect on haul-out patterns. • Haul-out periods declined significantly from June to August and increased in September- October. • Basking behavior is greatly reduced in July; ringed seal have become solitary at this time, are in the water for a greater proportion of the day, and are highly mobile at this time (up to 35 km/day).

Born, E.W., J. Teilman and R. Riget. 2002. Haul-out activity of ringed seals (Phoca hispida) determined from satellite telemetry. Marine Mammal Science. 18(1) 167-181.

Carlens, H., C. Lyderssen, B. A. Krafft and Kit M. Kovacs. 2006.Mairne Mammal Science. 22(2) 379-393

Kelly, B.P., O. H. Badajos, M. Kunnasranta, J.R. Moran, M. Martinez-Bakker, D. Wartzok and P. Boveng. 2010. Seasonal home ranges and fidelity to breeding sites among ringed seals. 2010. 33: 1095-1109. • p. 1100 - During the late subnivean period and through the basking periods (May–June) in the year of capture, most seals remained within 50 km of their capture sites (Fig. 7). With the break-up of the shorefast ice in July, they began more extensive movements. From July through early December, they rested on moving ice as far as 900 km (in the case of one female) and over 1,700 km (in the case of one male) from their breeding sites in the shorefast ice. • p. 1101 - In June, however, when most seals were molting, they spent over 60% of their time on the ice. Time out of the water dropped to 30% in July as basking was completed and the foraging period commenced

This information was already filed with the Board, as part of Golder response to David Lee at NTI, which Mr. Lee filed with the NIRB.

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal

QIA 26 ATTACHMENT 1: NORTH RAILWAY – RAIL CAR COVERS

March 2021

March 2021

MEMO

North Railway – Rail Car Covers

Introduction

As part of the Phase 2 Proposal, Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation (Baffinland) is proposing to construct a 110 km railway between the Mary River Mine Site and Milne Port. Baffinland’s rail simulation modelling demonstrates a requirement for 3 trainsets with 64 cars each to transport 12 Mtpa of iron ore. Rail cars will be loaded by front end loaders at the Mary River mine loading facility and travel to Milne Port where the rail cars will be unloaded by means of a rotary car dumper.

The QIA has requested that Baffinland investigate the use of rail car covers to address concerns related to dust.

Rail Car Specifications

Baffinland developed a standard specification for rail cars during the feasibility stage of the rail expansion project. This specification defined the main structure and dimensions, overall performance parameters and technical requirements for a gondola rail car to operate on the Mary River rail system. The rail cars are required to meet AAR (Association of American Railroad) standards, a requirement for railway companies subject to the jurisdiction of Transport Canada pursuant to the Railway Safety Act. The rail cars have rotary couplers on one end to enable offloading by a single car rotary car dumper at Milne Port. Several of the rail cars have rotating couplers on both ends because the locomotives will remain coupled to the train during unloading.

Gondola rail cars are designed with low side walls and open tops and are typically used to transport heavy bulk commodities, including iron ore. This enables loading by front end loader or through an automated train loadout system. Open tops also enable unloading of the rail cars via rotary car dumper.

Feasibility of Covered Rail Cars

Baffinland’s rail car specification is based on industry standards and AAR requirements. As a bulk commodity, iron ore is typically transported in an open top gondola-type car due to iron ore’s ability to withstand weather and wind erosion during transport. Baffinland’s iron ore is especially suited to this type of transport for the Phase 2 Proposal as only primary crushing will be performed at the mine site, with secondary crushing occurring at Milne Port. As part of the currently operating Early Revenue Phase, ore arriving to Milne Port by truck from the Mine site has already been crushed and screened into lump ore (31.5 to 6.3 mm) and fine ore (less than 6.3 mm) products. The material transported by rail will be <150 mm (6 in) and therefore less susceptible to dust generation than the ore presently transported by truck.

2275 Upper Middle Road East, Suite 300 | Oakville, ON, L6H 0C3| Main: 416.364.8820 | Fax: 416.364.0193 | www.baffinland.com MARY RIVER PROJECT North Railway – Rail Car Covers July 2020

Open top rail gondola-type rail cars are not typically fitted with retractable covers. Covers are not part of a standard design for this type of rail car and would have to be specially designed and manufactured for this purpose. Automated covers would not be feasible as they would require hydraulic equipment and a method of heating which could not be easily incorporated into a standard bulk ore rail car design. If a feasible design could be developed for a manual type rail car cover it would require significant additional time to be added to the model to incorporate installation and removal of covers at both the loading and unloading locations.

Baffinland has performed rail simulation modelling to determine the recommended train configuration to transport 12 Mtpa. This model takes many parameters into consideration including:

• Rail loading time at the Mine site • Mine cycle time which includes arrival & departure inspections and train positioning • Port cycle time which includes arrival & departure inspections, train positioning and rail car change outs • Railcar unloading time at Milne Port and car dumper planned maintenance • Train run times from Mine to Port and siding entry and exit times • Track delays including unplanned maintenance events for locomotives, rail cars, track, communication systems • Weather delays • Planned track maintenance shutdowns

The results of the rail model determine the required train configuration, number of sidings, stockpile sizes and other important design parameters.

The introduction of manual rail car covers would introduce a requirement to remove covers prior to loading at the Mine site, reinstall the covers prior to departure from the Mine site, removal of the covers upon arrival at Milne Port and reinstallation of covers after rail car unloading. This would necessitate additional road and track infrastructure to enable personnel to access the trains to perform this additional function. This activity would introduce additional safety risks to personnel who would be required to remove and reinstall covers during periods of darkness and extreme cold temperatures. The additional time required to perform these activities would increase the number of train sets and quantities of rolling stock (locomotives and rail cars) and potentially the number of sidings required to successfully transport 12 Mtpa of iron ore. An increase in rolling stock quantities would also increase maintenance requirements and require a review of the size of the locomotive and rail car maintenance facility.

Page 2 Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal

APPENDIX 3 HAMLET OF POND INLET IR ATTACHMENTS

March 2021

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal

HPI-5 ATTACHMENT 1: FULL RESPONSE

March 2021

HPI-05 Question:

In its 2018 Addendum application for the Mary River Phase 2 Expansion Project, Baffinland claimed that the income received by Mittimatalingmiut and Inuit of other mine-involved communities would create a local market for goods and services. What was this prediction based upon, given the reality of the average annual income received by Inuit employees in mine-involved communities, and income that, on average, barely replaces what a family of 4 would have as disposable income if it were on social assistance?

Response:

TSD-25 (Section 8.6.2) predicted the Phase 2 Proposal will continue expanding the market for consumer goods and services across the LSA (not ‘create’ a brand-new market). More specifically, local residents will continue to gain increased purchasing power through Project-related (i.e. direct/indirect) employment income and other Project expenditures. Increased income from Project employment and other sources provides LSA residents with a greater capacity to purchase local goods and services and acts to stimulate local business growth.

The Hamlet of Pond Inlet has been critical of supposed low Inuit wages at the Project and suggested in its ‘Summary of Submissions Presentation’ (NIRB ID 332702) and ‘Socio-Economic Impacts’ written submission (NIRB ID 332602) the wages earned by Inuit at the Project are $44,590 per year. However, Baffinland clearly stated in its 2019 Socio-Economic Monitoring Report (NIRB ID 330072) that 288 Inuit Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) earned $20.2 million in wages that year, which is equal to $70,100 per employee on an FTE basis. This amount is significantly greater than typical social assistance rates in Nunavut. Baffinland acknowledges wage benefits may be less for short-term/seasonal workers and any ‘opportunistic’ workers who quit their positions after earning enough money to make important purchases (e.g. a snowmobile). However, this issue of limited duration work/Inuit employee turnover was anticipated, documented, and has been addressed in Baffinland’s assessment, dating back to the original February 2012 FEIS (see for example Section 4, Volume 4: Human Environment and Appendix 4A). Furthermore, Baffinland cannot, and will not, force any individuals to pursue forms of employment tenure they do not wish to pursue. Short-term employment is an acceptable and preferred course of action for some Inuit and Baffinland has an Inuit ‘re-hire’ policy that addresses this very issue.

Baffinland has consistently demonstrated the positive effects it has had in this area. Considerable amounts have been spent both on Baffinland’s Inuit employee payroll ($76 million) and contracting with Inuit Firms ($1.26 billion) since Project development. These new contributions to the Nunavut economy are a direct result of Project development and represent a positive effect. This is because new Project- generated consumer discretionary income can result in increased demand for (and spending on) local goods and services.

The Hamlet of Pond Inlet’s statement that “average annual income received by Inuit employees in mine- involved communities… barely replaces what a family of 4 would have as disposable income if it were on social assistance” is thus misleading, represents a very narrow view of employment-related benefits, and fails to recognize the following:

• More than one family member may be working at the mine or elsewhere. This would create additional income generation opportunities and increased expansion of the market for consumer goods and services across the LSA. • Baffinland has developed several programs through the IIBA and elsewhere that have increased Inuit employment and training at the Project. The Project continues to make advancements in this area and Baffinland has committed to further improvements in Inuit employment levels at the Project. For example, career path planning will be available to all Inuit employees at the Project, in addition to opportunities to participate in career advancement/promotion. This will lead to enhanced income generation opportunities for Inuit over time. • Employment is but one of many economic benefits the Project provides to communities either directly or indirectly (e.g. business opportunities, community programming and benefits, royalties and taxes). New money in the economy from the Project is new money in the economy (whether from employment wages or otherwise), which further expands the market for consumer goods and services. The linkage is clear. • There are also many important non-monetary benefits that can arise from employment: o Improved individual and family health and well-being (e.g. Government of Canada 2019; Haslam and Burke 2018; ITK 2014; Roubinov and Boyce 2017; WHO 2014). o Training, skills development, and gaining work-related experience. These are particularly important benefits for the North Baffin as there are limited opportunities like these available elsewhere in the region. o Moving off of income assistance and becoming more financially independent, including the personal pride and confidence this transition can elicit. o Decreased financial burden placed on governments, due to reduced income assistance expenditures. o Creation of new role models for youth in families and communities. o Increased ability to participate in harvesting activities, should it be desired (e.g. Boyd et al. 2010; CCA 2014; Kumar et al. 2019; Southcott and Natcher 2018). • There is inherent value in working over receiving social assistance, which is recognized by the Government of Nunavut in the Inuit Societal Values of Pijitsirniq (Serving and providing for family and/or community) and Pilimmaksarniq/Pijariuqsarniq (Development of skills through observation, mentoring, practice, and effort).

Baffinland anticipates the Project’s positive effects will be sustained and further enhanced under the Phase 2 Proposal. Existing Inuit employment and contracting commitments will be maintained and additional gains are anticipated through successful and ongoing implementation of the IIBA and Inuit Certainty Agreement. An expanded market for consumer goods and services across the LSA is one of many benefits provided by the Project.

References: Aglu Consulting and Training Inc. and Stratos Inc. (Aglu and Stratos). 2020. Agnico Kivalliq Projects 2019 Socio-Economic Monitoring Program Report. Submitted to NIRB March 2020. Boyd, A.D., Jardine, C.G., and Furgal, C.M., 2010. A Social and Cultural Capital Approach to Understanding Traditional Activities on the Land in Two Northern Dene Communities. The Canadian Journal of Native Studies. 30(2), 267. Council of Canadian Academies (CCA), 2014. Aboriginal Food Security in Northern Canada: An Assessment of the State of Knowledge. Ottawa, ON. The Expert Panel on the State of Knowledge of Food Security in Northern Canada. Council of Canadian Academies. Government of Canada, 2019. Social Determinants of Health and Health Inequalities. Retrieved from: https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/health-promotion/population- health/whatdetermines-health.html Haslam, D.M. and K. Burke, 2018. Work, Poverty, and Financial Stress. In: Handbook of Parenting and Child Development. Eds: Sanders, M.R. and A. Morawska. Pages 495-510. Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK). 2014. Social Determinants of Inuit Health in Canada. https://www.itk.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/ITK_Social_Determinants_Report.pdf Kumar, M.B., Furgal, C., Hutchinson, P., Roseborough, W., and Kootoo-Chiarello, S., 2019. Harvesting Activities Among First Nations people living off reserve, Métis and Inuit: Time Trends, Barriers and Associated Factors. Statistics Canada Catalogue No. 89-653-X2019001. Release date: April 16, 2019. Roubinov, D.S. and W.T., Boyce, 2017. Parenting and SES: Relative Values or Enduring Principles? Curr Opin Psychol. June: 15. 162-167. Southcott, C. and Natcher, D., 2018. Extractive industries and Indigenous subsistence economies: A complex and unresolved relationship. Canadian Journal of Development Studies. 39(1), pp.137- 154. World Health Organization (WHO), 2014. Social Determinants of Mental Health. Retrieved from: https://www.who.int/mental_health/publications/gulbenkian_paper_social_determinants_of_ mental_health/en/

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal

APPENDIX 4 MITTIMATALIK HUNTERS AND TRAPPERS ORGANIZATION IR ATTACHMENTS

March 2021

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal

MHTO-2 ATTACHMENT 1: RAIL PRESENTATION

March 2021

Rail Presentation Community EA Workshop Mary River Mine January 2020

Alignment

2 Option A & B

3

Option B footprint

4 Prefeasibility Study

5

North Baffin Regional Land Use Plan

6 Alternative Alignments Evaluated

7

Deviation Options Analysis

8 Known Travel Routes

9

Known Travel Routes - Deviation

10 Option B+ (MHTO)

11

Final Preferred Alignment

12 Mitigation

13

ᐱᓕᕆᐊᑎᐊᖑᔪᖅ ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓇᓗᐊᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ

ᓴᓇᒪᓂᖓ • 1:2 ᓯᕕᖓᓂᖓ ≥ 2 m (6.6 ft) ≤ 4 m (12.1 ft) • ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᓂᖓ 8 (< 6 in) ᑭᒡᓕᒃᓴᖓ ᑭᓱᒥᒃ ᓴᓇᓯᒪᓂᖃᕐᒪᖔᑦ • ᐃᑳᕐᕕᐅᔪᑦ ᓯᕕᖓᖏᑦᑐᑦ (ᐃᓄᖕᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓂᕐᔪᑎᓄᑦ) • ᓱᓪᓗᐃᑦ (ᐃᓄᖕᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᓂᕐᔪᑎᓄᑦ ᐊᑐᒐᒃᓴᑦ) • ~66% ᓄᓇᓯᐅᑎᑯᑖᑉ ᐊᖅᑯᑎᐊᓂ ᐃᑳᕐᕕᑦ ᑐᒃᑐᑦ ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓇᖅᑐᒦᖁᓇᒋᑦ • ᐸᒡᕕᓴᐃᖏᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᔭᖅᑐᖅ ᓄᓇᓯᐅᑎᕐᔪᐊᓂᑦ ᐃᖏᕐᕋᕙᒃᑐᓂᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᓂᐊ • ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᒃᓱᕈᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᓂᕐᔪᑎᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓄᖕᓄᑦ • ᓱᒃᑲᐃᑦᑐᒥᒃ ᐃᖏᕐᕋᓂᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓄᖅᑲᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᐅᖓᓯᒃᓴᑲᓪᓚᒡᓗᑎᒃ ᓱᓕ • ᓂᕐᔪᑎᑕᖃᕐᒪᖔᑦ ᓇᐅᑦᑎᖅᓱᕐᓗᑎᒃ • ᓄᓇᓯᐅᑎᑯᑖᑉ ᐊᖅᑯᑎᐊ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᓂ ᓇᐅᑦᑎᖅᓱᕐᕕᐅᓗᓂ • ᓯᕗᓕᖅᑎᐅᔪᖅ ᐊᓂᒍᖅᑎᑕᐅᓗᓂ • ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᓗᑎᒃ ᑭᒡᓕᖓ ᓴᓇᒪᔪᖅ ᐱᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᐸᑦ

14 Project Mitigation Design • 1:2 slopes ≥ 2 m (6.6 ft) ≤ 4 m (12.1 ft) • Type 8 (< 6 in) embankment material • Level crossings (humans and wildlife) • Plate arch culverts (humans and wildlife) • ~66% of rail passable by caribou without further mitigation • Reduced disturbance compared to truck traffic Operation • Constant vigilance for animals and people • Slow speeds and reasonable stopping distances • Wildlife monitors present • Hi-rail car used for monitoring • Let the leaders pass • Modify embankment as necessary

15

16 ᑐᒃᑐᐃᑦ ᐃᑳᕐᕕᖏᑕᑦ ᓯᕕᖓᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᓇᐃᓴᐅᑏᑦ

Caribou Crossing Slope Ratios 90˚ ᐊᔾᔨᙳᐊᖅ ᓴᖅᑭᔮᖅᑎᑦᑎᔪᖅ 1:1.5 ᓯᕕᖓᓂᖓᓂᒃ Photo depicts a 1:1.5 slope

0˚ ᐅᔭᐃᑦ ᐊᖏᔪᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ (ᓄᓇᓯᐅᑎᑯᑖᑉ ᐊᖅᑯᑎᖓᑕ ᓴᓂᕌᓃᑦᑐᑦ) Grade ᑐᙵᕕᖓᑕ ᑐᑭᓕᐊᕐᓂᖓ Angle

17

ᑐᒃᑐᐃᑦ ᐃᑳᕐᕕᖏᑕᑦ ᓯᕕᖓᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᓇᐃᓴᐅᑏᑦ

Caribou Crossing Slope Ratios 90˚ ᐊᔾᔨᙳᐊᖅ ᓴᖅᑭᔮᖅᑎᑦᑎᔪᖅ 1:1.5 ᓯᕕᖓᓂᖓᓂᒃ Photo depicts a 1:1.5 slope

1: 2

0˚ ᐅᔭᐃᑦ ᐊᖏᔪᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ (ᓄᓇᓯᐅᑎᑯᑖᑉ ᐊᖅᑯᑎᖓᑕ ᓴᓂᕌᓃᑦᑐᑦ) Grade ᑐᙵᕕᖓᑕ ᑐᑭᓕᐊᕐᓂᖓ Angle

18 ᑐᒃᑐᐃᑦ ᐃᑳᕐᕕᖏᑕᑦ ᓯᕕᖓᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᓇᐃᓴᐅᑏᑦ

Caribou Crossing Slope Ratios 90˚ ᐊᔾᔨᙳᐊᖅ ᓴᖅᑭᔮᖅᑎᑦᑎᔪᖅ 1:1.5 ᓯᕕᖓᓂᖓᓂᒃ Photo depicts a 1:1.5 slope

1: 1.5

0˚ ᐅᔭᐃᑦ ᐊᖏᔪᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ (ᓄᓇᓯᐅᑎᑯᑖᑉ ᐊᖅᑯᑎᖓᑕ ᓴᓂᕌᓃᑦᑐᑦ) Grade ᑐᙵᕕᖓᑕ ᑐᑭᓕᐊᕐᓂᖓ Angle

19

Caribou Concentration Along Tote Road

20 ᑐᒃᑐᑦ ᐱᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᓕᐅᕈᑎᒃᓴᑦᐋᖅᑭᒡᓯᒪᓂᕆᒐᔭᖅᑕᖓ - ᐊᖅᑯᑎ

ᐊᖅᑯᑎᒥ < 100 m (300 ft) ᐊᖅᑯᒻᒥᑦ ᐅᖓᓯᖕᓂᓕᒃ > 100 m (300 ft) ᐊᖅᑯᒻᒥᑦ ᐅᖓᓯᖕᓂᓕᒃ

ᑐᒃᑐᑦ ᐱᓱᓯᒃᐸᑕ ᕿᑲᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓅᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᖅᑯᒻᒥᑦ ᐊᖅᑯᒻᒧᐊᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᕿᑲᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᖅᑯᒻᒥᑦ ᕿᒪᕉᑎᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᖅᑯᒻᒧᓐᖓᐅᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓂᕆᓇᓱᒃᑎᓪᓗᒋᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᓂᕆᓇᓱᒃᑎᓪᓗᒋᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ

ᓄᖅᑲᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᓄᖅᑲᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᑲᔪᓯᓗᑎᒃ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᕐᒥᖕᓂᒃ ᑲᔪᓯᓗᑎᒃ ᐅᔾᔨᖅᓱᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᑲᔪᓯᓗᑎᒃ ᐅᔾᔨᖅᓱᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᓄᖅᑲᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐊᑐᕐᓗᑎᒃ

• ᑐᓴᖅᑎᑕᐃᓐᓇᕆᓗᒋᑦ • ᓄᖅᑲᖔᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᐅᖓᓯᒃᑎᒋᓗᑎᒃ • ᑲᔪᓯᓗᑎᒃ ᐅᔾᔨᖅᓱᕐᓗᑎᒃ • ᑲᔪᓯᓗᑎᒃ ᐅᔾᔨᖅᓱᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᐃᒪᓐᓇᑎᒋ (>50 m, 150 ft) • ᑐᓴᖅᑎᑦᑎᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ • ᓄᖅᑲᕐᓗᑎᒃ • ᑐᓴᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᓯᖏᑦ ᐃᓘᓐᓇᖏᑦ ᓄᓇᓯᐅᑎᑦ • ᑲᔪᓯᓗᑎᒃ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᕐᒥᖕᓂᒃ • ᑐᓴᖅᑎᑦᑎᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᖁᑎᓂᒃ ᐅᖓᓯᒋᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᓕ ᐊᖁᑎᑦ ᓄᖅᑲᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᑐᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᖁᑎᓂᒃ • ᐅᔾᔨᕆᒋᐊᑉᓗᒋᑦ ᑐᒃᑐᑦ ᐱᐅᓯᖏᑦ ᒫᖓᓂ ᐅᖓᓯᒋᓗᒍ • ᐅᔾᔨᖅᓱᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᑐᒃᑐᑦ ᑐᓴᖅᑎᑕᐅᒃᑲᓐᓂᓚᐅᖏᓐ • ᑐᓴᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᓯᖏᑦ • ᐅᖅᑕᑭᓗᑎᒃ ᑐᒃᑐᑦ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᕐᒪᖔᑕ • ᑐᓴᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐱᐅᓯᖏᑦ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᐊᖁᑎᑦ • ᐅᖄᓚᕕᒋᓗᒍ ᐃᑳᕋᓱᐊᕐᓂᓕᒫᖏᓐᓂ ᐊᓯᖏᑦ ᐊᖁᑎᑦ ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᖏᕐᕋᓯᓚᐅᖏᓐᓂᖓᓂ • ᐅᖅᑕᑭᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖅ ᑐᒃᑐᑦ ᐃᑳᕋᓱᐊᕐᓂᓕᒫᖏ ᓐᓂ ᐃᖏᕐᕋᓯᓚᐅᖏᓐ ᓂᖓᓂ

21

Caribou Decision Framework — Road On Road < 100 m (328 ft) from Road > 100 m (328 ft) from Road

Major Resting or Moving Moving Resting or Moving Moving Migration Feeding Away from Road Towards Road Feeding Away from Road Towards Road

PROCEED WITH PROCEED AS PROCEED STOP STOP STOP CAUTION USUAL WITH CAUTION

• Advise all • Stop as far back as • Proceed as caution • Stop as far back • Proceed as usual • Proceed as traffic to halt possible, > 50 m • Alert other drivers as possible • Alert other drivers with until further • Alert other drivers • Watch for change in • Alert other caution notice • Wait until Caribou behaviour drivers • Alert other • Call have crossed • Wait until drivers Environmental before proceeding Caribou have • Watch for Superintendent crossed before change in proceeding behaviour

22 ᑐᒃᑐᑦ ᐱᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᓕᐅᕈᑎᒃᓴᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᒡᓯᒪᓂᕆᒐᔭᖅᑕᖓ - ᓄᓇᓯᐅᑎᑯᑖᒃ

ᐊᖅᑯᒻᒧᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ < 250 m (820 ft) ᐊᖅᑯᑎᒥᑦ ᐅᖓᓯᖕᓂᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ > 250 m (820 ft) ᐊᖅᑯᑎᒥᑦ ᐅᖓᓯᖕᓂᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ

ᑐᒃᑐᑦ ᐊᖅᑯᓵᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓂᕆᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᖅᑯᑎᒥᑦ ᐊᖅᑯᑎᒧᐊᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓂᕆᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐊᖅᑯᑎᒥᑦ ᐊᖅᑯᑎᒧᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᕿᒪᕉᑎᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑕᖃᐃᖅᓯᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᕿᒪᕉᑎᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑐᕌᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑕᖃᐃᖅᓯᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ

ᓄᖅᑲᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᓄᖅᑲᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᓄᖅᑲᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᐃᖏᕐᕋᓯᓗᑎᒃ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᕐᒥᓂᒃ ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑐᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᐃᖏᕐᕋᓯᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᑐᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᐃᖏᕐᕋᓯᓗᑎᒃ • ᑐᒃᑐᑦ ᐊᖅᑯᒻᒧᑦ ᖃᓂᒡᓕᒃᐸᑕ • ᓂᓪᓕᖅᑎᑦᑎᓗᑎᒃ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐊᖅᑯᒻᒧᐊᖅᐸᑕ ᖃᐅᔨᒃᑲᐃᔾᔪᑎᒥᒃ • ᐃᖏᕐᕋᓯᓗᓂ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᖅ ᐊᑐᕐᓗᒍ • ᐅᖃᐅᑎᓗᒍ ᓂᓪᓕᖅᑎᑦᑎᓗᑎᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒃᑲᐃᔾᔪᑎᒥᒃ • ᑐᓴᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᓄᓇᓯᐅᑎᑯᑖᖕᒧᑦ ᑐᒃᑐᑦ ᐊᖅᑯᑎᐅᑉ ᓱᒃᑲᓂᐅᕙᒃᑐᖅ ᓄᓇᓯᐅᑎᑯᑖᒥᒃ • ᐊᑦᑕᕐᓇᖏᑦᑑᒃᐸᑦ ᓄᖅᑲᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᔨᐅᔪᖅ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᓄᓇᓯᐅᑎᑯᑖᓕᒪᓐ ᖃᓂᒋᔭᖓᓃᓐᓂᖏᓐ • ᑐᓴᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓄᓇᓯᐅᑎᑯᑖᒧᑦ , • ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᔨᐅᔪᖅ ᐅᖓᓯᒋᒐᓱᐊᕐᓗᒍ ᑐᓴᖅᑎᑕᐅᓗᑎᒃ ᑐᒃᑐᑦ ᓂᒃ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᔨ ᑐᓴᖅᑎᑦᑎᖁᓗᒍ > 50m ᓱᒃᑲᐃᓐᓂᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃ ᓄᖅᑲᖁᓗᒍ ᐊᒻᒪ • ᑐᓴᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᓄᓇᓯᐅᑎᑯᑖᕐᒧᑦ ᖃᓂᒋᔭᖓᓃᓐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᖅᑯᑎᖓᑕ • ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᐃᓘᓐᓇᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᓯᐅᑎᑯᑖᖑᔪᓂᒃ ᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᐃᖏᕐᕋᓯᖁᓇᒍ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᔨᐅᔪᖅ ᓄᖅᑲᖅᑎᑦᑎᖁᓗᒍ ᓄᓇᓯᐅᑎᑯᑖᑉ ᓱᒃᑲᐃᓐᓂᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅ ᑐᒃᑐᑦ ᖃᓂᒋᔭᖓᓃᓐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ • ᐃᖏᕐᕋᓗᑎᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᑎᔭᐅᓚᐅᖏᓐᓂᖓ ᐅᖃᐅᑎᔭᐅᒃᑲᓐᓂᓚᐅᖏᓐᓂᖓᓂ- • ᐅᔾᔨᖅᓱᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᐱᐅᓯᖏᑦ ᑐᒥᒃ “ᓱᒃᑲᐃᑦᑑᓗᑎᒃ” ᓂ ᑐᓴᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓘᓐᓇᖏᑦ • ᐃᖏᕐᕋᓯᓗᑎᒃ “ᓱᒃᑲᐃᑦᑑᓗᑎᒃ” • ᓄᖅᑲᕐᓗᓂ • ᐅᔾᔨᖅᓱᕐᓗᒋᑦ • ᐅᖄᓚᕕᐅᓗᓂ ᓄᓇᓯᐅᑎᑯᑖᖑᔪᑦ ᓄᖅᑲᕆᐊᖃᓕᕈᑎᒃ ᓄᖅᑲᑲᓪᓚᒍᓐᓇᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐅᖓᓯᒐᓱᐊᕐᓗᓂ ᐱᐅᓯᖏᑦ ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ • ᐅᑕᖅᑭᓗᑎᒃ ᑐᒃᑐᑦ ᐅᖓᓯᒃᓴᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᓱᓕ ᐊᔪᕐᓇᖏᑉᐸᑦ ᐊᓯᕈᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖅ ᐃᑳᕋᓱᐊᕐᓂᓕᒫᖏᓐᓂ • ᐅᑕᖅᑭᓗᓂ ᑐᒃᑐᑦ ᐃᖏᕐᕋᓯᓚᐅᖏᓐᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐃᑳᕇᖅᐸᑕ ᐃᖏᕐᕋᓯᓚᐅᖏᓐᓂ ᖓᓂ

Caribou Decision Framework — Rail

On Track < 250 m (820 ft) from Track > 250 m (820 ft) from Track

Major Resting or Moving Moving Resting or Moving Moving Migration Feeding Away from Track Towards Track Feeding Away from Track Towards Track

PROCEED STOP STOP PROCEED WITH STOP PROCEED AS USUAL WITH • Sound signal for animals on CAUTION • Sound signal • Advise rail traffic CAUTION or near the track for animals on • Proceed at usual speed controller to halt all • Notify rail traffic controller as • If safe, stop as far back as or near the • Notify rail traffic controller • Establish traffic until further such that all trains are advised possible > 50 m track as such that all trains are speed notice of presence of caribous near • Notify rail traffic controller • Establish speed advised of presence of restriction • Call Environmental track to stop all traffic until restriction caribous near track • Proceed at Superintendent • Watch for change in behaviour further notice – advise all • Stop as far “Reduced • Proceed at “Reduced Speed” trains back as Speed” allowing for sufficient braking • Wait until Caribou have possible • Watch for distance crossed before proceeding • Wait until change in Caribou have behaviour crossed before proceeding 24 High Rail Truck

25 Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal

MHTO-5 ATTACHMENT 1: RAIL CAR COVERING

March 2021

Richard Cook

From: Richard Cook Sent: February 14, 2019 5:28 PM To: B Pirie; Emma Malcolm; Michael Setterington; Megan Lord-Hoyle; Joseph Tigullaraq; S W. Bathory; Jeff Higdon; Fai Ndofor; D Qamaniq; '[email protected]'; Amanda Main; 'Brandon Laforest'; Ringrose, John; A Robinson; '[email protected]'; Jean-Francois Dufour; Paul Allen Smith; Kelly, Alexander; 'Lyndsay Doetzel | EDI'; Philippe Rouget; 'Abgrall, Patrick'; 'Solomon Amuno'; 'Cory Barker'; '[email protected]'; 'Wallace, Sara'; Krista Johnson; Christopher Murray; 'Nadolny, Rob'; 'Jason Ash'; Lou Kamermans Cc: 'Stephen Atkinson ([email protected])' Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Dust Study Design for Rail Cars Attachments: Davies 1974 Transportation of Iron Ore - A Practical Exercise in Enviro....pdf

CAUTION: This email was received from outside of Baffinland systems. It may contain malicious attachments or links. If you are not familiar with the content of the email do not open the attachments or click embedded links.

Hi Brad et al.,

Thanks for sending the coal dust generation paper. I’ve attached the paper referenced in Volume 5 of the 2012 FEIS, which supported the conclusion that ore dust-off from the rail cars at Mary River will be negligible. A couple of important notes in regard to the paper’s applicability to the Mary River Project, and the basis of our conclusion that dust-off from the rail cars will be negligible:

1. The amount of blow-off of ore that may occur from the rail cars is a function of product density, particle size and speed (or wind velocity).

2. Density - The Davies 1974 study evaluated several different iron ore products; a couple of the products generated meaningful blow-off, but not the Cerro Bolivar ore. The iron content of the Cerro Bolivar ore closely matches that of Mary River ore (mostly 64-69%) https://mrdata.usgs.gov/mrds/show- mrds.php?dep_id=10111256 ). As such, the specific gravity (a measure of relative density compared to water) of the Mary River iron ore can be expected to be very similar to the Cerro Bolivar ore. Relative to coal (which has a specific gravity in the range of 1.2 to 1.5), the Mary River iron ore is about 3x as dense, with a specific gravity of 4.36.

3. Particle Size - The Davies 1974 study evaluated fine ore products. With the Phase 2 Proposal, only primary crushing (crushing of oversized material) will occur at the mine site, and so the product transported by the railway will be 100 cm minus (i.e., virtually no fines).

4. Speed - The Cerro Bolivar ore had negligible blow-off at 100 km/h, and the maximum speed the Mary River trains will operate at is comparatively lower at 60 km/h.

Essentially, the Mary River iron ore is dense relative to even some other iron ore products, there will be minimal fines with the 100 cm minus product transported on the railway, and the railway will be operating at a speed where even the fines of lower specific gravity ores won’t have meaningful blow-off.

Best regards, Richard 1

Richard Cook, P.Geo. (Ltd.) Specialist Environmental Scientist | Associate Knight Piésold Ltd.

T: +1 705 476 2165 | D:+1 705 476 2165 ext 243 | M: +1 705 477 3180 1650 Main Street West North Bay | Ontario | Canada | P1B 8G5

This communication is confidential and subject to the legal disclaimer located at this link: Disclaimer.

From: Pirie, Bradley [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: February 11, 2019 11:52 AM To: 'Emma Malcolm' ; Michael Setterington ; 'Megan Lord-Hoyle' ; 'Joseph Tigullaraq' ; 'S W. Bathory' ; 'Jeff Higdon' ; 'Fai Ndofor' ; 'D Qamaniq' ; '[email protected]' ; 'Amanda Main' ; 'Brandon Laforest' ; Pirie, Bradley ; Ringrose, John ; Robinson, Amy ; '[email protected]' ; 'Jean-Francois Dufour' ; 'Paul Allen Smith' ; Kelly, Alexander ; 'Lyndsay Doetzel | EDI' ; 'Philippe Rouget' ; 'Abgrall, Patrick' ; 'Solomon Amuno' ; 'Cory Barker' ; '[email protected]' ; Richard Cook ; 'Wallace, Sara' ; 'Krista Johnson' ; 'Christopher Murray' ; 'Nadolny, Rob' ; 'Jason Ash' ; 'Lou Kamermans' Cc: 'Stephen Atkinson ([email protected])' Subject: Dust Study Design for Rail Cars

Hello Everyone

During the TEWG we discussed the possibility of dust generation from uncovered ore cars. What I was trying to convey was that there are far too many unknowns due to a lack of literature on specifically iron ore transport by rail to simply state that the cars will not produce dust. The attached paper contains a study design that was used to assess the rate of dust production from coal cars. This study could be adapted to use on the proposed iron ore cars and based on the results we could say definitively if the ore cars need to be covered or not.

Brad

2

3 Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal

MHTO-8 ATTACHMENT 1: FULL RESPONSE

March 2021

MHTO-8 BIM hosted community risk and EA workshops in 2019. Did BIM intend to rely on these as opportunities to collect IQ, and if so, had it clarified with invited organizations and/or participants ahead of time that the goal was to collect IQ, and to confirm participants were selected based on expertise and the focus of the workshop(s)? If so, where are references and evidence of those communications provided? BIM indicated that risk workshops provided input on proposed management measures and that this would be supplemented by information from the Tusaqtavut studies to form the basis for how the project would be monitored going forward. Where is that information compiled and documented? Was verification of the IQ collected during risk workshops undertaken? If so, where is evidence of the verification work?

1. Have any workshops held since 2018 collected IQ that has been used to inform the identification and assessment of indirect impacts in affected communities, specific to harvesting? If so, please give details of which workshops these were, and what direct and indirect impacts were discussed and considered. Please provide references to where that information is provided. Please also confirm that verification of IQ collected was undertaken after the workshops/sessions, and provide references to where that information is provided.

We wish to highlight that all of the information captured through formal and informal discussions/meetings/workshops, etc., regardless of the format in which it was received, is important to us, and is welcomed, so that it may be considered further to assess potential relevance to existing and proposed operations and to inform future decision-making. As part of our ongoing approach to community engagement efforts related to both existing and proposed Phase 2 Project activities, Baffinland has held numerous meetings, public radio shows, community tours and participated in various workshops with representatives from North Baffin Hamlets, Hunters and Trappers organizations (HTOs), and Qikiqtani Inuit Organization (QIA), as well as members of the public since 2018, as recorded in numerous engagement activities summaries submitted to the NIRB (Doc. Nos. 321614, 326504-326506, 329530, 331636, 332176, 332557).

Baffinland hosted three Community Risk Assessment workshops between January and mid-May 2019 (ERM 2019; NIRB Doc. Nos. 327146 and 327147; Appendix O, Attachment 1 Community Risk Assessment Workshop). ERM designed and facilitated these workshops in addition to a follow-up verification workshop subsequently held in September 2019. These three risk workshops focused on identifying potential effects and protection measures (mitigation and monitoring) for the Phase 2 proposal, in addition to documenting community perspectives on risk assessment and management. Meeting objectives were summarized in Section 1.1 of ERM (2019). A Nunavut Research Institute (NRI) scientific research licence (#02 00119N-M; expiry Dec 31, 2019) was obtained to hold the workshops. Representatives of Hamlets and HTOs were invited to attend, and the list of attendees is summarized in Appendix A of ERM (2019). As part of these workshops, comments were noted on harvesting, such as concerns for potential impacts on narwhal from shipping interactions and climate change, the potential need to travel further if wildlife are disturbed, and impacts of shipping on traditional activities such as access to hunting areas.

As detailed in Baffinland’s April 2020 submission to the NIRB, “Update on Inuit and Community Engagement – Current to April 22, 2020” (NIRB Doc No. 329530), Baffinland notified the NIRB in January 2020 of the engagements it planned to carry out with communities (NIRB Doc. Nos. 327956-327957). This included a series of workshops to further build upon outstanding issues. The first Environmental Assessment community workshop (EA Workshop) was hosted by Baffinland at the Mary River Mine Site from Jan 27-31, 2020 with various representatives from hamlets, HTOs, Igloolik Working Group, the QIA and the Government of Nunavut (GN). Workshop materials were shared with the NIRB (Appendix D of NIRB Doc. No. 329530), and the list of participants is provided in NIRB Doc. No. 331636. Workshop Objectives covered a variety of topics as summarized in the Workshop Agenda (Appendix D of NIRB Doc. No. 329530). Subsequent to this first 2020 workshop, there was a notable adjustment to the second planned EA Workshop. As part of QIA and Baffinland’s Path Forward (NIRB Doc. No. 329530, Appendix F), QIA expressed its interest for leading its own meetings with communities, and that they remain Inuit-to-Inuit discussions. Therefore, no further workshops were hosted by Baffinland at the request of the QIA.

Baffinland notes that these focused Phase 2-related meetings are in addition to those meetings organized by the Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB) such as the Marine Monitoring and Marine Mitigation Workshop held on May 1-2, 2019 (NIRB Doc No. 325313) and August 25, 2020 (NIRB Doc No. 332007) as part of existing operations. As stated in NIRB Doc No. 325313, these meetings provide an opportunity for Elders and community members to share their experiences and IQ with NIRB staff and other workshop participants, along with their questions and comments about the monitoring of the Approved Project. Information related to harvesting was shared during these marine-focused workshops, as summarized by NIRB, and is consistent with information heard through other sources, including the 2019 risk workshops.

For example, we heard during the May 2019 NIRB Marine Mitigation and Marine Monitoring workshop concerns related to “ore carriers and Project shipping interfering with traditional hunting activities of community members and causing loss of harvesting opportunities”. This was consistent with August 2020 comments where community members expressed concerns that there was “increased difficulty in locating narwhal to harvest” and a request that “Ragged Island no longer be used as an anchoring location because it overlaps with seal hunting areas”.

Clarification was requested with regards to “procedures including compensation mechanisms for loss of harvesting opportunities”, and requests that “Baffinland provide electricity to the MHTO cabins near the Project area with consideration for the provision of heat and internet, television”. Although the meeting focused on existing operations, some comments were made regarding the Phase 2 proposal such as, “potential for the north railway system to impede caribou movement including harvester movement and dog team race”. All of this information is consistent with what has been heard through other forums.

2. Why has Baffinland not hosted IQ workshops to specifically understand hunters’ perspectives on the current operations, and on proposed Phase 2 activities?

This question contains an untrue and unsupported statement. As shared previously, Baffinland has organized and/or participated in various formal and informal meetings/discussions, etc., on a variety of topics since 2018, and these have included input from hunters as received through participation of HTOs including the MHTO. All of the information captured, regardless of if it was received during focused workshops, is important to Baffinland as it expands Baffinland’s knowledge of perspectives on current operations and on proposed Phase 2 activities.

Understanding the various burdens related to engagement fatigue and resource limitations, Baffinland had taken the approach to request feedback in advance of proposed 2019 and 2020 engagement activities by sharing with Hamlets and HTOs our intentions, and the topics that can be mutually selected for further discussion. For example, we sent letters in December 2018 and December 2019 to Hamlet Mayors and HTO chairpersons to share proposed activities from December 2018 to mid-April 2019 (NIRB Doc. No. 321614) and early 2020 events (NIRB Doc. Nos. 327956-327957), respectively. As part of these letters, Baffinland welcomed suggestions on the types of engagements that would be beneficial to communities and priority areas requiring further discussions.

With respect to issues specifically discussed with hunters, Baffinland held a series of informal discussions and meetings in 2019 (between January and June 2019) with representatives of MHTO, the Hamlet of Pond Inlet (the Hamlet) and the Qikiqtani Inuit Association (QIA) in response to feedback received in 2018 through engagement efforts, including during a Mary River Site Visit by the MHTO in August 2018. This is consistent with Baffinland’s ongoing approach to engagement with North Baffin communities, and particularly in Pond Inlet. At a high level, these meetings aimed to provide us a better understanding of hunter experiences in order to further, (i) explore the impacts that low/high (“bad”/“good”) harvest years (regardless of causal nature) may have on hunters, their families, the MHTO, and the community of Pond Inlet more broadly; (ii) examine some of the reasons which may be influencing abundance of narwhal; and (iii) examine the community programs currently in place to determine their strengths and weaknesses. A summary of some of the key outputs from these discussions is further described in our response to MHTO-28. We note that our Food security Assessment (Knight-Piesold 2019; NIRB Doc. No. 327158) submitted in October 2019 did make note of these meetings and incorporated relevant information as necessary into the assessment. For example, on page 6 of Knight-Piesold (2019) it is mentioned that “harvesting and the consumption/sharing of country food is an integral aspect of Inuit culture and health”, and that “Ensuring the environment and wildlife are protected is exceptionally important to Inuit”, which is consistent with information noted in the Tusaqtavut studies (Pond Inlet = NIRB Doc. Nos. 325448 – 325456; Igloolik & Hall Beach = NIRB Doc. Nos. 326992-327004). Other aspects related to harvesting were noted throughout this assessment.

Baffinland also hosted meetings in July and September 2019 on direct community benefits as reported in the 2019 Direct Community Benefits Meeting Report (NIRB Doc No. 327148; see also NIRB Doc No. 327147, Appendix O Attachment 2 for “Benefit Mitigation Tables”). Participants included HTOs and Hamlet representatives. This is in addition to the focused Caribou and Human Crossing Workshop held in July/August 2019 at Mary River Mine Site with representatives of HTOs (Pond Inlet, Igloolik), the GN and QIA, as described in NIRB Doc Nos. 327147 and 327148.

3. Is it BIM’s opinion that it has collected adequate IQ specific to this project scope? How does the effort level compare to those undertaken to collect IQ in 2015-16 for Phase 2, and prior years related to the ERP and original Mary River applications?

Yes, Baffinland has collected a comprehensive set of perspectives in relation to the Phase 2 Proposal currently before the Board. These perspectives are grounded in a substantial record of engagement and IQ collection, and has been subject to continuous updates as the project has evolved.

Notable changes were made to the Phase 2 Proposal project description in direct response to feedback received (e.g., removal of shipping over winter months and no breaking of landfast ice), and most recently, following Baffinland’s submission to the NIRB in August 2018. We wish to highlight again that all of the information captured through formal and informal discussions/meetings/workshops, etc., regardless of the format in which it is received, is central to informing our decision-making and the various new mitigation and management measures we have implemented over time in response to new information brought forward. We have demonstrated as part of our existing operations that we are open to responding relatively quickly to concerns raised. This is possible because we meet regularly with relevant parties such as the Hamlet of Pond Inlet and the MHTO on various topics pertaining to our existing operations. For example, Baffinland has held yearly pre- and end of shipping season meetings with the MHTO, Hamlet of Pond Inlet and QIA representatives to discuss various items associated with its shipping season since 2018. Following a request that we improve our shipping-related communications within the community of Pond Inlet following the 2018 shipping season, Baffinland started hiring full-time shipping monitors in 2019 to work out of the Baffinland office located in the MHTO building over the entire shipping season in order to provide the latest information on Baffinland’s daily shipping activities using a variety of methods (e.g., marine VHF radio, public radio announcements starting in 2019, newly added Facebook posts in 2020). Furthermore, based on a request during the End of 2019 Shipping Season meeting held in January 2020 to reduce potential interactions with hunting activities occurring at Bruce Head in Milne Inlet, Baffinland made a slight adjustment to the centerline of the shipping lane near Bruce Head during the 2020 shipping season. Other notable changes include restricting the number of vessels anchored at Ragged Island to three from no limit, and no drifting in Eclipse Sound to the extent possible unless safety warrants this need. Also, since start of the 2019 shipping season, our ore carriers are also now waiting at least 40 km to the east of the Nunavut Settlement Area before being allowed to enter Milne Port by our Port Captain. We note that no other vessels in the area are required to follow these procedures, including the voluntary speed restrictions.

We also note that these meetings are in addition to focused meetings organized by the Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB) as part of existing operations such as the Marine Monitoring and Marine Mitigation Workshop held on May 1-2, 2019 (NIRB Doc No. 325313) and on August 25, 2020 (NIRB Doc No. 332007). As stated by NIRB, these meetings provide an opportunity for Elders and community members to share their experiences and IQ with NIRB staff and other workshop participants, along with their questions and comments about the monitoring of the Approved Project. Information related to harvesting, if and when shared, can be captured during these marine- focused workshops, and is subsequently summarized by NIRB.

For example, we heard during the May 2019 meeting concerns related to “ore carriers and Project shipping interfering with traditional hunting activities of community members and causing loss of harvesting opportunities”, which is consistent to what we heard in August 2020 where community members expressed concerns that there was “increased difficulty in locating narwhal to harvest” and request that “Ragged Island no longer be used as an anchoring location because it overlaps with seal hunting areas”. Baffinland implemented new measures in 2019 in response to feedback received through the various forums.

As part of discussions, clarification was requested with regard to “procedures including compensation mechanisms for loss of harvesting opportunities”, and requests that “Baffinland provide electricity to the MHTO cabins near the Project area with consideration for the provision of heat and internet, television”. Although the meeting focused on existing operations, some comments were made regarding the Phase 2 proposal, “potential for the north railway system to impede caribou movement including harvester movement…”. All of this information is consistent to what has been heard through other forums with regard to potential impacts of proposed Project activities on harvesting, and the consideration of potential mitigation measures to minimize such potential impacts.

4. Did BIM consider that its absence from consultations with communities would impact its credibility with communities who have been stressing the need for BIM to undertake further consultation and do engagement to inform its incorporation of community concerns regarding Phase 2?

This question contains an untrue and unsupported statement. Baffinland has not had an absence of consultation in North Baffin communities. As part of our ongoing approach to community engagement efforts related to both existing and proposed Phase 2 Project activities, Baffinland has held numerous meetings, public radio shows, and community tours, and has participated in various workshops with representatives from North Baffin Hamlets, HTOs, and the QIA, as well as members of the public since 2018, as recorded in numerous engagement activities summaries submitted to the NIRB (Doc. Nos. 321614, 326504-326506, 329530, 331636, 332176, 332557). As mentioned previously Baffinland collaborated with Hamlets and HTOs to develop engagement calendars that considered community needs and resources, and that were mutually-agreed upon by participating parties.

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal

MHTO-12 ATTACHMENT 1: MEMO ON SNOW SAMPLING

March 2021

Memo

Date: March 17, 2021 To: Connor Devereaux; Lou Kamermans; Baffinland From: Christine Moore, Claire McAuley, Intrinsik Corp. cc : Megan Lord Hoyle, Baffinland Re: Pilot Snow Melt Water Assessment – Preliminary Approach and Findings

In order to determine potential risks related to making tea or drinking water from snow which may contain dust as a result of Baffinland Operations, a pilot program was undertaken in late 2020 to develop a potential sampling protocol and approach that could be taken to determine concentrations of metals in dust on snow. This exploratory program was conducted as a preliminary investigation to help develop approaches for a future community-based program. This program should by no means be considered a final sampling program or protocol.

For this exploratory program, several potentially dust-impacted areas (qualitatively established as low; medium and high dust levels) and one reference area (an area with no visible dust) were sampled to investigate metals levels in snow melt water at various locations with different dustfall rates. The locations identified for sampling are provided in Table 1, and on Figure 1.

Table 1 Locations Identified for Sampling of Snow UTM Coordinates Comments Site ID Site Category UTM Zone E N MP-SS-01 Reference 17 W 506667 7975669 1-2 km upstream of HTO MP-SS-02 Known Recreational Use (low) 17 W 505223 7976862 Adjacent to HTO MP-SS-03 Dustfall Monitoring Adjacent 17 W 504195 7976222 Adjacent to MP-DF-06 MP-SS-04 Dustfall Monitoring Adjacent 17 W 502590 7976050 adjacent to MP-DF-07 MP-SS-05 Potential Low Impact 17 W 502047 7973277 West Shore, Milne Inlet

1 | Page

502,000 503,000 504,000 505,000 506,000 507,000 508,000 509,000 510,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 , , 7 7 8 8 9 9 , , 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 , , 6 6 8 8 9 9 , , 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 , , 5 5 8 8 9 9 , , 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 , , 4 4 8 8 9 9 , , 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 , , 3 3 8 8 9 9 , , 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 , , 2 2 8 8 9 9 , , 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 , , 1 1 8 8 9 9 , , 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 , , 0 0 8 8 9 9 , , 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 , , 9 9

7 Milne 7 9 9 , , 7 Inlet 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 , , 8 8

7 ?!MP-SS-05 7 9 9 , , 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 , , 7 7 7 7 9 9 , , 7 ?!MP-SS-02 7

?! MP-SS-03 0 0 0 0 0 0 , , ! 6 6 1 MP-SS-04?

2 D KM 1 7 7 - 9 9 n , , a 7 7 J - 5 2

; d x ?! MP-SS-01 m . e t D KM 2 a d p U 1 2 1 0 2 2 0 0 _ 0 0 g 0 0 n , , i l 5 5 p 7 7 m 9 9 a , , S 7 7 w o n S t r o

P D KM 3 e n l i M - 1 g i F _ 0 0 M 0 0 I 0 0 B \ , , 0 4 4 2 7 7 0 9 9 2 , , \ g 7 7 n i D KM 4 l p m a S w o n S \ g n i l p m a S \ s

p 502,000 503,000 504,000 505,000 506,000 507,000 508,000 509,000 510,000 a M

- k]l]/i s/C4ys3g5 MARY RIVER PROJECT 4 \ s t

n LEGEND e m u c ?! Snow Sampling Location Milne Port Snow Sampling o D \ e r i u Milne Inlet Tote Road g c

m 0 125250 500 750 1,000 Meters

. Projection: NAD 1983 UTM ZONE 17N. e i t Foreshore Lease Boundary Base Map: © Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2021. a k

\ Scale 1:40,000 s r e ¯ s Project Development Area U \ : C

: ttCs/3ymJ6 D Commercial Lease Boundary E 1 V

A FIGURE S

The sampling protocol included input from ALS laboratories, Baffinland and Intrinsik staff, based on previous experience with similar types of sampling in other regions, and specific analytical requirements. The protocol included the following:

• Consideration of Health and Safety related to sampling; access to sampling sites, adjusting for weather and other challenges (e.g., daylight hours); • Clean plastic buckets (minimum of 2.5 gallon size; HDPE-type buckets), rinsed with deionized water; • Collection of 3 separate snow samples at each site (2 m apart), so a mean and standard deviation can be calculated to represent the concentrations at each site; • Inclusion of an equipment blank, to confirm that the buckets used do not have quantifiable contributions of metal concentrations. This blank was collected by rinsing the bucket with deionized water and submitting the water sample for analysis to ALS. • Inclusion of a field blank sample to determine influence of ambient sampling conditions. Wherein a sampling bucket was taken into the field, opened in the field, and then bought back to the facility and rinsed with deionized water and handled in the same fashion as the other samples. The decant water was submitted for analysis.

The details of the sampling protocol are still in draft format and are available on request. The sampling protocol will be finalized following Inuit input. In addition to the collection of snow samples, other information was gathered at each sampling location (GPS locations; photos; qualitative assessment of dust level on snow; wind direction and to enable a snow pack evaluation). In addition, snow volume of each sample was also calculated. This additional information and analysis will be presented under separate cover, by Baffinland staff.

Once sampling was complete, samples were returned to BIM facilities and snow was allowed to melt with the bucket lid in place in order to prevent contamination. Melt water was subsequently decanted into appropriate sample jars provided by ALS for trace metals and preserved as directed.

The analytical program included Total and Dissolved metals analysis, as well as Total Suspended Solids (TSS), pH, dissolved solids and turbidity.

Samples were collected between December 17 and December 30, 2020.

In order to evaluate the potential risks associated with use of snow meltwater to make tea, or drinking water, the following was conducted:

• Chemicals of Potential Concern (COPCs) identified in TSD-11 and the country foods human health risk assessment (HC-03; submitted in January, 2019 Information Request) were shortlisted for evaluation. Note that Canadian Drinking Water Quality guidelines (CDWQGs) are typically based on protection of health. In cases where aesthetic objectives are considered, or, where aesthetic issues such as coloration of water, or taste of water may occur at lower concentrations than health-related impacts, aesthetic guidelines are provided;

 Page 3

• Mean and standard deviations were calculated for each parameter at each of the stations sampled for total metals only (since total metals analysis includes suspended particulate matter, which could be consumed during drinking); • Means were compared to CDWQGs. The CDWQGs are calculated based on an assumed consumption rate of 1.5 L of water per day over a lifetime (70 years) (Health Canada, 2017). If CDWQGs were not available, potable groundwater consumption values from Ontario Ministry of Environment were used (MOE, 2011).

The results of these comparisons are provided in Table 2, with results of the equipment blank and field blank provided as Appendix A. Where measured values are above the CDWQGs or MOE guidelines, values are bolded. Photos of the sampling locations are provided as Appendix B.

 Page 4

Table 2 Comparison of Chemical Concentrations in Snow Meltwater to Canadian Drinking Water Quality Guidelines

CDWQG Ontario MP-SS-01 (n=3) MP-SS-02 (n=3) MP-SS-03 (n=3) MP-SS-04 (n=3) MP-SS-05 (n=3) Chemical (mg/L) GW1 Average StdDev Average StdDev Average StdDev Average StdDev Average StdDev MAC AO (mg/L) Aluminum (Al) 0.0167 0.00548 0.295 0.205 0.455 0.429 0.522 0.189 0.219 0.175 - - - Antimony (Sb) <0.0001 0 <0.0001 0 <0.0001 0 <0.0001 0 0.000113 0.0000231 0.006 - 0.006 Arsenic (As) <0.0001 0 0.000123 0.0000321 0.000107 0.0000115 0.00022 0.00007 <0.0001 0 0.01 - 0.025 Barium (Ba) 0.000437 0.000127 0.00142 0.000919 0.00421 0.00325 0.00480 0.00214 0.00220 0.00152 2 - 1 Cadmium (Cd) <0.000005 0 <0.000005 0 0.00000733 0.00000306 0.00000663 0.00000210 0.00000563 0.00000110 0.007 - 0.005 Chromium (Cr) <0.0005 0 0.000723 0.000387 0.00063 0.000225 0.000973 0.000112 0.00066 0.00026 0.05 - 0.05 Cobalt (Co) <0.0001 0 0.00018 0.000106 0.00014 0.0000608 0.000697 0.000243 0.000147 0.0000569 - - 0.003 Copper (Cu) <0.0005 0 0.000677 0.000306 0.000813 0.000283 0.00092 0.000100 0.00066 0.000177 2 1 1 Iron (Fe) 0.0237 0.00764 0.334 0.237 0.347 0.244 1.05 0.229 0.241 0.191 - ≤ 0.3 - Lead (Pb) 0.0000847 0.0000484 0.000282 0.000205 0.0007177 0.000678 0.000535 0.000255 0.000266 0.000196 0.005 - 0.01 Manganese (Mn) 0.00146 0.000477 0.00693 0.00396 0.0112 0.00856 0.0257 0.00543 0.00733 0.00514 0.12 ≤ 0.02 - Mercury (Hg) NV NV NV NV NV NV NV NV NV NV 0.001 - 0.001 Molybdenum (Mo) <0.00005 0 <0.00005 0 0.0000653 0.0000142 0.000108 0.0000235 0.0000533 0.00000577 - - 0.07 Nickel (Ni) <0.0005 0 0.0006 0.000173 <0.0005 0 0.000837 0.000168 0.000527 0.0000462 - - 0.1 Selenium (Se) <0.00005 0 <0.00005 0 <0.00005 0 <0.00005 0 <0.00005 0 0.05 - 0.01 Silver (Ag) <0.00005 0 <0.00005 0 <0.00005 0 <0.00005 0 <0.00005 0 NR - 0.1 Strontium (Sr) 0.00147 0.000416 0.0068 0.00261 0.0171 0.0218 0.0449 0.0222 0.0164 0.0139 7 - - Thallium (Tl) <0.00001 0 <0.00001 0 0.0000117 0.00000289 0.0000107 0.00000115 <0.00001 0 - - 0.002 Tin (Sn) <0.0001 0 <0.0001 0 <0.0001 0 <0.0001 0 <0.0001 0 - - - Uranium (U) 0.0000123 0.00000208 0.000055 0.0000276 0.000547 0.000436 0.00042 0.000218 0.000081 0.0000602 0.02 - 0.02 Vanadium (V) <0.0005 0 0.00077 0.000369 0.000553 0.0000924 0.000527 0.0000462 0.00062 0.000159 - - 0.0062 Zinc (Zn) 0.0059 0.00180 <0.003 0 0.00607 0.00291 0.0064 0.00274 0.0035 0.000458 - ≤ 5 5 pH 5.82 0.0755 7.97 0.617 6.93 0.226 6.8 0.278 7.97 0.805 - - - Total Suspended Solids 2.03 0.0577 20.7 16.0 51.6 64.6 29.4 19.7 34.9 30.5 - - - Total Dissolved Solids 21.7 10.4 36.7 7.57 69.7 74.8 212 87.2 56 45.0 - ≤ 500 - Turbidity 0.973 0.127 7.45 3.39 8.55 3.35 48.7 7.92 17.1 19.3 - - - Notes: NV indicates no value. Parameter was not analyzed by lab. NR indicates none required. Bolded values indicate an exceedance of the aesthetic objective (AO) Shaded values indicate an exceedance of the maximum acceptable concentration (MAC) or other health-based guidelines CDWQG indicates Canadian Drinking Water Quality Guidelines Ontario GW1 indicates the Ontario GW1 component value protective of potable groundwater supplies

5 | Page

Based on the data and analysis completed to date, the following can be stated:

• No health-based CDWQGs or groundwater consumption guidelines were exceeded at any of the sampled stations; • Mean iron concentrations were at the aesthetic objectives at MP-SS-02 (near Milne port HTO) (mean: 0.334 mg/L, versus guideline of 0.3 mg/L), and were slightly higher at MP-SS-03 (adjacent to MP-DF-06 dustfall monitor, on east side of Milne Port facility, within Project Development Area; see Figure 1) (mean: 0.347 mg/L, versus guideline of 0.3 mg/L). The aesthetic objective is set by Health Canada based on taste and water discoloration. In establishing this objective, Health Canada (1987) concluded that at concentrations above 0.3 mg/L iron can produce an undesirable taste in drinking water and can stain laundry and plumbing fixtures. Generally, only a small percentage of the population will be able to taste iron in drinking water at concentrations below 0.3 mg/L, and therefore, Health Canada established the aesthetic objective at 0.3 mg/L (Health Canada, 1987). • At MP-SS-04 (located on the Project Development Area, near dustfall monitor location MP-DF- 07; see Figure 1), the iron aesthetic objective, as well as the manganese aesthetic objective were exceeded. The manganese guideline was set by Health Canada (2019) based on minimizing occurrence of discolored water. The health-based guideline for manganese was not exceeded. This location would not be used for consumption of snow for tea, as it is located in the active area of the port facility.

Based on data collected to date, risks related to making tea from snow while on the land in areas removed from active project areas are not associated with an elevated health risk.

Recent snow testing indicated that concentrations of metals in sampled snow meltwater do not exceed health-based CDWQG or potable groundwater guidelines in areas that were sampled. In some samples, with slightly higher levels of dust, the measured concentrations of iron or manganese could result in snow tasting different or slight colour changes when compared to areas with lower or no dust. These taste and color changes are not associated with an elevated health risk.

Next Steps:

Baffinland has proposed an Inuit led community-based study which will provide greater insight and understanding into Inuit concerns and perspectives of risk related to dust on the snow. In addition, Inuit based thresholds will be developed as part of the Adaptive Management Plan. The community-based study, in conjunction with the Inuit thresholds, visual observations and additional sampling in areas around Milne Port and the Mine Site will assist in developing a path forward and seeking solutions for the issues related to dust on snow.

6 | Page

Closure Intrinsik Corp. (Intrinsik) has provided this report to Baffinland Iron Ore Mining (Baffinland) solely for the purpose stated in the report. The assessment has been performed in accordance with accepted practice and usual standards of thoroughness and competence for the profession of toxicology and human health risk assessment. Any information or facts provided by others and referred to or utilized in the preparation of this memo, is believed to be accurate without any independent verification or confirmation by Intrinsik. The information, opinions and recommendations provided within the memo have been developed using reasonable and responsible practices, and the report was completed to the best of our knowledge and ability.

References:

Health Canada. 2017. Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality – Summary Table. Prepared by the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on Drinking Water of the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on Health and the Environment. February 2017. https://www.canada.ca/en/health- canada/services/environmental-workplace-health/reports-publications/water-quality/guidelines- canadian-drinking-water-quality-summary-table.html#t2

Health Canada. 2019. Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality. Guideline Technical Document. Manganese. https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/publications/healthy-living/guidelines- canadian-drinking-water-quality-guideline-technical-document-manganese.html

Health Canada 1987. Iron. Technical Summary for the Canadian Drinking Water Quality Guidelines. https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/publications/healthy-living/guidelines-canadian-drinking- water-quality-guideline-technical-document-iron.html MOE. 2011. Rationale for the Development of Soil and Groundwater Standards for Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario, revised version April 15, 2011. Standards Development Branch, Ontario Ministry of the Environment.

 Page 7

Appendix A – QA/QC Samples

Equipment Blank Field Blank Parameter MP-SS-02C04 MP-SS-05C02 Aluminum (Al)-Total <0.005 0.0074 Antimony (Sb)-Total <0.0001 <0.0001 Arsenic (As)-Total <0.0001 <0.0001 Barium (Ba)-Total <0.0001 0.00014 Beryllium (Be)-Total <0.0001 <0.0001 Bismuth (Bi)-Total <0.00005 <0.00005 Boron (B)-Total <0.01 <0.01 Cadmium (Cd)-Total <0.000005 <0.000005 Calcium (Ca)-Total <0.05 0.206 Cesium (Cs)-Total <0.00001 <0.00001 Chromium (Cr)-Total <0.0005 <0.0005 Cobalt (Co)-Total <0.0001 <0.0001 Copper (Cu)-Total <0.0005 <0.0005 Iron (Fe)-Total <0.01 <0.01 Lead (Pb)-Total <0.00005 <0.00005 Lithium (Li)-Total <0.001 <0.001 Magnesium (Mg)-Total <0.005 0.0203 Manganese (Mn)-Total <0.0005 <0.0005 Molybdenum (Mo)-Total <0.00005 <0.00005 Nickel (Ni)-Total <0.0005 <0.0005 Phosphorus (P)-Total <0.05 <0.05 Potassium (K)-Total <0.05 0.154 Rubidium (Rb)-Total <0.0002 <0.0002 Selenium (Se)-Total <0.00005 <0.00005 Silicon (Si)-Total <0.1 <0.1 Silver (Ag)-Total <0.00005 <0.00005 Sodium (Na)-Total <0.05 0.08 Strontium (Sr)-Total <0.001 <0.001 Sulfur (S)-Total <0.5 <0.5 Tellurium (Te)-Total <0.0002 <0.0002 Thallium (Tl)-Total <0.00001 <0.00001 Thorium (Th)-Total <0.0001 <0.0001 Tin (Sn)-Total <0.0001 <0.0001 Titanium (Ti)-Total <0.0003 0.00032 Tungsten (W)-Total <0.0001 <0.0001 Uranium (U)-Total <0.00001 <0.00001 Vanadium (V)-Total <0.0005 <0.0005

 Page 8

Zinc (Zn)-Total <0.003 <0.003 Zirconium (Zr)-Total <0.0002 <0.0002 pH 5.76 Total Suspended Solids <3 Total Dissolved Solids <10 Turbidity 0.3

 Page 9

Appendix B – Photos

Photo 1 MP-SS-01

Photo 2 MP-SS-01 South

 Page 10

Photo 3 MP-SS-02 South

Photo 4 MP-SS-03

 Page 11

Photo 5 MP-SS-03 South

Photo 6 MP-SS-04 West

 Page 12

Photo 7 MP-SS-05 East

 Page 13

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal

MHTO-18 ATTACHMENT 1: LIST OF REFERENCES

March 2021

Question: 1. What level of certainty does BIM have that the 400-plus ship transits proposed for Phase 2 over a 4.5 month shipping season will not contribute to increased stress levels, negative changes in body condition, and avoidance of preferred habitat by narwhals? Is there academic literature or other examples of shipping in narwhal habitat which would support BIM’s predictions regarding stress levels, changes in body condition, and avoidance of preferred habitat?

As outlined in Golder (2020a), potential effects of shipping on narwhal are predicted to be limited to temporary, localized avoidance behaviours consistent with low to moderate severity responses (Southall et al. 2007; Finneran et al. 2017). No effects at the population or stock-level are anticipated (consistent with the definition of a non-significant effect used in the FEIS Addendum for the Phase 2 Proposal). A ‘moderate’ level of confidence (i.e., certainty) has been assigned to this impact prediction (Golder 2020a). Consistent with standard EIA practice, follow-up monitoring is required where the limitations in, or scientific certainty of, the impact predictions need to be verified (i.e., when an EIA practitioner’s confidence in the significance determination is low or moderate), or where the effectiveness of mitigation requires confirmation) (CEAA 2011, 2012). Hence, follow-up monitoring is warranted in the case of the Phase 2 Proposal to verify the accuracy of impact predictions regarding shipping effects on narwhal.

In addition to information available in the academic literature regarding shipping effects on toothed whale such as narwhal (full review in Richardson et al. 1995; Southall et al. 2007; Golder 2018; Golder 2019), the Phase 2 assessment has had the benefit of being directly informed by narwhal-specific monitoring undertaken in the RSA for a currently operating Project that has been shipping iron ore out of Milne Port since 2015. Phase 2 impact predictions are therefore directly informed by site-specific, empirical data collected for narwhal over multiple years in which year-over-year increases in shipping have occurred. These follow-up monitoring programs for narwhal are based on a comprehensive ‘multiple lines of evidence’ approach, meaning they evaluate the potential effects of shipping on narwhal from multiple perspectives, using an integrated combination of remote sensing (animal-borne tagging data) and shore- based, vessel-based, aerial-based and acoustic-based monitoring methods that collectively facilitate a holistic and comprehensive understanding of this impact pathway. An integrated summary of the results from all these programs has been provided to the NIRB (and to Intervenors belonging to the MEWG) in a number of documents, but most recently in Golder’s Technical Memorandum entitled “Summary of Results for the 2019 Marine Mammal Monitoring Programs” dated 25 May 2020 (Golder 2020a).

Data from each aspect of this monitoring demonstrates that behavioural reactions of narwhal to shipping are localized and temporary in nature (Golder 2020a, 2020b, 2020c). Narwhal responses to shipping range from no reaction to minor/moderate severity responses (e.g., narwhal changing direction and adjusting their position away from the shipping lane, and then reoccupying the shipping lane shortly after the vessels have passed). The nature and magnitude of these behavioural responses would not be expected to result in any appreciable increase in stress levels which would affect the fitness of an individual or result in adverse changes in body condition.

There is variability within available IQ regarding effects of shipping on narwhal behaviour with perspectives ranging from little to no effect, to examples of avoidance/displacement behaviour including alteration of migration routes. Baffinland endeavored to capture the spectrum of IQ in its assessment. A full list of relevant IQ is provided in Baffinland’s response to MHTO-26.

Baffinland acknowledges recent feedback from the MHTO regarding repeated observations of ‘skinny’ narwhal in the RSA by Inuit hunters. Given what is presently known with respect to climate change effects on Arctic marine mammals (i.e., changes in food web structure and prey availability, decreased ice coverage, increased predation pressure), it is reasonable to assume that narwhal have lower blubber reserves than they have historically, and this could lead to animals sinking after being shot (as reported by hunters). Poorer body condition in this case is more likely a reflection of a change in their environment rather than a result from shipping.

Following is a summary of available IQ that speaks to the potential influence of other external factors on narwhal behaviour, stress levels and and body condition:

“Some that have a better diet during the fall are fat ones that come through here. Some we think are skinnier, thinner ones that have, how do we say it, bruised inside that was caused by something, perhaps they were being rammed or maybe killers whales were bothering them so they are skinnier those are the ones I call thinner, maybe they were being chased by killer whales or being pursued so they tend to be skinnier” (Harry Alookie; p. 5 of NWMB 2016).

“It is obvious at times when we go after them sometimes we lose the ones that sink because they are so skinny. We know that they were being chased by killer whales. Some are skinny while others are fat.” (Samuel Nuqinngaq; p. 20 of NWMB 2016).

“Narwhal have been observed not to feed when killer whales are present. Harvesters have observed that they do not always feed during their fall migration.” (Summary of IQ; p. 49 of QIA 2018).

“Harvesters pay close attention to the health of whales. In recent years, hunters have observed that narwhal and beluga have become more scattered and thinner. Hunters think the change in behaviour is linked to lack of access to fish at floe edges, and more energy being spent by whales on travelling and hunting for food”, and “narwhal feed on Arctic and Greenlandic cod, Arctir char, Greenland halibut, herring, sculpin, shrimp, squid, planktonic crustaceans, and other invertebrates. Food intake is thought to increase in the fall just before migration to their wintering grounds. Some harvesters think they might fast while migrating since they are seen to be skinnier” (Summary of IQ; p. 42 of QIA 2018).

“As narwhal move into Cumberland Sound, they feed on Greenland halibut under the ice. Harvesters think they feed less as the summer goes on. They leave the Sound skinnier than when they arrived. Harvesters speculate that the whales are travelling more and expending more energy to avoid areas where they hear motorboats. Boat avoidance has been observed since the 1960s.” (Summary of IQ; p. 55 of QIA 2018).

“We can’t really say how much narwhals have been affected by shipping during the summer. I can’t say for certain whether you can see any more narwhals when there are ships in the area. Recently this past summer, as I was on my way home after teaching the younger generation about the procedures, we travelled by helicopter to Milne Inlet to refuel. There were some killer whales near the vicinity of Milne Inlet and there was a dead narwhal carcass floating. One orca had a narwhal in its mouth. One killer whale slammed a narwhal. Killer whales are very fast. Narwhals are more afraid of killer whales than ships. Narwhals don’t seem to mind ships. Once ships are in the area they sometimes disperse, but once the ships have passed they return to the area." (Elijah Panikpakoocho; p. 183 of JPCS 2017 / TSD #03)

“While in the region, narwhal give birth and mate. Given the various ages of calves, Inuit think narwhal breed in any season. Narwhal take advantage of the rich food supplies in Milne Inlet, Eclipse Sound, Tay Sound, and Koluktoo Bay. Young whales tend to stay in the inlets while older ones travel between inlets. The whales leave the inlets for Baffin Bay in Ukiassaaq (i.e., September/October) when ice starts forming. Narwhal take advantage of shallow areas in inlets to avoid killer whales. Killer whales follow narwhal only after the ice has cleared in fiords. During Ukiuq, narwhal can be found in open water beyond the floe edge, as well as, in Tremblay Sound and occassionally Milne Inlet where they are at risk of entrapment” (Summary of IQ; p. 52 of QIA 2018).

“Killer whales will prey on narwhal after they arrive in Aujaq once the ice has dissipated. To avoid killer whales, narwhal move to shallower areas” (Summary of IQ; p. 55 of QIA 2018)

“They won’t leave the inlet when the killer whales were present, even when we go after them they tend to return towards the land” (Samuel Nuqinngaq; p. 13 of NWMB 2016).

“I’ve personally hasn’t observed them, though killer whales seem to be increasing every year here” (Samuel Nuqinngaq; p. 18 of NWMB 2016).

“Just recently I started noticing them near here, but I have never seen them up there. Other hunters have seen the killer whales but here I have seen them once but the killer whales seem to be coming every year” (Samuel Nuqinngaq; p. 18 of NWMB 2016).

“Yes..that is being mentioned more often now as they come every year now.” (Jaypoody Aliqatuqtuq; p. 47 of NWMB 2016).

“I know this, the change of – narwhals. There’s usually narwhals around here [mouth of Qinngua]. But since the Baffinland is carrying ships, most of the narwhals are now like away from the area they usually be. Yeah. Like lots of narwhal usually around here ... But one time, I think it was last year, people were noticing the difference too. They started seeing killer whales here instead of narwhals. Yeah. I think the shipping route is the effect of the animals” (P21, 08-Feb-19; p. 48 of QIA 2019).

“One of the other reasons that we see now is that there is a whole lot more killer whales coming to Pond Inlet area, like lots of them; and again, I was talking about earlier that there’s different factors involved in narwhals not migrating to Pond Inlet area as they used to, and I believe this is one of them as well. The killer whales two years ago stayed in Milne area all summer and kept the narwhals away from that area; and again, they’re killers, they’ll just kill” (P13, 06-Feb-19, p. 141 of QIA 2019).

“Yeah. Also for the last five years we've had a problem with killer whales, they're here all the time now. Last summer they came … where the narrows are, three days later seven more and they keep adding. And HTO decided let’s count how many killer whales are there now and how many narwhales has been killed by killer whales. So we went right there, right here somewhere here, yeah. We went right there. And the killer whales were hunting over there, over there somewhere, yeah...Yeah. And we come, there were over 100 killer whales and they were teaching their young ones how to kill, narwhals” (P07, 05-Feb-19, p. 142 of QIA 2019).

In workshop #1 (ERM 2019), the following points were raised:

• Concern about impacts on narwhal and other marine mammals (narwhal move away when vessels transit through; killer whales also impact narwhal populations and movement). • Concern that killer whales have a bigger impact on the narwhal population than shipping. • There are impacts of climate change on marine mammals (e.g., narwhal moving west, introduction of new species into the area). Appearance of new species in the area (i.e., bowhead whale) may have effect on narwhal travel and presence. • Concern about impacts of port construction on the marine environment (e.g., pile driving, timing of construction to avoid impacts on migrating fish). In summary, Baffinland recognizes the importance of narwhal harvesting to Inuit and is committed to ensuring that its current and future shipping operations will not result in adverse effects on the local narwhal population nor on the communities’ ability to harvest these animals. This is demonstrated by the extensive suite of mitigation measures and follow-up monitoring programs Baffinland has developed and implemented to date for narwhal, which will be continued as part of Phase 2. Baffinland has high confidence in its impact predictions regarding shipping impacts on narwhal because they are founded on multiple lines of evidence including IQ and multiple years of follow-up monitoring, conservative assumptions built into the assessment, extensive mitigation measures with demonstrated effectiveness (many of which were undertaken based on Inuit input), and strong commitments to further follow-up monitoring and adaptive management measures. For these reasons, Baffinland is confident that Phase 2 shipping will not contribute to significant behavioral disturbance effects on narwhal, such as large-scale displacement effects or avoidance of preferred habitat in the RSA. Anticipated behavioral responses of narwhal to shipping (i.e., temporary localized avoidance of ships, consistent with low to moderate severity effects) would not be expected to result in any appreciable increase in stress levels which would affect the fitness of an individual or result in adverse changes in narwhal body condition.

References:

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA). 2011. Follow-up programs under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Originally released October 2002. Revised December 2011. Available at: https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/iaac-acei/documents/ops/ops-follow-up-programs-2011.pdf. Accessed February 2021.

CEAA. 2012. Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012. Amended 28 August 2019. Current to 24 February 2021.

ERM Consultants Canada Ltd. 2019. Community Risk Assessment Workshops: Final Report. Report submitted to Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation. September 2019.

Finneran, J., E. Henderson, D. Houser, K. Jenkins, S. Kotecki, and J. Mulsow. 2017. Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive Effects Analysis (Phase III). Technical report by Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Pacific (SSC Pacific). June 2017. 194 pp.

Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder). 2018. Technical Support Document (TSD) No. 24. Marine Mammal Effects Assessment. Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation. Mary River Project – Phase 2 Proposal. 01 August 2018. Report No. 1663724-038-R-Rev2-3000. 362 p. NIRB Registry No. 320584

Golder. 2019. Assessment of Icebreaking Operations during Shipping Shoulder Seasons on Marine Biophysical Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs). Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation. Mary River Project – Phase 2 Proposal. 17 May 2019. Report No. 1663724-102-R-Rev1-30000. 343 p. NIRB Registry No. 325033-325047

Golder. 2020a. Summary of Results for the 2019 Marine Mammal Monitoring Programs. Technical Memorandum 1663724-186-TM-Rev3-38000. 25 May 2020. 73p.

Golder. 2020b. 2019 Bruce Head Shore-based Monitoring Program – Technical Data Report. Report No. 1663724-199-R-Rev0-23000. 3 September 2020. 285p.

Golder. 2020c. 2017/2018 Integrated Narwhal Tagging Study – Technical Data Report. Report No. 1663724-188-R-Rev0. 14 August 2020. 278 p. Jason Prno Consulting Services Ltd (JPCS). 2017. Technical Supporting Document (TSD) No. 03: Results of Community Workshops Conducted for Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation’s – Phase 2 Proposal. Report submitted to Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation. January 2017.

Nunavut Wildlife Management Board (NWMB). 2016. Qikiqtarjuaq Narwhal IQ Interview Report. Prepared by Sheila Oolayou, Inuit Qaujimajatuqngit Coordinator for the NWMB. 10 November 2016.Southall, B. L., J.J. Finneran, C. Reichmuth, P.E. Nachtigall, D.R. Ketten., A.E. Bowles, W.T. Ellison, D.P.

Qikiqtani Inuit Association (QIA). 2018. Qikiqtaaluk Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit and Inuit Qaujimajangit Iliqqusingitigut for the Baffin Bay and Davis Strait Marine Environment. Prepared by Heidi Klein, Sanammanga Solutions Inc. for submission to the Nunavut Impact Review Board for the Baffin Bay and Davis Strait Strategic Environmental Assessment.

QIA. 2019. Tusaqtavut Study (Study) on the Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation’s (Proponent) Mary River Project (Project) Phase 2 Proposal. Report submitted to Nunavut Impact Review Board. June 2019.

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal

MHTO-18 ATTACHMENT 2: POND INLET ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY

March 2021

MHTO Record of Engagement March 2020 to Present

*Except for those entries with an asterisk, all entries indicate engagement related to Phase 2.

Date Correspondence Topic Notes Attachment Description Type 30‐Mar‐2020 Teleconference MHTO FWS Status See follow‐up minutes provided in Item 3. n/a Update Follow up to call Material received by MHTO. No comments on draft meeting 1. Assessment of Icebreaking Operations during Shipping Shoulder Seasons on Marine where status of minutes provided. Biophysical Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs) resolution on MHTO 2. Memo re: Impacts of Icebreaking of Sea Ice during Ice Decay and Formation FWS was discussed. 3. Memo re: RSA Sea Ice for Polar Bears (see separate document) 3‐Apr‐20 Email Requested documents 4. Memo re: Daily Ship Exposure Periods for Narwhal During Shoulder and Open Water Seasons for review provided. Relevant to the 135, 120 and 110 Decibel Noise Fields 5. Draft Shipping Communications Protocol 6. Draft Icebreaking Operations Protocol 7. Memo re: 2019 Marine Mammal Monitoring Preliminary Results (see separate document) Draft Meeting Minutes Follow up to call No response from MHTO. No comments on draft meeting minutes 1. Assessment of Icebreaking Operations during Shipping Shoulder Seasons on Marine where status of provided by MHTO. Biophysical Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs) resolution on MHTO 2. Memo re: Impacts of Icebreaking of Sea Ice during Ice Decay and Formation 6‐Apr‐2 FWS was discussed. 3. Memo re: RSA Sea Ice for Polar Bears (see separate document) Requested documents 4. Memo re: Daily Ship Exposure Periods for Narwhal During Shoulder and Open Water Seasons Email for review provided. Relevant to the 135, 120 and 110 Decibel Noise Fields 5. Draft Shipping Communications Protocol 6. Draft Icebreaking Operations Protocol 7. Memo re: 2019 Marine Mammal Monitoring Preliminary Results (see separate document) Draft Meeting Minutes 13‐May‐20 Email MHTO‐4a and 5a Received MHTO response May 15 2020. Actions items from May 13 teleconference (email body) Follow Up 15‐Jun‐20 Email MHTO‐4a and 5a Follow‐up email. No response provided by MHTO. n/a Follow Up 17‐Jul‐20 Email MHTO‐4a and 5a Follow‐up email. No response provided by MHTO. n/a Follow Up 4‐Aug‐20 Email MHTO‐4a and 5a Follow‐up email. No response provided by MHTO. n/a Follow Up MHTO & BIM – Status No response to email or comments on draft meeting minutes 13‐May‐20 Teleconference of Final Written provided by MHTO. Submissions for Phase Baffinland Shipping Communication Protocol and Icebreaking Operations Protocol 2 Proposal Marine Environment/Shipping Draft Meeting No response provided by MHTO. Documents attached to email: Minutes and Follow‐ ‐ 2020‐5‐13 Teleconference with MHTO_Minutes and Agenda_FINAL DRAFT.docx 15‐May‐20 Email up to Teleconference Working Group Terms of Reference Comment Submission Review Draft Minutes.docx 10‐Jul‐20 Email NIRB Phase 2 Hearing No response provided by MHTO. n/a Process

22035.124048.AMA.19267678.4 NIRB Phase 2 Hearing No response provided by MHTO. Documents attached to this email: 16‐Jul‐20 Email Process ‐ Baffinland Hearing Resumption Options_ENG.pdf Baffinland Hearing Resumption Option_IUK.pdf 21‐Jul‐20 Email Tote Road Access No response provided by MHTO. n/a

Call ‐ MHTO Call held between Baffinland and MHTO Technical Advisor. See 28‐Jul‐20 Teleconference engagement comments on Item 8 below. forecast/participation n/a in Phase 2 review process Follow‐up from Call No response provided by MHTO. 31‐Jul‐20 Email (Key engagement Activities, n/a Outstanding FWS, Potential Resourcing Needs) 10‐Aug‐20* Email Information request – Response to email received from MHTO on August 10, 2020. n/a Caribou Hunting Response received from MHTO August 20, 2020. around Mary River 11‐Aug‐20* Email Follow‐up – Caribou Further response to email received from MHTO on August 10, 2020. n/a Hunting around Mary River 14‐Aug‐20* Email Follow‐up – Caribou Further response to email received from MHTO on August 10, 2020. n/a Hunting around Mary River Follow‐up from Call Response in email indicated Baffinland should wait to hear from 17‐Aug‐20 Email (Key engagement MHTO on timing for a meeting. No follow up to schedule meeting Activities, ever occurred. n/a Outstanding FWS, Potential Resourcing Needs) Follow‐up from Call No response provided by MHTO. 19‐Aug‐20 Email (Key engagement Activities, n/a Outstanding FWS, Potential Resourcing Needs) 21‐Sept‐20* Email Information request – Response to email received from MHTO on September 19 2020. n/a Buoy at Milne Inlet 9‐Oct‐20* Email Information request – Response to email request from MHTO received September 22 2020. n/a Buoy at Milne Inlet 18‐Sep‐20 Email Meeting request Response provided by MHTO indicating lack of availability to meet. following Sept 14‐18 n/a Technical Meeting 21‐Sep‐20 Email Meeting request No response provided by MHTO. following Sept 14‐18 n/a

22035.124048.AMA.19267678.4 Technical Meeting (Phase 2 Meeting) 19‐Oct‐20 Email Follow‐up ‐ Request No response provided by MHTO. n/a to review commitments and Action Items 26‐Oct‐20 Email Meeting Request ‐ Response provided on October 26 2020 by MHTO indicating n/a Tote Road and Land inclusion of additional Organization members in e‐mail chain. User Access under Phase 2 26‐Oct‐20 Email MHTO Meeting No comments provided by MHTO on summary of follow‐up n/a Request ‐ Various meetings. topics 26‐Oct‐20 Email Meeting Request – Meeting invitation for meeting of October 28, 2020. n/a Pond Inlet Engagement Planning 27‐Oct‐20 Email Meeting Request – Follow‐up email on meeting invitation. Response provided on n/a Pond Inlet October 28, 2020. Engagement Planning 27‐Oct‐20 Email Meeting Request ‐ Response on October 27 2020 by MHTO indicating time conflict with n/a Tote Road and Land meeting request. User Access under Phase 2 27‐Oct‐20 Email Meeting Request ‐ Follow‐up email on meeting request. Response provided on October n/a Tote Road and Land 27 2020 by MHTO technical advisor requesting clarification on User Access under meeting time. Phase 2 28‐Oct‐20 Email Meeting Request ‐ Follow‐up email on meeting request. No response provided by n/a Tote Road and Land MHTO. User Access under Phase 2 30‐Oct‐20 Email MHTO Meeting No response provided by MHTO. Document attached to this email: Request ‐ Various ‐ 102120‐MHTO Meeting ‐ Commitment Table.docx topics 5‐Jan‐21 Email MHTO Meeting Received responses from MHTO and Technical Advisor January 12 n/a Request ‐ Various 2021. topics 13‐Jan‐21 Email MHTO Meeting No response provided by MHTO, no response requested. n/a Request ‐ Various topics

22035.124048.AMA.19267678.4

15‐Jan‐21 Email MHTO Meeting No response provided by MHTO. Documents attached to this email: Request ‐ Various ‐ Hunter Visitor Access ‐ Options ‐ Final Draft.pdf topics ‐ Tote Road Public Access Condition_Final Draft.pdf

15‐Jan‐21* Email and Letter Request for Meeting No response provided by MHTO. Documents attached to this email: with MHTO regarding ‐ 2021‐01‐15 Letter to MHTO requesting meeting regarding fish monitoring program fish monitoring

18‐Jan‐21 Email MHTO Meeting No response provided by MHTO. Documents attached to this email: Request ‐ Various ‐ Hunter Visitor Access ‐ Options ‐ Final Draft.pdf topics ‐ Tote Road Public Access Condition_Final Draft.pdf

22035.124048.AMA.19267678.4 Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal

MHTO-18 ATTACHMENT 3: IQ CONSIDERED IN RINGED SEAL ASSESSMENT

March 2021

There is variability within available IQ regarding effects of shipping on ringed seal distribution and behaviour, with perspectives ranging from little to no effect, to fears of fleeing and abandonment and associated impacts to hunting Baffinland endeavored to capture in the spectrum of IQ in its assessment. For example:

"Let’s say if the ship came in the fall, the seals might avoid breeding in the space where they heard this noise. They might breed somewhere else. They can adapt to the conditions that are being brought to them. The seals already know there is too much activity, so they will go elsewhere to breed. If the ship is moving in the same place, the animals will know, they will only stick to the places where the ships aren’t. They’ll go a certain distance from the noise. The seals will avoid the area of activity. They are already prepared when the ice is frozen to give birth." (Jobie Attitaq, p.95 of JPCS 2017 / TSD #03)

"Shipping would interfere with our hunting of seals." (Jimmy Pitseolak, p. 165 of JPCS 2017 / TSD #03)

“Regarding the proposed shipping route during the open water season – The people of Pond Inlet already approved the route for summer shipping. We have no objection to that route. The marine mammals, they get used to shipping noise. In the past, when the ships started coming to our area in the 1960s, wildlife would move somewhere else. Nowadays, seals are no longer going to different areas. Sometimes they go not far away, but this is temporary and then they return…” (Paniloo Sangoya; p. 176 of JPCS 2017 / TSD #03)

"I think over time the marine mammals can get used to it. In the early days of the ships, animals used to go right to shore. We see seals behaving normally. It actually benefitted hunters because it herded narwhal close to shore." (Sakiasee Qaunaq; p. 217 of JPCS 2017 / TSD #03)

Western science indicates that, in general, ringed seals are abundant in the RSA and that waters inland of Bylot Island in particular provide important sea ice habitat during winter and spring for pupping, mating, nursing and moulting (Beckett et al. 2008). Scientific literature also confirms that icebreaking activities during Phase 2 will not take place during ringed seal pupping, mating and nursing periods, but may overlap slightly with the tail-end of the moulting period, which extends into July (Smith 1973; Kelly et al. 2010; Yurkowski et al. 2018). As ice breaks up during summer, ringed seal disperse as solitary animals or small groups throughout open water areas (Moulton and Lawson 2002; Williams et al. 2004) or to coastal areas (MacLaren 1958; Smith 1973, 1987; McLaren and Davis 1982; Harwood and Stirling 1992) to forage, and thus are less likely to be adversely affected by shipping activities. Data suggest that seals are fairly tolerant of vessel sound / vessel activity and are known to return to areas of previous disturbance (full review in Richardson et al. 1995 and Southall et al. 2007). Brueggeman et al. (1992) observed ringed and bearded seals on pack ice approached by an icebreaker typically dove into the water within ~1 km of the vessel, but tended to be less responsive when the same ship was in open water. Acoustic modelling completed for the Project indicates that, given the degree of frequency overlap between icebreaker noise and ringed seal hearing, animals occurring within the modelled disturbance zones are predicted to demonstrate some avoidance of icebreakers on a local and short-term scale.

In summary, based on available IQ, information available from the scientific literature, and acoustic modelling results, and in light of Baffinland’s proposed mitigation commitments, the effect of vessel noise on ringed seal behaviour (i.e., disturbance) was predicted to be localized and temporary with no abandonment or long-term displacement behaviour effects anticipated. Therefore, no effects at the population level are predicted such that the effect is categorized as not significant.

Baffinland is confident in the conclusion drawn in the assessment of icebreaking activities that, with mitigation, Phase 2 operations will not result in significant residual effects on ringed seal. Confidence is based on conservative assumptions and modelling scenarios applied in the assessment, the extensive set of icebreaking and shipping-related mitigation measures developed for Phase 2, and commitments for follow-up monitoring to manage uncertainty.

See also responses to QIA-9 and QIA-8.

References:

Beckett, J., D. Chiperzak, B. Wheeler, T. Hills, D. Ebner, and M. Setterington, 2008. Nunavut Wildlife Resource and Habitat Values. Final Report. Prepared by Nunami Jacques Whitford Ltd., Yellowknife, NWT for Nunavut Planning Commission, Cambridge Bay, Nunavut. 238 p.Bel’kovich and Shchekotov 1992

Brueggemann, J.J., G.A. Green, R.A. Grotefendt, M.A. Smultea, D.P. Volsen , R.A. Rowlett and C.C. Swanson. 1992. 1991 Marine Mammal Monitoring Program (seals and whales) Crackerjack and Diamond Prospects Chukchi Sea. Final Report prepared for Shell Western E&P Inc. and Chevron USA Inc.

ERM. 2019. Community Risk Assessment Workshops: Final Report. 30 September 2019. Project No. 0489284-0004. 90 p.

Golder. 2018. Technical Support Document (TSD) No. 24. Marine Mammal Effects Assessment. Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation. Mary River Project – Phase 2 Proposal. 01 August 2018. Report No. 1663724-038-R-Rev2-3000. 362 p. NIRB Registry No. 320584

Golder. 2019. Assessment of Icebreaking Operations during Shipping Shoulder Seasons on Marine Biophysical Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs). Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation. Mary River Project – Phase 2 Proposal. 17 May 2019. Report No. 1663724-102-R-Rev1-30000. 343 p. NIRB Registry No. 325033-325047.

Harwood, L.A. and I. Stirling, 1992. Distribution of ringed seals in the southeastern Beaufort Sea during late summer. Canadian Journal of Zoology 70: 891-900.Richardson et al. 1995

Jason Prno Consulting Services (JPCS) Ltd. 2017. Technical Support Document No. 03. Results of Community Workshops Conducted for Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation’s Phase 2 Proposal. Report prepared for Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation. January 2017.

Kelly, B.P., J. L. Bengtson, P. L. Boveng, M. F. Cameron, S. P. Dahle, J. K. Jansen, E. A. Logerwell, J. E. Overland, C. L. Sabine, G. T. Waring and J. M. Wilder. 2010. Status Review of the Ringed Seal (Phoca hispida). NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-212. December 2010. 266p. Knights Piesold Ltd. 2019. Socio-economic assessment of icebreaking operations during shipping shoulder seasons. Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal. May 17, 2019. 60 p. NIRB Registry No. 325031. MacLaren, I.A. 1958. The biology of the ringed seal (Phoca hispida Schreber) in the eastern Canadian Arctic. Bulletin of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 118. 97 p. McLaren, P.L. and R.A. Davis. 1983. Distribution of wintering marine mammals off West Greenland and in southern Baffin Bay and northern Davis Strait, March 1982. Prepared by LGL Ltd., Toronto, Ontario for Arctic Pilot Project, Petro-Canada Explorations Inc., Calgary, Alberta. 98 p. Moulton, V.D. and J.W. Lawson. 2002. Seals, 2001. In: W.J. Richardson (ed.). Marine mammal and acoustical monitoring of WesternGeco’s open-water seismic program in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, 2001. Report from LGL Ltd., King City, Ont., and Greeneridge Sciences Inc., Santa Barbara, California, for WesternGeco, Houston, Texas, and National Marine Fisheries Service, Anchorage, Alaska, and Silver Spring, Maryland. LGL Rep. TA2564 4. 3-1 to 3-48. Smith, T.G. 1973. Population Dynamics of the Ringed Seal in the Canadian Eastern Arctic. Bulletin of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 181. 55 p.

Smith, T.G. 1987. The ringed seal (Phoca hispida) of the Canadian Western Arctic. Canadian Bulletin of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 216. 81 p.

Southall B.L., A.E. Bowles, W.T. Ellison, J. J. Finneran, R. L. Gentry, C.R Greene Jr., D. Kastak, D.R. Ketten, J.H. Miller, P.E., Nachtigall, W.J. Richardson, J. A. Thomas, and P.L Tyack. 2007. Marine Mammal Noise Exposure Criteria: Initial Scientific Recommendations. Aquatic Mammals 33(4): 521 p

Williams, M.T., R. Rodrigues, V.D. Moulton, and S.B. Blackwell. 2004. Summary of ringed seal responses during the break-up and open-water period. In: W.J. Richardson and M.T. Williams Richardson (eds.). Monitoring of Industrial Sounds, Seals, and Bowhead Whales Near BP's Northstar Oil Development, Alaskan Beaufort Sea, 1999–2003. Annual and Comprehensive Report, December 2004. LGL Rep. TA4002-6. Prep. by LGL Ltd., King City, Ontario, Greeneridge Sciences Inc., Santa Barbara, California, and WEST Inc., Cheyenne, Wyoming for BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. Anchorage, Alaska. 6-1-6-8

Yurkowski, D.J., G.Y. Brent, J.B. Dunn and S.H Ferguson. 2018. Spring distribution of ringed seals (Pusa hispida) in Eclipse Sound and Milne Inlet, Nunavut: implications for potential ice-breaking activities. Arctic Science. 5(1).

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal

MHTO-18 ATTACHMENT 4: SUMMARY OF IQ CONSIDERED IN THE RINGED SEAL ASSESSMENT

March 2021

Baffinland recognizes the importance of ringed seal as a primary country food consumed by Mittimatalingmiut and, accordingly, all relevant IQ and Inuit perspectives related to ringed seal were integrated into Baffinland’s marine mammal baseline assessment and impact assessment (Golder 2018; 2019), including direct and indirect effects on ringed seal from icebreaking activities.

Following is a summary of IQ considered in the ringed seal assessment (Golder 2019) that speaks in some manner to the influence of icebreaking and shipping during the fall shoulder season on the selection and maintenance of breathing holes and birth lairs by ringed seal in the RSA:

"The baby seals breed in March. Right now, in May, they are big enough to be acting like adults. In the winter, the seals would be migrating because they go from inlet to mouth of inlet. Animals migrate. Let’s say if the ship came in the fall, the seals might avoid breeding in the space where they heard this noise. They might breed somewhere else. They can adapt to the conditions that are being brought to them. The seals already know there is too much activity, so they will go elsewhere to breed. If the ship is moving in the same place, the animals will know, they will only stick to the places where the ships aren’t. They’ll go a certain distance from the noise. The seals will avoid the area of activity. They are already prepared when the ice is frozen to give birth." (Sakiasee Qaunaq, p. 217 of JPCS 2017 / TSD #03).

Following is a summary of available IQ considered in the assessment that speaks in a more general manner to breathing hole and birth lair use by ringed seal in the RSA:

“Once seal hunting cracks freeze over in Eclipse Sound, however, more people will travel to the Button Point area (in December or early January). Hunting at seal breathing holes may also occur. This activity will take place throughout Eclipse Sound (and throughout the year), although in some years seals will use breathing holes more than others. Seal nets may also be used as a harvesting method, although they are generally only used by individuals with dog teams (i.e., less than 10 people). It was additionally noted that seals will start to make their dens in February, while seal pupping will begin in February and March.” (Workshop #1, p.24 of JPCS 2017 / TSD #03)

“If winter shipping is approved, there are seal pup dens right close to the shore. Since seal pups are born in March, the captain of the ship won’t be able to see them on his computer; the seal pups will be under the snow” (Workshop #2 participant, p. 41 of JPCS 2017 / TSD #03).

“Seal hunting along the ice cracks occurs in the winter (the perennial ice cracks were indicated on the corresponding map). We hunt mainly ringed seals and occasionally bearded seals along the cracks. Seal hunting at breathing holes occurs anywhere there is ice" (Jimmy Pitseolak / Joshua Arreak / Elijah Panipakoochoo, p.155 of JPCS 2017 / TSD #03)

“There is going to be some serious consideration when talking about winter shipping. Some younger people hunt seals less than 100 yards from the shore once it starts freezing up. As freeze up continues, seals move towards Bylot Island and people hunt in the dark...." (Elijah Panipakoochoo, p. 163 of JPCS 2017 / TSD #03).

“There are very few breathing holes near the floe edge for seals; they’ll be more inland" (Paniloo Sangoya, p. 165 of JPCS 2017 / TSD #03)

“There are no certain areas for seal pups; they are born everywhere. Even along the routes we travel. That is something that needs to be monitored" (Paniloo, p. 171 of JPCS 2017 / TSD #03). “During winter, seals can travel anywhere, regardless of ice cover. They travel along shore, or in the leads. They create breathing holes in the leads. If you have a net in the ice, by the community, you will always be able to trap seals.” (Elijah Panipakoochoo, p. 183 of JPCS 2017 / TSD #03)

“Winter hunting traditionally has harvesters watching 6-12 active breathing holes. As breathing hole conditions vary with the ice conditions, skilled harvesters need to understand how a seal might approach a breathing hole. For example, land fast older ice means that the holes are vertical. New ice means that the holes are horizontal. Once shot, seals have to be harpooned quickly before they sink or float away. How quickly they sink is an indication of the amount of body fat they have (p.62 of QIA 2018)

"Yes, [ice thickness] is also different, seal breathing holes are also different". "Yes, the aglus, are different, some are very thin some are not." (Samuel Nuqinngaq on changing ice conditions, p. 11 of NWMB 2016)

In the spring (March to May), seal pups are very small and vulnerable. There should be no ice breaking at this time. Need to know more about behaviour of seals when ice breaks up and as ice moves out.” (Workshop #3 participant, p. 19 of ERM 2019)

“When there is land fast ice and seals are still in breathing holes, ice breaking can be very dangerous for seals because they do not have a place to flee. It is safer by July when the ice begins to break up.” (Workshop #3 participant, p. 20 of ERM 2019)

Since submission of the Phase 2 Addendum, the following additional IQ information relevant to ringed seal response to shipping and icebreaking has become available (from QIA’s 2019 Tusaqtavut Study) to help inform the assessment:

“There's danger with [shipping traffic]– if there's a noise that the animals – mammals are hearing, and they may travel into the areas where there's no seal breathing holes, and they might – they might die, because trying to get away from where the noise is, leaving their breathing holes. So it can be dangerous that way too” (P04, 27-Apr-19, interpreted from Inuktitut, QIA 2019).

“What I noticed about seals is they were close more than, before the Baffinland mine started. They were more close to this, shore. Also what I noticed was there were hardly any seals around that area, when we traveled going to the floe edge way up here, lots of seals ... Hardly any seals in this area." (P26, 08-Feb- 19, QIA 2019).

“And ever since Baffinland started their activities, there are less, fewer seals up there, ringed seals up there ... But he's noticed the seal population has lessened in Eclipse Sound. He doesn't really go now to the floe edge." (P16, 06-Feb-19, interpreted from Inuktitut, QIA 2019).

"Yeah, some people aren't pleased that they’ll be creating a railway. And they used to live that more old way. And they would use their dog teams to come here, and they made – the seals would start laying on the sea ice between - once he got a skidoo, nothing changed for three years, but then on the fourth year, the habits of the seals changed. And in May there were no longer seals laying on the sea ice. And when they opened up the mine site, he thought maybe they'll after three years, our wildlife would change their habits, and they have. And three years have passed, people are saying they're now much more scarcer now, along with the char." (P08, 05-Feb-19, interpreted from Inuktitut, QIA 2019). "So they now know that as – as long as there's shipping activity around that, that they have noticed that the seals are in less numbers, and he thinks it's attributed to – to the busyness of that area. By shipping. How they come to that conclusion is that there used to be more seals here, not so much here. Now there are more seals here and not much here. So they've come to a conclusion that that's where they went, I guess." (P04, 27-Apr-19, interpreted from Inuktitut, QIA 2019).

“Since 20–2012, they notice whenever the–the shipping activity is happening, that there's not as much seals at all. And usually in the fall, when the ice is forming around here, they–the–they–there's an abundance of seals and they do come back once the shipping activity stops.” (P04, 27-Apr-19, interpreted from Inuktitut, QIA 2019)

“Since the full production started shipping, in 2016 area, they noticed that they now have to go much farther to those fjords to catch the seals, even though it's farther from where they used to have to go to catch seals, they go there because they – they need to catch the seals. So they have to adapt to that...In the summer they used to just go down here, along here to catch the seals.” (P04, 27-Apr-19, interpreted from Inuktitut, QIA 2019)

"The seals were up there. At the beginning of March, they start migrating into this area. And summertime they'll migrate up into these sounds where the char are. So – so he thinks the situation is still the same, but once the seals start seeing all these ships passing by, they'll go somewhere else. They’ll go places where they won't be comfortable and have food, so his vision for the future is that there will be no more narwhal or seals." (P08, 05-Feb-19, interpreted from Inuktitut, QIA 2019)

“And on our way back to the point along the shoreline, and we didn’t see one single seal at all and this was after the ship traffic had begun traveling through there. This area [Qinngua] used to be rich in seals. What happened to all the seals? And he said, he was told that the ships had all scared the seals off ... They were probably scared off by the ships, and we knew that the seals left due to the noise pollution by the ships, the ships." (P24, 07-Feb-19, interpreted from Inuktitut, QIA 2019)

"They're waiting in that area in April waiting for the sea ice to break up, and that's what seals do. And when we lived at Guys Bight, they knew that this was the custom of the seals. And once all the ships keep passing through, this area will be devoid of wildlife. So the seals come in to Eclipse Sound to feed and mate. So, they come in from offshore, and he says in March they start coming in to this area, March, April, May and they'll just keep going in to the sounds." (P08, 05-Feb-19, interpreted from Inuktitut, QIA 2019)

References:

ERM Consultants Canada Ltd. 2019. Community Risk Assessment Workshops: Final Report. Report submitted to Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation. September 2019.

Golder. 2018. Technical Support Document (TSD) No. 24. Marine Mammal Effects Assessment. Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation. Mary River Project – Phase 2 Proposal. 01 August 2018. Report No. 1663724-038-R-Rev2-3000. 362 p. NIRB Registry No. 320584

Golder. 2019. Assessment of Icebreaking Operations during Shipping Shoulder Seasons on Marine Biophysical Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs). Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation. Mary River Project – Phase 2 Proposal. 17 May 2019. Report No. 1663724-102-R-Rev1-30000. 343 p. NIRB Registry No. 325033-325047

Jason Prno Consulting Services Ltd (JPCS). 2017. Technical Supporting Document (TSD) No. 03: Results of Community Workshops Conducted for Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation’s – Phase 2 Proposal. Report submitted to Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation. January 2017.

Qikiqtani Inuit Association (QIA). 2018. Qikiqtaaluk Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit and Inuit Qaujimajangit Iliqqusingitigut for the Baffin Bay and Davis Strait Marine Environment. Prepared by Heidi Klein, Sanammanga Solutions Inc. for submission to the Nunavut Impact Review Board for the Baffin Bay and Davis Strait Strategic Environmental Assessment.

QIA. 2019. Tusaqtavut Study (Study) on the Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation’s (Proponent) Mary River Project (Project) Phase 2 Proposal. Report submitted to Nunavut Impact Review Board. June 2019.

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal

MHTO-26 ATTACHMENT 1: A LIST OF A SCIENTIFIC STUDIES FOR WHICH THE FINDINGS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE IMPACT PREDICTIONS MADE FOR NARWHAL

March 2021

Question: 1. What level of certainty does BIM have that the 400-plus ship transits proposed for Phase 2 over a 4.5 month shipping season will not contribute to increased stress levels, negative changes in body condition, and avoidance of preferred habitat by narwhals? Is there academic literature or other examples of shipping in narwhal habitat which would support BIM’s predictions regarding stress levels, changes in body condition, and avoidance of preferred habitat?

As outlined in Golder (2020a), potential effects of shipping on narwhal are predicted to be limited to temporary, localized avoidance behaviours consistent with low to moderate severity responses (Southall et al. 2007; Finneran et al. 2017). No effects at the population or stock-level are anticipated (consistent with the definition of a non-significant effect used in the FEIS Addendum for the Phase 2 Proposal). A ‘moderate’ level of confidence (i.e., certainty) has been assigned to this impact prediction (Golder 2020a). Consistent with standard EIA practice, follow-up monitoring is required where the limitations in, or scientific certainty of, the impact predictions need to be verified (i.e., when an EIA practitioner’s confidence in the significance determination is low or moderate), or where the effectiveness of mitigation requires confirmation) (CEAA 2011, 2012). Hence, follow-up monitoring is warranted in the case of the Phase 2 Proposal to verify the accuracy of impact predictions regarding shipping effects on narwhal.

In addition to information available in the academic literature regarding shipping effects on toothed whale such as narwhal (full review in Richardson et al. 1995; Southall et al. 2007; Golder 2018; Golder 2019), the Phase 2 assessment has had the benefit of being directly informed by narwhal-specific monitoring undertaken in the RSA for a currently operating Project that has been shipping iron ore out of Milne Port since 2015. Phase 2 impact predictions are therefore directly informed by site-specific, empirical data collected for narwhal over multiple years in which year-over-year increases in shipping have occurred. These follow-up monitoring programs for narwhal are based on a comprehensive ‘multiple lines of evidence’ approach, meaning they evaluate the potential effects of shipping on narwhal from multiple perspectives, using an integrated combination of remote sensing (animal-borne tagging data) and shore- based, vessel-based, aerial-based and acoustic-based monitoring methods that collectively facilitate a holistic and comprehensive understanding of this impact pathway. An integrated summary of the results from all these programs has been provided to the NIRB (and to Intervenors belonging to the MEWG) in a number of documents, but most recently in Golder’s Technical Memorandum entitled “Summary of Results for the 2019 Marine Mammal Monitoring Programs” dated 25 May 2020 (Golder 2020a).

Data from each aspect of this monitoring demonstrates that behavioural reactions of narwhal to shipping are localized and temporary in nature (Golder 2020a, 2020b, 2020c). Narwhal responses to shipping range from no reaction to minor/moderate severity responses (e.g., narwhal changing direction and adjusting their position away from the shipping lane, and then reoccupying the shipping lane shortly after the vessels have passed). The nature and magnitude of these behavioural responses would not be expected to result in any appreciable increase in stress levels which would affect the fitness of an individual or result in adverse changes in body condition.

There is variability within available IQ regarding effects of shipping on narwhal behaviour with perspectives ranging from little to no effect, to examples of avoidance/displacement behaviour including alteration of migration routes. Baffinland endeavored to capture the spectrum of IQ in its assessment. A full list of relevant IQ is provided in Baffinland’s response to MHTO-26.

Baffinland acknowledges recent feedback from the MHTO regarding repeated observations of ‘skinny’ narwhal in the RSA by Inuit hunters. Given what is presently known with respect to climate change effects on Arctic marine mammals (i.e., changes in food web structure and prey availability, decreased ice coverage, increased predation pressure), it is reasonable to assume that narwhal have lower blubber reserves than they have historically, and this could lead to animals sinking after being shot (as reported by hunters). Poorer body condition in this case is more likely a reflection of a change in their environment rather than a result from shipping.

Following is a summary of available IQ that speaks to the potential influence of other external factors on narwhal behaviour, stress levels and and body condition:

“Some that have a better diet during the fall are fat ones that come through here. Some we think are skinnier, thinner ones that have, how do we say it, bruised inside that was caused by something, perhaps they were being rammed or maybe killers whales were bothering them so they are skinnier those are the ones I call thinner, maybe they were being chased by killer whales or being pursued so they tend to be skinnier” (Harry Alookie; p. 5 of NWMB 2016).

“It is obvious at times when we go after them sometimes we lose the ones that sink because they are so skinny. We know that they were being chased by killer whales. Some are skinny while others are fat.” (Samuel Nuqinngaq; p. 20 of NWMB 2016).

“Narwhal have been observed not to feed when killer whales are present. Harvesters have observed that they do not always feed during their fall migration.” (Summary of IQ; p. 49 of QIA 2018).

“Harvesters pay close attention to the health of whales. In recent years, hunters have observed that narwhal and beluga have become more scattered and thinner. Hunters think the change in behaviour is linked to lack of access to fish at floe edges, and more energy being spent by whales on travelling and hunting for food”, and “narwhal feed on Arctic and Greenlandic cod, Arctir char, Greenland halibut, herring, sculpin, shrimp, squid, planktonic crustaceans, and other invertebrates. Food intake is thought to increase in the fall just before migration to their wintering grounds. Some harvesters think they might fast while migrating since they are seen to be skinnier” (Summary of IQ; p. 42 of QIA 2018).

“As narwhal move into Cumberland Sound, they feed on Greenland halibut under the ice. Harvesters think they feed less as the summer goes on. They leave the Sound skinnier than when they arrived. Harvesters speculate that the whales are travelling more and expending more energy to avoid areas where they hear motorboats. Boat avoidance has been observed since the 1960s.” (Summary of IQ; p. 55 of QIA 2018).

“We can’t really say how much narwhals have been affected by shipping during the summer. I can’t say for certain whether you can see any more narwhals when there are ships in the area. Recently this past summer, as I was on my way home after teaching the younger generation about the procedures, we travelled by helicopter to Milne Inlet to refuel. There were some killer whales near the vicinity of Milne Inlet and there was a dead narwhal carcass floating. One orca had a narwhal in its mouth. One killer whale slammed a narwhal. Killer whales are very fast. Narwhals are more afraid of killer whales than ships. Narwhals don’t seem to mind ships. Once ships are in the area they sometimes disperse, but once the ships have passed they return to the area." (Elijah Panikpakoocho; p. 183 of JPCS 2017 / TSD #03)

“While in the region, narwhal give birth and mate. Given the various ages of calves, Inuit think narwhal breed in any season. Narwhal take advantage of the rich food supplies in Milne Inlet, Eclipse Sound, Tay Sound, and Koluktoo Bay. Young whales tend to stay in the inlets while older ones travel between inlets. The whales leave the inlets for Baffin Bay in Ukiassaaq (i.e., September/October) when ice starts forming. Narwhal take advantage of shallow areas in inlets to avoid killer whales. Killer whales follow narwhal only after the ice has cleared in fiords. During Ukiuq, narwhal can be found in open water beyond the floe edge, as well as, in Tremblay Sound and occassionally Milne Inlet where they are at risk of entrapment” (Summary of IQ; p. 52 of QIA 2018).

“Killer whales will prey on narwhal after they arrive in Aujaq once the ice has dissipated. To avoid killer whales, narwhal move to shallower areas” (Summary of IQ; p. 55 of QIA 2018)

“They won’t leave the inlet when the killer whales were present, even when we go after them they tend to return towards the land” (Samuel Nuqinngaq; p. 13 of NWMB 2016).

“I’ve personally hasn’t observed them, though killer whales seem to be increasing every year here” (Samuel Nuqinngaq; p. 18 of NWMB 2016).

“Just recently I started noticing them near here, but I have never seen them up there. Other hunters have seen the killer whales but here I have seen them once but the killer whales seem to be coming every year” (Samuel Nuqinngaq; p. 18 of NWMB 2016).

“Yes..that is being mentioned more often now as they come every year now.” (Jaypoody Aliqatuqtuq; p. 47 of NWMB 2016).

“I know this, the change of – narwhals. There’s usually narwhals around here [mouth of Qinngua]. But since the Baffinland is carrying ships, most of the narwhals are now like away from the area they usually be. Yeah. Like lots of narwhal usually around here ... But one time, I think it was last year, people were noticing the difference too. They started seeing killer whales here instead of narwhals. Yeah. I think the shipping route is the effect of the animals” (P21, 08-Feb-19; p. 48 of QIA 2019).

“One of the other reasons that we see now is that there is a whole lot more killer whales coming to Pond Inlet area, like lots of them; and again, I was talking about earlier that there’s different factors involved in narwhals not migrating to Pond Inlet area as they used to, and I believe this is one of them as well. The killer whales two years ago stayed in Milne area all summer and kept the narwhals away from that area; and again, they’re killers, they’ll just kill” (P13, 06-Feb-19, p. 141 of QIA 2019).

“Yeah. Also for the last five years we've had a problem with killer whales, they're here all the time now. Last summer they came … where the narrows are, three days later seven more and they keep adding. And HTO decided let’s count how many killer whales are there now and how many narwhales has been killed by killer whales. So we went right there, right here somewhere here, yeah. We went right there. And the killer whales were hunting over there, over there somewhere, yeah...Yeah. And we come, there were over 100 killer whales and they were teaching their young ones how to kill, narwhals” (P07, 05-Feb-19, p. 142 of QIA 2019).

In workshop #1 (ERM 2019), the following points were raised:

• Concern about impacts on narwhal and other marine mammals (narwhal move away when vessels transit through; killer whales also impact narwhal populations and movement). • Concern that killer whales have a bigger impact on the narwhal population than shipping. • There are impacts of climate change on marine mammals (e.g., narwhal moving west, introduction of new species into the area). Appearance of new species in the area (i.e., bowhead whale) may have effect on narwhal travel and presence. • Concern about impacts of port construction on the marine environment (e.g., pile driving, timing of construction to avoid impacts on migrating fish). In summary, Baffinland recognizes the importance of narwhal harvesting to Inuit and is committed to ensuring that its current and future shipping operations will not result in adverse effects on the local narwhal population nor on the communities’ ability to harvest these animals. This is demonstrated by the extensive suite of mitigation measures and follow-up monitoring programs Baffinland has developed and implemented to date for narwhal, which will be continued as part of Phase 2. Baffinland has high confidence in its impact predictions regarding shipping impacts on narwhal because they are founded on multiple lines of evidence including IQ and multiple years of follow-up monitoring, conservative assumptions built into the assessment, extensive mitigation measures with demonstrated effectiveness (many of which were undertaken based on Inuit input), and strong commitments to further follow-up monitoring and adaptive management measures. For these reasons, Baffinland is confident that Phase 2 shipping will not contribute to significant behavioral disturbance effects on narwhal, such as large-scale displacement effects or avoidance of preferred habitat in the RSA. Anticipated behavioral responses of narwhal to shipping (i.e., temporary localized avoidance of ships, consistent with low to moderate severity effects) would not be expected to result in any appreciable increase in stress levels which would affect the fitness of an individual or result in adverse changes in narwhal body condition.

References:

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA). 2011. Follow-up programs under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Originally released October 2002. Revised December 2011. Available at: https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/iaac-acei/documents/ops/ops-follow-up-programs-2011.pdf. Accessed February 2021.

CEAA. 2012. Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012. Amended 28 August 2019. Current to 24 February 2021.

ERM Consultants Canada Ltd. 2019. Community Risk Assessment Workshops: Final Report. Report submitted to Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation. September 2019.

Finneran, J., E. Henderson, D. Houser, K. Jenkins, S. Kotecki, and J. Mulsow. 2017. Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive Effects Analysis (Phase III). Technical report by Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Pacific (SSC Pacific). June 2017. 194 pp.

Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder). 2018. Technical Support Document (TSD) No. 24. Marine Mammal Effects Assessment. Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation. Mary River Project – Phase 2 Proposal. 01 August 2018. Report No. 1663724-038-R-Rev2-3000. 362 p. NIRB Registry No. 320584

Golder. 2019. Assessment of Icebreaking Operations during Shipping Shoulder Seasons on Marine Biophysical Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs). Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation. Mary River Project – Phase 2 Proposal. 17 May 2019. Report No. 1663724-102-R-Rev1-30000. 343 p. NIRB Registry No. 325033-325047

Golder. 2020a. Summary of Results for the 2019 Marine Mammal Monitoring Programs. Technical Memorandum 1663724-186-TM-Rev3-38000. 25 May 2020. 73p.

Golder. 2020b. 2019 Bruce Head Shore-based Monitoring Program – Technical Data Report. Report No. 1663724-199-R-Rev0-23000. 3 September 2020. 285p.

Golder. 2020c. 2017/2018 Integrated Narwhal Tagging Study – Technical Data Report. Report No. 1663724-188-R-Rev0. 14 August 2020. 278 p. Jason Prno Consulting Services Ltd (JPCS). 2017. Technical Supporting Document (TSD) No. 03: Results of Community Workshops Conducted for Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation’s – Phase 2 Proposal. Report submitted to Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation. January 2017.

Nunavut Wildlife Management Board (NWMB). 2016. Qikiqtarjuaq Narwhal IQ Interview Report. Prepared by Sheila Oolayou, Inuit Qaujimajatuqngit Coordinator for the NWMB. 10 November 2016.Southall, B. L., J.J. Finneran, C. Reichmuth, P.E. Nachtigall, D.R. Ketten., A.E. Bowles, W.T. Ellison, D.P.

Qikiqtani Inuit Association (QIA). 2018. Qikiqtaaluk Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit and Inuit Qaujimajangit Iliqqusingitigut for the Baffin Bay and Davis Strait Marine Environment. Prepared by Heidi Klein, Sanammanga Solutions Inc. for submission to the Nunavut Impact Review Board for the Baffin Bay and Davis Strait Strategic Environmental Assessment.

QIA. 2019. Tusaqtavut Study (Study) on the Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation’s (Proponent) Mary River Project (Project) Phase 2 Proposal. Report submitted to Nunavut Impact Review Board. June 2019.

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal

MHTO-26 ATTACHMENT 2: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

March 2021

What is provided below is a Direct Excerpt From:

Green, D., H. DeFerrari, D. McFadden, J. Pearse, A. Popper, W. Richardson, S. Ridgway and P. Tyack. 1994. Low-Frequency Sound and Marine Mammals: Current Knowledge and Research Needs. Washington DC: National Academy Press.

Chapter 1: ORIGINS AND DRAWBACKS OF THE "120-DB CRITERION"

The phrase "120-dB criterion" refers to a level of sound that has been identified informally as a level above which acoustic effects on marine mammals might occur. In reviewing plans for activities that produce underwater noise, it appears to the committee that the National Marine Fisheries Service of the U.S. Department of Commerce considers that marine mammals exposed to broadband received levels above 120 dB (re 1 μPa—water standard) might be affected by the sounds. Almost all sound sources used in acoustical oceanography or for operational Navy purposes have a source level far above 120 dB (re 1 μPa at 1 m —water standard), as do some motorized boats. Depending on the source level, frequency, and local propagation conditions, the received level of sound from these three sources will exceed 120 dB within a distance that could range from a few meters or tens of meters for a weak source up to many kilometers for a stronger one. Thus, if the 120-dB criterion were to be applied consistently, almost any source of human-made underwater noise—including every powerboat—might be subject to regulatory scrutiny.

The 120-dB criterion arises primarily from two series of field studies. One series involved gray whales migrating along the coast of California and summering (spending the summer season) in the Bering Sea (Malme et al., 1983, 1984, 1988). The other was a series of studies of migrating and summering bowhead whales in the Beaufort Sea (Richardson et al., 1985, 1986, 1990; Ljungblad et al., 1988; Richardson and Malme, 1993). Unlike most other field studies on marine mammals, these two series of studies provided estimates of the sound exposure level in the vicinity of the animals while their behavior was being observed. Both series demonstrated that a variety of broadband continuous sound stimuli with spectra peaking in the frequency region of 100 to 300 Hz caused a detectable change in the behavior of some animals. The received level of continuous sound that caused a reaction in about half the animals was about 120 dB (re 1 μPa—water standard). There was considerable variation, however, with some animals reacting at lower levels and some not reacting at considerably higher levels.

The 120-dB figure has been applied, at times, to other types of sound and to other species of marine mammals without regard to the frequency spectrum or temporal pattern of the sound or to differences in the auditory sensitivity of the different groups of marine mammals. These variables are undoubtedly important in determining whether the 120-dB figure is appropriate for any given situation. For example, the temporal pattern of exposure was found to be very important for both the gray whale and the bowhead whale. The average pulse pressure level of a series of brief impulses had to be 30 to 50 dB more intense (150 to 170 dB re 1 μPa—water standard) to produce the same change in the animal's behavior as did a steady-state or continuous sound at 120 dB (Malme et al., 1984; Richardson et al., 1986; Ljungblad et al., 1988). In contrast, bowhead whales sometimes react to increasing noise levels from an approaching boat when the broadband level is well below 120 dB (Miles et al., 1987:225ff; Richardson and Malme, 1993). Thus, the actual threshold of reaction can range from well below to well above 120 dB, depending on circumstances. As is true of most field observations, many different interpretations of these results can be offered. For example, according to the studies mentioned, the change in behavior of the migrating gray whales was minor and brief, involving a slight deflection in the migratory path. One can argue that the animals simply detected a potential obstruction and made a relatively mild deflection in their course to avoid the obstacle. Certainly the energy expended in their response was minimal. Energetic effects were obviously greater for migrating bowhead whales. They apparently avoided an icebreaker-supported drillship by 10 to 30 kilometers (km) (LGL and Greeneridge, 1987; Brewer et al., 1993). Additionally, in the case of the withdrawal of bowheads from feeding areas, the action was observed when a novel stimulus was introduced (Richardson et al., 1990; Richardson and Malme, 1993). Such withdrawal behavior might or might not quickly habituate if the sound were repeated, but that study was not able to obtain information about habituation. Furthermore, only two species of whales were involved, and the results of the same experiment would very likely be different for other species. Because of their apparent lack of sensitivity at these low frequencies, some toothed whales, for example, may not detect sound at the levels that affected the gray whales and bowhead whales (see Figure 2A).

That the 120-dB number is considered to be such an important regulatory criterion is testimony only to the paucity of our knowledge about marine mammals.

In trying to protect human beings from the harmful effects of noise, the United States has adopted no absolute standard. It is known at what levels sound elicits the response of ''highly annoyed'' on questionnaires, but there are no national standards on an upper limit to such exposure. Noise is recognized as a source of stress, and we know that physiological changes can occur when subjects are exposed to certain noise levels. There is little consensus as to either the level of noise exposure that produces either harmful extra-auditory effects in humans or the dose-response relation over the long term. The one national U.S. standard with respect to human exposure to noise is the 90-dBA level (re 20 μPa —air standard) adopted by the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). It establishes that in the workplace if the exposure exceeds 90 DBA (air standard), then some kind of hearing protection program must be initiated. The 90-DBA level is about 100 dB above the level at which such a sound might first be detectable. If we assume the same dynamic range (100 dB) for whales as for humans and that 120 dB represents a detection level, then the upper limit for marine mammals might be set at 220 dB re 1 μPa (water standard).

In humans, the upper limit in the OSHA standard was determined largely on the basis of extensive scientific experiments involving induced temporary hearing loss. Thus, for humans, temporary threshold shifts provided the basic data for the adoption of the primary noise standard in the United States. The limits were subsequently confirmed in epidemiological studies of permanent hearing loss. No data on temporary threshold shifts (that is, the occurrence of temporary hearing loss) in marine mammals have been published to date.

Human annoyance to human made noise is widely variable, depending on the individual, the situation, and the characteristics of the noise. People are frequently annoyed by noise at levels well below those that introduce temporary or permanent hearing loss. The significance of human annoyance, however real, has proven difficult to evaluate. The biological significance of disturbance reactions by marine mammals will probably be even harder to determine.

References: Acoustical Society of America. 1981. San Diego workshop on the interaction between man-made noise and vibration and arctic marine wildlife. Rep. from Acoust. Soc. Am. for Alaska Eskimo Whaling Comm., Barrow, AK. 84 pp.

Andersen, S. 1970. Auditory sensitivity of the harbour porpoise Phocoena phocoena. Invest. Cetacea 2:255–259.

Awbrey, F.T., J.A. Thomas, and R.A. Kastelein. 1988. Low-frequency underwater hearing sensitivity in belugas, Delphinapterus leucas. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 84(6):2273–2275.

Baggeroer, A., and W. Munk. 1992. The Heard Island Feasibility Test. Phys. Today 45(9):22–30.

Bain, D.E., B. Kriete, and M.E. Dahlheim. 1993. Hearing abilities of killer whales (Orcinus orca). J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 94(3, Part 2):1829.

Brewer, K.D., M.L. Gallagher, P.R. Regos, P.E. Isert, and J.D. Hall. 1993. ARCO Alaska Inc. Kuvlum #1 exploration prospect/ Site specific monitoring program final report. Rep. from Coastal and Offshore Pacific Corp., Walnut Creek, CA, for ARCO Alaska Inc. and the Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv., Anchorage AK. 80 pp.

Bullock, T.H., D.P. Domning, and R.C. Best. 1980. Evoked brain potentials demonstrate hearing in a manatee (Trichechus inunguis). J. Mammal. 61(1):130–133.

Bullock, T.H., T.J. O'Shea, and M.C. McClune. 1982. Auditory evoked potentials in the West Indian manatee (Sirenia: Trichechus manatus ). J. Comp. Physiol. 148A(4):547–554.

Cybulski, J. 1977. Probable origin of measured supertanker radiated noise spectra. In: Oceans 77 Conference Record, Inst. Electrical and Electronic Eng., New York, NY. pp. 15C-1 to 15C-8.

Dahlheim, M.E., and D.K. Ljungblad. 1990. Preliminary hearing study on gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus) in the field. In: J.A. Thomas and R.A. Kastelein (eds.), Sensory Abilities of Cetaceans/Laboratory and Field Evidence. Plenum, New York. pp. 335–346.

Fischer, M.S. 1988. Zur Anatomie des Gehörorganes der Seekuh (Trichechus manatus L.), (Mammalia: Sirenia). Z. Söugetierk. 53:365–379.

Fleischer, G. 1976. Hearing in extinct cetaceans as determined by cochlear structure. J. Paleontol. 50 (1):133–152.

Gerstein, E.R., L.A. Gerstein, S.E. Forsythe, and J.E. Blue. 1993. Underwater audiogram of a West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus). Abstr. 10th Bien. Conf. Biol. Mar. Mamm., Galveston, TX, Nov. 1993:53, 130 pp.

Hall, J.D., and C.S. Johnson. 1971. Auditory thresholds of a killer whale Orcinus orca Linnaeus. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 51:515–517.

Hartman, D.S. 1979. Ecology and behavior of the manatee (Trichechus manatus). In: Florida Spec. Publ. Am. Soc. Mammal. 5, 153 pp. Johnson, C.S. 1968. Relation between absolute hearing threshold and duration-of-tone pulses in the bottlenosed porpoise. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 43(4):757–763.

Johnson, S.R., J.J. Burns, C.I. Malme, and R.A. Davis. 1989. Synthesis of information on the effects of noise and disturbance on major haulout concentrations of Bering Sea pinnipeds. OCS Study MMS 88– 0092. Rep. from LGL Alaska Res. Assoc. Inc., Anchorage, AK, for U.S. Minerals Manage Serv., Anchorage, AK. 267 pp. NTIS PB89-191373.

Kastelein, R.A., C.L. van Ligtenberg, I. Gjertz, and W.C. Verboom. In press. Free field hearing tests on wild Atlantic Walruses (Odobenus rosmarus) in air. Aquat. Mammals 19(3).

Ketten, D.R. 1991. The marine mammal ear: specializations for aquatic audition and echolocation . In: D.B. Webster, R.R. Fay, and A.N. Popper (eds.), Evolutionary Biology of Hearing. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. pp. 717–750.

Ketten, D.R., D.K. Odell, and D.P. Domning. 1992. Structure, function, and adaptation of the manatee ear. In: J.A. Thomas, R.A. Kastelein, and A.Y. Supin (eds.), Marine Mammal Sensory Systems. Plenum, New York. pp. 77–95.

Leggat, L.J., H.M. Merklinger, and J.L. Kennedy. 1981. LNG carrier underwater noise study for Baffin Bay. In: N.M. Peterson (ed.), The Question of Sound from Ice-breaker Operations: The Proceedings of a Workshop. Arctic Pilot Proj., Petro-Canada, Calgary, Alb. pp. 115–155.

LGL and Greeneridge. 1987. Responses of bowhead whales to an offshore drilling operation in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, autumn 1986. Rep. from LGL Ltd., King City Ont., and Greeneridge Sciences, Inc., Santa Barbara, CA, for Shell Western E & P. Inc., Anchorage, AK. 371 pp.

Ljungblad, D.K., B. Würsig, S.L. Swartz, and J.M. Keene. 1988. Observations on the behavioral responses of bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus) to active geophysical vessels in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Arctic 41(3):183–194.

Malme, C.I., P.R. Miles, C.W. Clark, P. Tyack, and J.E. Bird. 1983. Investigations of the potential effects of underwater noise from petroleum industry activities on migrating gray whale behavior. BBN Rep. 5366. Rep. from Bolt Beranek & Newman Inc., Cambridge, MA, for U.S. Minerals Manage. Serv., Anchorage, AK. Var. pag. NTIS PB86-174174.

Malme, C.I., P.R. Miles, C.W. Clark, P. Tyack, and J.E. Bird. 1984. Investigations of the potential effects of underwater noise from petroleum industry activities on migrating gray whale behavior/Phase II: January 1984 migration. BBN Rep. 5586. Rep. from Bolt Beranek & Newman Inc., Cambridge, MA, for U.S. Minerals Manage. Serv., Anchorage, AK. NTIS PB86-218377.

Malme, C.I., B. Würsig, J.E. Bird, and P. Tyack. 1988. Observations of feeding gray whale responses to controlled industrial noise exposure. In: W.M. Sackinger, M.O. Jeffries, J.L. Imm, and S.D. Treacy (eds.), Port and Ocean Engineering Under Arctic Conditions, vol. II. Geophysical Inst., Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK. pp. 55–73.

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal

MHTO-28 ATTACHMENT 1: RESPONSE TO QUESTION 4

March 2021

Baffinland Response to MHTO 28, Part 4

In response to feedback received in 2018, Baffinland held a series of informal discussions in 2019 with representatives of the Mittimatalik Hunters and Trappers Organization (MHTO), the Hamlet of Pond Inlet (the Hamlet) and the Qikiqtani Inuit Association (QIA) in order to further, (i) explore the impacts that low/high (“bad”/“good”) harvest years (regardless of causal nature), may have on hunters, their families, the MHTO, and the community of Pond Inlet more broadly; (ii) examine some of the reasons which may be influencing abundance of narwhal; and (iii) examine the community programs currently in place to determine their strengths and weaknesses. Specific topics included, though not exclusively, collectively assessing and discriminating high (“good”) versus low (“bad”) harvest seasons, describing data sources available to Baffinland and the MHTO such as narwhal catch statistics, and individual hunter and MHTO operational costs.

These conversations occurred over a series of five meetings held between January and June 2019, as summarized below:

• January 30, 2019: meeting with the MHTO; • February 27, 2019: meeting with the MHTO and QIA; • April 30, 2019: meeting with the MHTO, the Hamlet and the QIA; • May 23-24, 2019: meeting with MHTO, the Hamlet and the QIA; • June 24/25, 2019: meeting with MHTO, the Hamlet and the QIA. Internal notes/minutes and a summary report of these meetings and the discussions that took place on specific topics have been drafted but its contents have not been released publically, nor has the content in the summary report been verified with meeting participants to confirm accuracy of information captured by Baffinland. Baffinland is appreciative of the information and time shared in these meetings, andit is Baffinland’s hope that these types of open dialogue meetings will continue in the future however, it is Baffinland’s expectation that similar types of dialogue and analysis will be conducted under the Culture, Resources and Landuse monitoring program under the Inuit Stewardship Plan.

However, as a whole, the various meetings held provided Baffinland and meeting participants the opportunity to reflect further on whether any gaps existed between existing Baffinland support programs during low harvest years and whether there were additional opportunities for Baffinland to consider. This was made possible by discussing openly with meeting participants how low harvest years may potentially impact hunters, families, Hunters and Trappers Organizations (HTOs) and communities.

What follows below are several tables from the internal report that capture some of the discussions that took place.. Table 1 provides information shared about the impact of a “bad” harvest year. Table 2 provides information about existing support programs and to whom they may be relevant. Table 3 provides information about the usefulness of existing Baffinland support programs and identified gap(s) for addressing specific needs.

Table 1 - Impacts on hunter, family, Hunter and Trappers Organization (HTO) and Community during Bad harvest years Hunter Family HTO Community Lost money. Harder to share food Lost Revenue. The MHTO is in No country food for elders. debt when there is no muktuk to sell.

Cannot support cost of Harder to provide for family: Butcher had two employees No country food for community hunting (e.g., gas, supplies, e.g., unable to fill freezer with but had no meat to process feast. equipment); i.e., not enough country foods for family. and no money thus had to let money to operate them go. Colder hunters when access Hunter loss of money extends Fishers not getting enough Women have less access to to materials to make clothes to family. Arctic Char from lakes to materials to make clothing. is limited. compensate for lost narwhal catches – this is some of the only revenue in winter when not enough narwhal are captured Mental state of health can be Recreational trips have MHTO has needs including Need to buy food from other affected (guilt for not being declined. finance and administrative communities. able to provide). support (e.g., receptionist, secretary) and consultant to support Baffinland processes. Effects on part-time versus Hunting for skins has declined MHTO receives $30k/year Less country food leads to full time hunters differs. from the GN to support food health problems. distribution but this program does not last very long and does not provide any income to the MHTO. No aid or assistance.

Table 2 - Existing Programs relevant to Hunters, Families, Hunters and Trappers Organizations (HTO), and Communities

Program Hunter Family HTO Community Wildlife Compensation ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Fund Harvesters Enabling ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Program Christmas Hamper ✔ ✔ Program Country Food Exchange ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Program Baffinland Scholarship ✔ ✔ Program School Lunch Program ✔ ✔ Summer Camp Program ✔ ✔ Inuit Summer Student ✔ ✔ Program Inuit Internship Program ✔ ✔ Community Counsellor ✔ ✔ ✔ Program Baffinland Sponsorship and ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Donation Program Ilagiiktunut Nunalinnullu ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Pivalliajutisait Kiinaujat Program Hunter Family HTO Community Fund (Community Wellness Fund) Supporting Hunters and ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Visitors at Site Tasiuqtiit Working Group ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Wildlife Monitoring Program ✔ ✔ ✔ (Community-based Monitoring) Marine Research ✔ ✔ Equipment

Table 3 - General Feedback on Existing Baffinland Support Programs Existing Programs Feedback Comment Identified Gap Wildlife Compensation No benefit to the community: No Hard to access; Fund (WCF) support for hunters last year (in Qikiqtani Inuit Association not helping; 2018) when there was no WCF should cover harvest loss (i.e., lower narwhal numbers); narwhal; No application in 2018 Hunters do not qualify when they go out to hunt but are because unsure what to apply for unsuccessful; when there are no animals; Fund does not support loss of revenues to during low harvest Hunters and Trappers years (i.e., when no animals are present). Organization (HTO) needs revenues to operate even during low harvest years. Harvesters Enabling May need to revisit the fuel No specific comments provided. Program support and distribution. Christmas Hamper Helpful for the community. Does not support hunters or HTO directly. Program Country Food Exchange Pursued only if excess food is The exchange program only works when both communities Program available to hunter and their have food to exchange; family. When no narwhal there is no possibility to exchange for caribou from Kivalliq, for example; Concern that this may put stress on other communities, but it could be an option during low harvest years. Baffinland Scholarship Helpful for the community. Does not support hunters or MHTO directly. Program School Lunch Program Helpful for the community. Does not support hunters or HTO directly. Summer Camp Program Helpful for the community. Does not support hunters or HTO directly. Inuit Summer Student Helpful for the community. Does not support hunters or HTO directly. Program Inuit Internship Program Helpful for the community. Does not support hunters or HTO directly. Community Counsellor Helpful for the community. Not specifically supporting hunters, but is available to Program everyone who needs it once the program becomes implemented in Pond Inlet. Baffinland Sponsorship Helpful for the community. Does not support hunters or HTO directly but may support and Donation Program hunters’ families. Ilagiiktunut Nunalinnullu Helpful for the community. Can be accessed by hunters, but also available to residents. Pivalliajutisait Kiinaujat Fund (Community Wellness Fund) Supporting Hunters and Helpful for hunters directly. Supports hunters directly. Visitors at Site Existing Programs Feedback Comment Identified Gap Tasiuqtiit Working Group No specific comments provided. Concern that this is not going to extend to Phase 2. Wildlife Monitoring Helpful to have research ideas Supports hunters and HTO directly. Program (Community- implemented by hunters in the based Monitoring community and data ownership. Marine Research No specific comments provided. Boat will only be available in 2021. Concern regarding Equipment maintenance responsibilities. General Feedback • No consistent community support programs: o Only application-based for approval through non-profits o Mittimatalik Hunters and Trappers Organization (MHTO) receives $30k/yr from the Government of Nunavut to support food distribution, but this program does not last very long and does not provide any income to the MHTO. Need programs that are not just focused on money compensation. It does not replace the loss of food thus programs that address both are more adequate. The community food programs being run are positive, geared at the community and those who cannot provide for themselves. However, they do not help the hunters or the MHTO directly.

The feedback received in the tables above were of importance to Baffinland during discussions with the QIA when the Inuit Certainty Agreement (ICA) was being developed. The specific feedback and identified gaps as outlined in Table 3 provided Baffinland with valuable information about existing support programs and areas that the Company needed to focus on for potential inclusion in the ICA when it considered development of additional programs and/or mitigation measures tailored to hunters.

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal

APPENDIX 5 SANIRAJAK IR ATTACHMENTS

March 2021

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal

THERE ARE NO ATTACHMENTS IDENTIFIED FOR THIS GROUP OF RESPONSES, AT THIS TIME

March 2021

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal

APPENDIX 6 CLYDE RIVER IR ATTACHMENTS

March 2021

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal

CR-5 ATTACHMENT 1: GOLDER REVIEW OF PAPER ON CORTISOL LEVELS IN NARWHAL

March 2021

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM DATE 4 February 2021 Reference No. 1663724-258-TM-Rev2-38000

TO Megan Lord-Hoyle Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation FROM Patrick Abgrall EMAIL Patrick [email protected]

REVIEW OF WATT ET AL. (2021) MANUSCRIPT: CORTISOL LEVELS IN NARWHAL (MONODON MONOCEROS) BLUBBER FROM 2000-2019

This Technical Memorandum is a review conducted by Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) on the Watt et al. 2021 Accepted Manuscript entitled Cortisol levels in narwhal (Monodon monoceros) blubber from 2000-2019 in Arctic Science. In this study, Watt et al. (2021) compared narwhal blubber cortisol levels from 2000–2006, 2013–2019 and from a 2015 entrapment event, and explored the relationship to an increase in shipping traffic from the Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation (Baffinland) Mary River Project (the Project). It is difficult, if not impossible, to determine how a specific environmental change will influence blubber cortisol levels (Thompson et al. 2014; Loseto et al. 2018). The deposition rate of cortisol in different tissues varies. As such, it can be difficult to link cortisol levels to a specific timeframe (Thompson et al. 2014). Blubber cortisol levels are also a reflection of stress experienced over a long timeframe that includes multiple stressors, rather than a single stressor, such as a shipping event, or more generally, shipping activity.

Loseto et al. (2018) outlined a methodology to assess the influence of shipping on narwhal cortisol levels while accounting for additional ecological changes. This methodology involves having pre-change benchmarks, and then examining cortisol in the affected population as well as in a similar, but non-affected, population. This methodology was not done is this study.

There are several information/data gaps in Watt et al. (2021) that prevent the reviewer from appropriately evaluating the statistical findings and inferred conclusions outlined in the manuscript. This includes a general lack of detail with respect to methodology and study design, data processing, statistical analyses and reported results. Without additional details, it is impossible to determine if a correlating relationship or trend exists between cortisol levels in narwhal and Project shipping. A list of clarifying questions is included below in relation to these information gaps, along with some additional review notes of relevance.

Data Collection Details  The reader is not provided with any detailed information on when and where the samples were collected. Please identify the location and time (day/month/year) for each of the samples collected.

. For the “shipping” samples, this would help estimate the level of shipping that each sampled narwhal would have been exposed to within each season. Were some of the samples taken before ships entered Eclipse Sound? This could have also been cross-referenced by community reports of killer whale

Golder Associates Ltd. Suite 200 - 2920 Virtual Way, Vancouver, British Columbia, V5M 0C4, Canada T: +1 604 296 4200 F: +1 604 298 5253

Golder and the G logo are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation golder.com

Megan Lord-Hoyle Reference No. 1663724-258-TM-Rev2-38000 Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation 4 February 2021

presence in Eclipse Sound. For the “pre-shipping” samples, time of year can also impact cortisol levels. For example, animals sampled earlier in the season may not have been exposed to the same hunting or predation pressures, for instance.

. The geographic location of sample collection is important. Were samples taken from narwhal hunted at the floe edge during spring? Or alternatively from narwhal hunted in the Regional Study Area (RSA) during the open-water (active shipping) season? Or did it include both and how was this considered in the study design?

. How many samples were collected each year? The total sample number collected in the 2000–2006 and 2013–2019 treatments averaged less than six samples per year. This limited amount of data is likely to result in low statistical power. Loseto et al. (2018) had an average of 16.5 beluga per year for their analysis. In addition, shipping levels were considerably different between 2013–2019. This does not seem to have been considered in the study.  How many samples were taken from male or female narwhal? How did age and size of the animals vary? The authors indicated that this information was not available. Lacking information on animal age, size and sex is concerning, particularly in a non-parametric, low sample size test.  Were tissue samples taken from a consistent location on the narwhal?  How long after animal was captured and killed did it take to get the samples to the appropriate freeze temperature for sample preservation? Hunters can be out on the land for multiple days. How was this controlled?  Were the samples stored in -20°C freezers when they arrived at the lab for the duration of the lab processing? Or were they stored at -20°C when they first came out of the field and then stored at a different temperature in the lab?  Were hunter(s) provided with a systematic sampling protocol and training? How was this audited to ensure standardized data collection among hunters within a season and among different seasons?

. Beluga research on cortisol levels also emphasizes the importance of standardized sample handling in the methodology. If methods for storage, extraction, and analysis differ, this will likely result in inaccurate comparisons as these steps have been found to influence cortisol levels in other species by a factor of two- to three-fold (Trana et al. 2015; Loseto et al. 2018).  Were there samples collected annually from 2007 to 2012, as well as in 2018? If so, is there a reason these were excluded from the present analysis? Suggested guidelines for using cortisol as a management tool state that having a continuous time series is required to assess the influence of environmental variables on cortisol (Loseto et al. 2018).  The sample analysis was limited to 2000 where no visible degradation was observed. How is degradation assessed and how can it be ensured that older samples are not affected by some level of degradation? Is this based strictly on a visual observation of the sample as the manuscript implies?

2

Megan Lord-Hoyle Reference No. 1663724-258-TM-Rev2-38000 Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation 4 February 2021

Data Exploration and Analysis  What was the exact p-value of the Dunn post-hoc test between the control 2000–2006 group and the shipping 2013–2019 group?

. A value of p<0.05 is stated in the manuscript. Typically, p-values are reported as <0.05 if they are between 0.01 and 0.05, which would mean that the analysis yielded marginally statistically significant results. In these instances, results should be treated with caution. With such a low sample size, they could be significantly influenced by data outliers or influences of biometric data that were not accounted for within this study.  What is the interannual cortisol variation? . Shipping levels have changed from 2013 to 2019. If changes in cortisol levels are primarily or most substantially influenced by shipping activity, yearly increased in cortisol levels would be expected in tandem with increased shipping activity. Was this trend observed? How significant was the increase relative to the number of Project-related vessels. For example, in 2013 there were only nine Project vessels called to Milne Port compared to 82 in 2019. Was there a statistically significant difference between these years?

. Did cortisol levels also increase between 2000 and 2006? If an increase was observed during this timeframe, it would be expected that cortisol would continue to increase between 2006 and 2013. This would indicate that the increased cortisol could be linked to other non-Baffinland factors.  What are the raw cortisol distribution data within each treatment range? . The top 50% of the two vessel-related boxes within the boxplot in Figure 2 are similar. The main difference between them is the bottom of the 2000–2006 control box. Was there an outlier within the 2000–2006 control treatment that was driving this? Outliers can have large impacts in analysis of small datasets such as this one, particularly when a p-value is marginally statistically significant, which this one appears to be.  No biometric data were included within the analysis, particularly as cortisol levels between 2000-2006 and 2013-2019 appeared to be marginally statistically significant.

. Watt et al. (2021) indicated that “Cortisol levels vary among individuals and can be influenced by many biological factors including the age, size, sex, and reproductive status of an animal (Suzuki et al. 2013; Azevedo et al. 2019)”. The influence of this information being unavailable in the sample set has been understated by the authors.

. Loseto et al. 2018 notes that while there was no significant differences between sex in their results, that they had few samples from female beluga which made analysis regarding sex difficult. While Loseto et al. 2018 did not find that biometric data influenced outer blubber cortisol, they did find that age, as well as length and blubber thickness influenced middle blubber cortisol.

. Kershaw and Hall (2016) indicate that biopsy mass, sex, season, and sampling area were all statistically significant across harbour seal samples.

3

Megan Lord-Hoyle Reference No. 1663724-258-TM-Rev2-38000 Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation 4 February 2021

 Was a familywise correction used within the Dunn’s post hoc test to account for the three tests?  Was a power analysis conducted?

Data Interpretation/Discussion  Watt et al. (2021) indicated that “Project related vessel traffic within the region has been ongoing since 2013, including within the narwhal summering area (Figure 1)”. The right panel of Figure 1 shows “vessel locations for the area from 2013-2019”, but the track presented are not exclusively those of Baffinland project-related vessels servicing Milne Port. This includes vessels entering many fjords in and around Eclipse Sound. The manner in which this information is presented appears to be intentionally misleading to the reader who without prior knowledge of shipping in the area or access to historical Automated Information System (AIS) records would attribute all vessel traffic presented in Figure 1 to Baffinland vessels.  Watt et al. (2021) indicated that “Variability in cortisol levels among individuals was reduced during project related vessel traffic, which may suggest that stress induced by vessel traffic was making some of the individual differences in cortisol levels that may have been attributed to other environmental stressors pre- project related vessel traffic.” Could this also be a result of an increased variation in sample degradation for the older samples?  Watt et al. (2021) indicated that "this may lead to chronic stress and reduced reproductive success in narwhals in the region” and that “Cortisol levels should be used as an early indicator of stress”. The authors are concerned that a potential increase in cortisol levels could result in reduced reproductive success but fail to indicate that a measure of reproductive success (proportion of immature individuals) is currently being monitored by Baffinland as a precautious early warning indicator (EWI).  We question the validity of comparing stress levels in entrapped narwhal and beluga without including additional context. . How long were the beluga and narwhal trapped for before the samples were taken? Blubber cortisol reflects chronic stress not acute stress, therefore the beluga may not have been entrapped as long as the narwhal for the entrapment related stress to be deposited within the blubber.

Several key ecological changes are known to have occurred in Eclipse Sound between 2000 and 2019. Loseto et al. (2018) acknowledges that such factors have the potential to influence cortisol levels in beluga (Loseto et al. 2018). Watt et al. (2021) also indicated that “It is difficult to determine what the root cause of an increase in stress may be. Changing ice conditions (Laidre and Heide-Jorgensen 2005), changes to Arctic food webs (Post et al. 2013), an increase in killer whales in the Canadian Arctic (Higdon and Ferguson 2009), and/or increased vessel traffic (EguÍluz et al. 2016), could all contribute to increasing stress levels for narwhals. However, the cumulative impact of all these changes may have a larger impact on narwhal populations than any one factor alone”. In spite of this statement in Watt et al. (2021), and in spite of the absence of detailed methodology and reporting clarity as outlined above, the manuscript still suggests that a correlating relationship between Project shipping and stress levels exists, and does not appropriately stress the need for caution in interpretating the results. Overall, we have concerns regarding the lack of detailed information, as well as scientific transparency and rigorous presented in Watt et al. (2021). As written, Watt et al. (2021) makes unsubstantiated inferences. Without further analyses by the authors, and additional information being supplied or corrected for in the study, it is

4

Megan Lord-Hoyle Reference No. 1663724-258-TM-Rev2-38000 Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation 4 February 2021

impossible to determine if any correlating relationship or trend exists between cortisol levels in narwhal samples and Project shipping as the authors have suggested. It is possible that there has been no change in cortisol levels in narwhal blubber between 2000 to 2019 and that the results presented by Watt et al. (2021) are a by-product of a limited sample size. There are many study limitations but these are consistently understated by the authors.

Closure We trust the above meets your present requirements. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact the undersigned.

Golder Associates Ltd.

Patrick Abgrall, PhD Bart DeFreitas, MSc, RPBio Senior Marine Biologist Associate, Senior Biologist

PA/BD/asd

https://golderassociates.sharepoint.com/sites/11206g/Deliverables (Do Not Use)/Issued to Client_For WP/1663724-258-TM-Rev2- 38000/1663724-258-TM-Rev2-38000 Narwhal Cortisol Study Response 04FEB_21.docx

5

Megan Lord-Hoyle Reference No. 1663724-258-TM-Rev2-38000 Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation 4 February 2021

REFERENCES Kershaw, J.L. and A.J. Hall. 2016. Seasonal variation in harbour seal (Phoca vitulina) blubber cortisol - A novel indicator of physiological state? Sci Rep 6, 21889.

Loseto, L.L., K. Pleskach, C. Hoover, G.T. Tomy, J.-P. Desforges, R. Halldorson, and P.S. Ross. 2018. Cortisol levels in beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas): setting a benchmark for Marine Protected Area Monitoring. Arctic Science 4:358-372.

Thompson, L.A., T.R. Spoon, C.E.C. Goertz, R.C. Hobbs, T.A. and Romano. 2014. Blow collection as a non- invasive-method for measuring cortisol in the beluga (Delphinapterus leucas). PLoS ONE 9:22.

Trana, M.R., J.D. Roth, G.T. Tomy, W.G. Anderson, and S.H. Ferguson. 2015. Influence of sample degradation and tissue depth on blubber cortisol in beluga whales. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 462:8–13.

Watt, C., J. Simonee, V. L’Herault, R. Zhou, S.H. Ferguson, M. Marcoux, and S. Black. 2021. Cortisol levels in narwhal (Monodon monoceros) blubber from 2000-2019. Arctic Science:-.https://doi.org/10.1139/AS- 2020-0034.

6

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal

APPENDIX 7 GOVERNMENT OF NUNAVUT IR ATTACHMENTS

March 2021

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal

THERE ARE NO ATTACHMENTS IDENTIFIED FOR THIS GROUP OF RESPONSES, AT THIS TIME

March 2021

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal

APPENDIX 8 GOVERNMENT OF CANADA IR ATTACHMENTS

March 2021

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal

GOC-4 ATTACHMENT 1: AIS RESPONSE PROTOCOL

March 2021

Secondary Determiniation Results and rationale for the independent verifications are reviewed by Biologica Detection Environmental Services Ltd. for accuracy and confidence in the identification. Results from the independent verifications are compared to the same taxonomic resources and AIS databases as described in the Initial Determination step. Initial Determination Species, or taxa of higher levels with at least one representative species that are found to have a range that includes the Canadian Arctic and do not appear on the AIS databases are considered “No Risk” and added to the Milne Inlet taxonomic FLAGGED NO RISK inventory. Specimens where the initial identification was confirmed or updated identifications with uncertainties in the range on record, or a presence on any of the AIS databases are flagged for a more detailed review stage. Independent Verification Secondary Determiniation Information Gathering Information Gathering All taxa not determined to be “No Risk” following Secondary Determination are subjected to a detailed and focussed literature review. Information Gathering HIGH RISK LOW RISK includes examining documented occurrences relative to the range on record, as well as genetic and phylogenetic studies that may help resolve a taxon’s origin. Following the review, taxa will either be classified as “Low Risk” and added to MLE Test Watch List the Watchlist, or classified as “High Risk” and subjected to the MLE Test. MLE Test Relationship Heightened NO The Multiple Lines of Evidence (MLE) test is applied to all “High Risk” To Project Monitoring taxa determined through the Information Gathering step. Recognizing the limitations of existing AIS databases, the MLE test informs whether site-specific biogeographic, ecological, and genetic evidence supports the categorization YES of a particular species/taxon as invasive. Biogeographic evidence may include information from the historical taxonomic record or historical documented occurrences. Ecological evidence considers vectors of introduction as well as Trigger Response Plan whether the species/taxon of concern is displaying invasive behaviour at Milne List Port (i.e., increase in relative abundance, geographic spread, change in benthic community indices). Genetic evidence may help resolve trickier taxonomic identifications and may also identify related or source populations of the same species in linked Ports and nearby areas.

Detection Relationship To Project Detection involves screening the taxonomic list received from annual survey Following the MLE test, a determination will be made as to whether a potential efforts against the taxonomic inventory developed for Milne Inlet (which includes introduction is Project-related. An introduction is considered Project-related all taxa observed across all baseline and monitoring surveys) to identify taxa that if a species/taxon was not documented in baseline surveys or if there are no have not been observed previously. documented occurrences in the Canadian Arctic prior to the commencement of shipping operations. Introductions attributable to the Project will be added to Initial Determination the Trigger List while those that are not will be added to the Watchlist. Taxa identified in the detection stage are compared to existing taxonomic resources and available regional species records of occurrence. Resources include, but are not limited to, the World Register of Marine Watch List Species (WoRMS), the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), and Arctic species inventories published or accessed through the Ocean The Watchlist is a list of taxa identified in Milne Port that are considered to be Biogeographic Information System (OBIS). Taxa are also screened against “Low Risk” or “High Risk” but not attributable to the Project. Taxa on this list are available global and domestic AIS databases including, but not limited to, the subjected to a heightened level of monitoring, which may include increased Global invasive species database (Molnar et al. 2008), the National Exotic surveillance through targeted sampling events, and the involvement of taxonomic Marine and Estuarine Species Information System (NEMESIS), the Global specialists. Additionally, each year the taxa is reidentified in samples, the Invasive Species Database (GISD) published by the IUCN Invasive Species Information Gathering step will be performed again to review any updates to the Specialist Group (ISSG) and the invasive species list within the National literature and NIS/AIS status of the taxa. The taxa will be reassessed as “No Risk”, Risk Assessment for Introduction of Aquatic Nonindigenous Species to “Low Risk” or “High Risk” accordingly. Canada by Ballast Water (Casas-Monroy et al. 2014). Species, or taxa of higher levels with at least one representative species that are found to have Heighted monitoring includes annual sampling at the locations where taxa have a range that includes the Canadian Arctic and do not appear on the AIS been previously observed to monitor for changes in metrics such as relative databases are considered “No Risk” and added to the inventory. Taxa are abundance, species diversity and richness, and other indications that the taxa is flagged for independent verification where there is low confidence in their displaying invasive behaviours. Should invasive behaviours be identified, the taxa identifications, uncertainties in the range on record, or presence on any of will be considered “High Risk” and the MLE Test performed again. the AIS databases. Trigger List Independent Verification The Trigger List contains species confirmed as Project-related introductions of High- Specimens of flagged taxa are sent for an independent identification or Risk taxa. Responsive actions will be species specific and proportional to the risk. verification of the initial identification. Currently, taxa are verified by the Benthic Ecology Lab at Université Laval. Additional specialists in particular taxonomic Response Plan groups or species are also being sought to provide clarity on identifications unable to be resolved by Laval. Specimens preserved in ethanol are alternatively Species specific response plans will be developed in collaboration with DFO sent for DNA verification by the Canadian Centre for DNA Barcoding atthe and may include possible interventions such as control or eradication efforts, University of Guelph. balancing the environmental impacts of the response. Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal

GOC-6 ATTACHMENT 1: STORE HELLEFISKEBANK ANCHORING

March 2021

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal

GOC-6 ATTACHMENT 1: STORE HELLEFISKEBANK ANCHORING

March 2021

February 22, 2021

Store Hellefiskebank Anchorage

Background

In the Assessment of Icebreaking Operations during the Shoulder Season, a process is described for Project vessels to use a recognized anchorage location off the west coast of Greenland, known as Store Hellefiskebank (or the Bank), as an alternative to anchoring and/or drifting in Baffin Bay at the mouth of Eclipse Sound at the start of the shipping season. The following provides additional information regarding the potential use of the Bank as a temporary refuge area for vessels prior to entering Baffinland’s Regional Study Area (RSA).

Need

Two key mitigations committed to for the Project influenced Baffinland’s decision to identify Store Hellefiskebank as an alternative anchoring area for vessels calling to Milne Port. The first mitigation includes Baffinland’s commitment to limit the number of Project vessels allowed in the RSA at any given time, which was developed largely in response to community concerns. Baffinland has also committed to limiting the number of vessels that will enter the RSA in July when ice conditions are greater than 3/101.The purpose of these vessel transit restrictions is to limit disturbance to narwhal as they enter the RSA during their spring migration.

Operationally, this means that some vessels may arrive in Baffin Bay before they have obtained clearance from the Port Captain to begin their transit into the RSA. In such instances where a vessel may have to wait an extended period to time to enter the RSA (i.e. over a 24-hour period), rather than drift and/or anchor in Baffin Bay at the mouth of Eclipse Sound, the Vessel Captain may instead determine to anchor at Store Hellefiskebank as a safer alternative. It is noted that in all matters of marine transportation, the Vessel Captain has an overriding obligation to protect the safety of their vessel, crew, and the environment for which they are ultimately responsible. As such, a vessel may seek refuge, or stop in anchor in any suitable area along their route as required.

Location

Store Hellefiskebank extends approximately 100nm off the west coast of Greenland into Baffin Bay (between 66-68°N) with depths ranging from approximately 50-100m. As described in the Sailing Directions for West Greenland produced by the Danish Geodata Agency, Store Hellefiskebank is identified

1 Between the period of 01 July and 30 July, a maximum of one transit1 or two half‐transits) will occur per day (24‐h period) where ice concentrations of 6/10 or greater cannot be avoided along the shipping route.Between the period of 01 July and 30 July, a maximum of two transits or four half transits will occur per day (24‐h period) where ice concentrations less than 6/10 but greater than 3/10 cannot be avoided along the shipping route.

2275 Upper Middle Road East, Suite 300 | Oakville, ON, L6H 0C3| Main: 416.364.8820 | Fax: 416.364.0193 | www.baffinland.com MARY RIVER PROJECT Store Hellefiskebank Anchorage February 22, 2021

as an area suitable for anchoring as it is generally ice free during the Shoulder Seasons (see Section 4.2.6.3.2).

Figure 1 shows the general area where vessels may anchor along the bank. As depicted, the area that may be used for anchoring is outside of Greenland’s Territorial Seas (>12nm from shore) but within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) (<200nm from shore). It should be noted that the potential anchoring area is larger than both Eclipse Sound and Milne Inlet combined.

Figure 1: Location of Area for Anchoring at Store Hellefiske Bank

Description of Activity

For the sake of providing certainty in the operations, scheduling of vessels assumes a consistent flow of vessels to Milne Port, using all available anchorages and berths along the way. At the start of the shipping season when vessel transit limitations apply, the ability to escort all vessels to available anchorages and berths in Eclipse Sound (Ragged Island) and at Milne Port is limited, and some vessels will be required to hold outside the RSA, awaiting instruction to enter from the Port Captain.

A less likely scenario can also occur at other points throughout the shipping season (i.e. even when vessel transit restrictions do not apply) if there are unanticipated interruptions of loading activities at Milne Port, delays due to weather, or a vessel arrives earlier than expected.

If the Port Captain identifies that vessels cannot not yet enter the RSA, it is at the Vessel Captain’s discretion to choose a safe area to await further instructions. Store Hellefiskebank is typically ice free at the time of the start of the shipping season, has suitable depths for anchoring and offers a safer alternative to waiting in the middle of Baffin Bay where the vessel is more exposed to weather conditions.

Page 2

22035.124048.LED.18221743.1 MARY RIVER PROJECT Store Hellefiskebank Anchorage February 22, 2021

Accordingly, some vessels may choose to use that area. While there, it is expected vessels will anchor rather than drift in order to save fuel, although this decision ultimately rests with the Vessel Captain.

For clarity, this is a common and incidental activity to shipping through Baffin Bay and is consistent with the shipping route described in the Early Revenue Phase (ERP), which remains unchanged for Phase 2. The activity occurs at a Vessel Captain’s discretion for purposes of safety and consistent with international maritime law. Lastly, it is not expected to happen with any regular occurrence outside of the Spring shoulder season, and even then it is anticipated to be limited (<10 occurrences/season).

Right of Use The master of the vessel is responsible for:

• Selecting a safe anchorage; and • Ensuring the vessel’s safety at all times.

With respect to international waters, the United Nations Conventions on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) applies. Both Canada and Denmark are parties to UNCLOS. Under UNCLOS, vessels passing through a country’s territorial waters, as well as its EEZ, have a “right of innocent passage.” This right to innocent passage includes stopping and anchoring at any point along a route, where such anchoring is incidental to ordinary navigation, force majeure or a state of distress.

Vessel Types

The suite of ore carriers used for each shipping season will be a function of commercial availability and ice conditions. Baffinland will seek to procure a mix of the following vessel types:

• Supramax vessels (50,000 - 60,000 deadweight tonnage (DWT)); • Panamax vessels (65,000 - 80,000 DWT); • Kamsarmax (Post Panamax) vessels (80,000 DWT); and • Capesize vessels (150,000 - 250,000 DWT).

Other vessels that will be procured by Baffinland to support the Project include wet/dry resupply vessels, ice breakers and tugs. An estimate of 24 voyages for other vessels (e.g. wet/dry re-supply) has been considered in the assessment of Phase 2.

Depending on the timing of their arrival in Baffin Bay, any of these vessels might anchor near Store Hellefiskebank while waiting to be called to Milne Port. Many of these vessels will have different anchors (i.e. made by a variety of manufacturers) with unique specifications, but at a minimum, anchors will have a weight adequate to hold the vessel to the seabed and have a chain length capable of dropping to a depth in the locations they have identified for safe anchorage.

Other Considerations

In accordance with the federal Ballast Water Control and Management Regulations, Project vessels are required to conduct a mid-ocean ballast water exchange that occurs 200nm from shore, in waters that are at least 2,000m deep, prior to entering Canada’s EEZ. Vessels will then retain ballast (primarily for safety reasons), until reaching Milne Port, at which point they will discharge ballast in accordance with

Page 3

22035.124048.LED.18221743.1 MARY RIVER PROJECT Store Hellefiskebank Anchorage February 22, 2021

the protocols outlined in Baffinland’s Ballast Water Management Plan. As such, no discharge of ballast water will occur at Store Hellefiskebank.

Vessels may release grey water or treated sewage while anchored at Store Hellefiskebank. Any discharges from the vessel will be conducted under the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL, Annex IV), and the International Maritime Organization’s International Code for Ships Operating in Polar Waters (Polar Code).

All vessels procured by Baffinland will follow the International Maritime Organization Guidelines for the control and management of ships’ biofouling to minimize the transfer of invasive species.

While at anchor, lighting on board the vessel (anchor and deck lighting) will be maintained in accordance with the Danish Maritime Authority’s Order on regulations for preventing collisions at sea and Transport Canada’s Collision Regulations.

Page 4

22035.124048.LED.18221743.1 Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal

APPENDIX 9 OCEANS NORTH IR ATTACHMENTS

March 2021

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal

THERE ARE NO ATTACHMENTS IDENTIFIED FOR THIS GROUP OF RESPONSES, AT THIS TIME

March 2021

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal

APPENDIX 10 NITV IR ATTACHMENTS

March 2021 Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal

NITV-3: TSM DOCUMENTS

March 2021

February 23, 2021

Mr. Pierre Gratton President and Chief Executive Officer Mining Association of Canada 275 Slater Street, Suite 1100 Ottawa, ON K1P 5H9

Re: External Verification of 2019 TSM Self-Assessment Results of Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation

Dear Mr. Gratton,

This letter is to inform you that Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation (Baffinland) has an established process to participate in, report on and verify the results related to the Towards Sustainable Mining (TSM) Performance Indicators assessments provided yearly to the Mining Association of Canada (MAC). Baffinland’s operations began in 2015. Baffinland completed its first-ever external verification of its 2019 TSM self-assessment results (5th year of operations) for the Mary River Mine by retaining the services of external Verification Service Provider (VSP), ERM Consultants Canada Ltd. (ERM) in 2020. ERM assessed six applicable protocols in relation to the requirements of MAC’s TSM Performance Indicators and concluded the following:

 Aboriginal and Community Outreach (“AAA” for all 4 indicators);  Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Management (Indicators 1, 2 and 3 = B, A, and C);  Biodiversity Conservation Management (Biodiversity; “AAA” for all 3 indicators);  Safety and Health (5 indicators ranging from “AA” to “AAA”);  Crisis Management and Communications Planning (Mary River Mine Facility and Corporate meet all requirements);  Preventing Child and Forced Labour (all requirements met).

Through the verification process, all of Baffinland’s 2019 self-assessment results remained unchanged with the exception of an upgrade from “A” to “AAA” for Biodiversity Indicator 2. We agree with the conclusions of the verification and are pleased with the upgraded score of one of the indicators, resulting in “AAA” across all Biodiversity-related performance indicators.

Please feel free to contact Geneviève Morinville at 416-363-8820 (x5040) should you have any questions about the results.

2275 Upper Middle Road East, Suite 300 | Oakville, ON, L6H 0C3| Main: 416.364.8820 | Fax: 416.364.0193 | www.baffinland.com MARY RIVER PROJECT External Verification of 2019 TSM Self- Assessment Results of Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation February 23, 2021

Best regards,

Brian Penney President & Chief Executive Officer, Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation

Cc: Megan Lord-Hoyle, VP Sustainable Development Geneviève Morinville, Manager Environmental, Social and Governance

Page 2   ÿ ÿ ÿ !  ÿ"ÿ#$ÿ %ÿ&' !  ÿÿ 

89@AB9ACÿEFGAÿHIAPQÿRGFSGF9TIGA

UVWXY`aÿVcXdeÿfaÿghdÿiXdpqaÿrXeÿsWXdpr`tÿupVvwÿxyr€VpWYaÿthrpdhV`edpÿrXeÿ‚pƒd`VpsWYYr`„ r†X`rXeÿ‡pVXÿsWXdtÿˆVpwVprYWVXÿx r†X`rXeÿWtÿrÿwpW‰rYd`aVcXdeÿƒVywrXaÿVwdprYWXqÿrÿhWqh qpredÿWpVXÿVpdÿyWXdÿ`VƒrYdeÿVXÿ r†Xÿ‡t`rXe„ÿrwwpV‘WyrYd`aÿ’“”ÿ•yÿtVvYhtVvYhcdtYÿV–ÿYhdÿXdrpdtY ƒVyyvXWYaÿV–ÿ—VXeÿ‡X`dYÿxsWYYWyrYr`W•„ÿWXÿYhdÿ˜W•W™YrXWÿpdqWVXÿV–ÿdvXr‰vY„ÿˆrXrerÿeÿfXW™vdÿYV r†X`rXegtÿVwdprYWVXtÿWtÿYhrYÿYhdÿhWqhqpredÿVpdÿƒrXÿfdÿthWwwdeÿeWpdƒY`aÿYVÿyrp•dYtÿ–V``VcWXq ƒpvthWXqÿrXeÿtƒpddXWXqÿhÿXVÿƒVXƒdXYprYWXqÿVpÿwpVƒdttWXqÿWtÿXddede„ÿrXeÿYhdpd–VpdÿXVÿYrW`WXqtÿrXe ‰dpaÿ`WYY`dÿcrtYdÿpVƒ•ÿwpVevƒdeeÿ‡pVXÿVpd„ÿWXÿYhdÿ–VpyÿV–ÿ`vywÿrXeÿiXdt„ÿWtÿYhdXÿthWwwdeÿYV WXYdpXrYWVXr`ÿyrp•dYtÿevpWXqÿrÿthVpYÿthWwwWXqÿtdrtVXÿxjUv`aÿ’kÿYVÿdXeÿV–ÿlƒYVfdp„ÿedwdXeWXqÿVXÿWƒd ƒVXeWYWVXte

r†X`rXegtÿhdreÿV†ƒdÿWtÿ`VƒrYdeÿWXÿlr•‰W``d„ÿlXYrpWVÿrXeÿWYtÿXVpYhdpXÿhdre™vrpYdptÿWtÿ`VƒrYdeÿWX ‡™r`vWY„ÿdvXr‰vYÿWXÿˆrXrereÿ r†X`rXeÿr`tVÿhrtÿV†ƒdtÿWXÿi‰dÿdVpYhÿ r†XÿˆVyyvXWYWdtÿWXƒ`veWXq ‚pƒYWƒÿ ra„ÿˆ`aedÿmW‰dp„ÿnrXWpr€r•„ÿ‡q`VV`W•ÿrXeÿ—VXeÿ‡X`dYÿxYhdÿXdrpdtYÿƒVyyvXWYaÿYVÿYhdÿsrpaÿmW‰dp —pV€dƒYe

r†X`rXegtÿsWttWVX„ÿoWtWVXÿrXeÿor`vdtÿcdpdÿed‰d`VwdeÿcWYhÿYhdÿuV‰dpXydXYÿV–ÿdvXr‰vYgtÿdWqhY ‡XvWYÿnVƒWdYr`ÿor`vdtÿWXÿyWXe„ÿrXeÿWXƒ`vedp

qrsÿHEttEqu $!! () %0'')  1  "  ") "' !  2!)3456 7   ÿ ÿ ÿ !  ÿ"ÿ#$ÿ %ÿ&' !  ÿÿ  89@ÿBCDDCEFÿCDÿGEÿIPQEBPÿGRPÿSETPDGUQEDGÿV@EW9QP@ÿEXÿRCYRÿY@`WPÿC@EFÿE@PÿCFÿGRPÿTE@SWa

bcdÿfghgbi 89@ÿpCDCEFÿCDÿGEÿD`XPSqÿ`FWÿPrQCPFGSqÿCWPFGCXqÿ`FWÿWPpPSEVÿ@PDE9@QPDÿTCGRCFÿs`rFÿtDS`FWuÿ9FSEQvCFY GRPC@ÿTP`SGRUYPFP@`GCFYÿVEGPFGC`Sa

bcdÿfwxcyh €P`SGRÿ`FWÿ`XPGqÿ‚ÿ`XPGqÿ`Dÿ`ÿƒ`S9P„ÿ RPFÿD`XPGqÿCDÿ`ÿVP@DEF`Sÿp`S9PuÿVPEVSPÿF`G9@`SSqÿQREEDPÿGE B`vPÿGRPÿD`XPÿQRECQPaÿ†RPqÿPpPFÿ9DPÿRP`@CFYÿV@EGPQGCEFÿ`FWÿD`XPGqÿYS`DDPDÿ`GÿREBPaÿ‡BVSEqP@DÿTRE R`pPÿD`XPGqÿ`Dÿ`ÿp`S9PÿB`vPÿGRPC@ÿTE@vVS`QPÿD`XPÿIPQ`9DPÿGRPqÿT`FGÿGEuÿFEGÿIPQ`9DPÿEXÿYEpP@FBPFG @PY9S`GCEFaÿ‡BVSEqPPDÿTE@vÿD`XPSqÿIPQ`9DPÿGRPqÿT`FGÿGEuÿFEGÿIPQ`9DPÿCGÿCDÿ`ÿQEBV`Fqÿ@9SPaÿtFÿGRCD PFpC@EFBPFGuÿQEBV`FCPDÿYEÿ`IEpPÿ`FWÿIPqEFWÿ@PY9S`GCEFDÿGEÿV@EGPQGÿGRPC@ÿVPEVSPa

tFGPY@CGqÿ‚ÿˆEÿ R`GÿCDÿ‰CYRGuÿEGÿ R`GÿCDÿ‡`Dq„ÿtFGPY@CGqÿCDÿEXGPFÿWP‘FPWÿ`DÿWECFYÿGRPÿ@CYRGÿGRCFYÿPpPF TRPFÿFEÿEFPÿPSDPÿCDÿ`@E9FWaÿtGÿCDÿGRPÿ`ICSCGqÿGEÿ`QGÿTCGRÿREFPDGquÿIPÿQEFDCDGPFGuÿ`FWÿPGRCQ`SÿCF TR`GPpP@ÿCGÿCDÿTPÿ`@PÿWECFYaÿtG’Dÿ`IE9GÿIPCFYÿ`QQE9FG`ISPuÿG@`FDV`@PFGÿ`FWÿI9CSWCFYÿG@9DGÿGR@E9YR QEBB9FCQ`GCEFDa

‡FY`YPÿ`FWÿˆPpPSEVÿ89@ÿ“PEVSP„ÿ”FÿE@Y`FC•`GCEFÿTRP@PÿYEEWÿTE@vÿCDÿ@PQEYFC•PWÿ`FWÿ@PT`@WPWaÿ”SS PBVSEqPPDÿ`@PÿDPPFÿ`FWÿG@P`GPWÿ`Dÿp`S9PWÿV`@GFP@Daÿs`rFS`FWÿTCSSÿCFpPDGÿCFÿPBVSEqPP’DÿD9QQPDD `FWÿY@ETGRÿGR@E9YRÿV@EpCWCFYÿGEESDuÿG@`CFCFYÿ`FWÿD9VVE@GÿFPPWPWÿGEÿ9FSP`DRÿGRPC@ÿVEGPFGC`Sa s`rFS`FWÿTCSSÿPFWP`pE9@ÿGEÿIPQEBPÿGRPÿPBVSEqP@ÿEXÿQRECQPÿXE@ÿtF9CGÿCFÿ9F`p9Ga

‰PDVPQGÿ–E@ÿ”SS„ÿ PÿTCSSÿ@PDVPQGÿ`FWÿ`ICWPÿIqÿtF9CGÿEQCPG`Sÿƒ`S9PDÿCFÿGRPÿTE@vVS`QPÿ`FWÿ`Dÿ`ÿB`FFP@ EXÿWECFYÿI9DCFPDDaÿ PÿTCSSÿDG@CpPÿGEÿV@EpCWPÿ`ÿRP`SGRqÿ`FWÿD`XPÿTE@vVS`QPuÿX@PPÿX@EBÿVRqDCQ`SÿE@ VDqQRESEYCQ`SÿI9SSqCFYuÿR`@`DDBPFGÿ`FWÿpCESPFQPaÿƒCES`GCEFDÿEXÿ@PDVPQGÿTCSSÿIPÿCFpPDGCY`GPWÿ`FWÿCX D9IDG`FGC`GPWÿTCSSÿIPÿWP`SGÿTCGRÿP—VPWCGCE9DSqaÿ˜9SGCQ9SG9@`SCDBÿTCSSÿIPÿpCPTPWÿ`Dÿ`ÿDG@PFYGRÿ`FW V@EBEGPWaÿ™EFDCWP@`GCEFÿXE@ÿVPEVSPÿTCSSÿIPÿ‘@DGÿ`FWÿXE@PBEDGÿCFÿ`SSÿCFGP@`QGCEFDa

‡FpC@EFBPFG`SÿGPT`@WDRCV„ÿ‰PDVPQGÿGRPÿ`C@uÿS`FWuÿT`GP@ÿ`FWÿTCSWSCXPÿ`DÿTPÿGRE9YRGX9SSqÿV9GÿGEÿYEEW 9DPÿGRPÿP`@GR’Dÿ@PDE9@QPDaÿ”ST`qDÿ@PBPBIP@ÿGR`GÿTPÿ`@PÿY9PDGDÿEFÿGRCDÿS`FWÿ`FWÿG@P`GÿCG @PDVPQGX9SSqaÿ PÿTCSSÿWPpPSEVÿCGÿ@PDVEFDCISqÿ`FWÿIPÿYEEWÿDGPT`@WDÿEXÿGRPÿS`FWÿCFÿQEFQP@GÿTCGRÿtF9CGa

“9@D9Pÿ“P@XE@B`FQPÿ‡—QPSSPFQP„ÿ Pÿ`@Pÿ@PSPFGSPDDÿCFÿQR`SSPFYCFYÿE9@DPSpPDÿ`FWÿEGRP@DÿGEÿ`QRCPpP RCYRÿVP@XE@B`FQPÿ`FWÿQ@P`GPÿS`DGCFYÿDEQCEUPQEFEBCQÿCBV`QGDÿCFÿ`SSÿGR`GÿTPÿWEaÿ PÿXEQ9DÿEF CBV@EpCFYÿPpP@qÿW`qÿ`FWÿWPSCpP@CFYÿEFÿQEBBCGBPFGDaÿtFFEp`GCEFÿCDÿDPPFÿ`Dÿ`ÿvPqÿBPQR`FCDBÿGE `QRCPpPÿGRCDÿE9GQEBPaÿ‰CYE@ÿCFÿVS`FFCFYÿ`FWÿGRE9YRGX9SÿP—PQ9GCEFÿCDÿ`ÿvPqÿDG@PFYGRaÿ†P`BTE@vÿCD FPQPDD`@qÿXE@ÿWPDC@PWÿE9GQEBPDa

ÿ

defgÿhhiÿdjklmnk ‡—GP@F`SSqÿƒP@C‘PW ‰PD9SGD

$!! () %0'')  1  "  ") "' !  2!)3456 7   ÿ ÿ ÿ !  ÿ"ÿ#$ÿ %ÿ&' !  ÿÿ  89@AB9ACÿEFGAÿHIAPQÿRGFSGF9TIGA

UVWXWXÿ`abacdedbfÿabgÿUheeibWpafWhbXÿqrabbWbcÿsXXdXXedbf

Uyu€u€ `ss‚ƒ`ƒwÿs„ tsUuvuwx yƒ‡uƒˆwysuu‚ U ``†uUswu € qyƒqsyƒ„ƒ€€

‰‘’“’”ÿ–—˜’ÿ™d’ef kkk g˜—h˜—id˜’ÿjÿg˜—h˜—ie

™—lÿmdne— kkk

opqrstqÿvqÿwxyÿzp{p|}p~ÿ€ÿ‚ƒ‚ƒ

qVd„dbfWbcÿU WrgÿabgÿthVpdgÿva†hiVÿsXXdXXedbf

tsUuvuwxqyƒ‡ƒwu‚ÿt yUƒ„ÿvs‡ †y qyƒ‡ƒwu‚ÿUˆuv„ÿvs‡ †y

™—lÿmdne— kk

opqrstqÿvqÿwxyÿzp{p|}p~ÿ€ÿ‚ƒ‚ƒ

s†hVWcWbarÿabgÿUheeibWfŠÿ ifVdap ÿsXXdXXedbf

UheeibWfŠÿh‹ÿubfdVdXfÿŒU uÿWgdbfWŽpafWhb ƒdpfW„dÿU uÿdbcacdedbfÿabgÿgWarhcid U uÿVdXhbXdÿedp abWXe ydhVfWbc

‰‰‰

‰‰

‰

‰

g

$!! () %0'')  1  "  ") "' !  2!)3456 7   ÿ ÿ ÿ !  ÿ"ÿ#$ÿ %ÿ&' !  ÿÿ  9@ABCDAÿFAÿGHIÿP@Q@RS@TÿUVWÿXYXY cdefÿhipqe

d‰qufÿdvxÿ‘qd‚uˆÿ’wwqwwtqvu

rsttiutqvuwÿdvxÿdyys€vudi‚iuf ƒ‚dvviv„ÿdvxÿit ‚qtqvuduisv †ediviv„‡ÿqˆdpis€eÿdvxÿy€‚u€eq csviuseiv„ÿdvxÿeq seuiv„ ƒqe‰setdvyq

```

``

`

a

b

9@ABCDAÿFAÿGHIÿP@Q@RS@TÿUVWÿXYXY cdefÿhipqe

“isxipqewiufÿrsvwqepduisvÿcdvd„qtqvuÿ’wwqwwtqvu

rsttiutqvu‡ÿdyys€vudi‚iufÿdvxÿystt€viyduisvw rsvwqepduisvÿ ‚dvviv„ÿdvxÿit ‚qtqvuduisv hq seuiv„

```

``

`

a

$!! () %0'')  1  "  ") "' !  2!)3456 78   ÿ ÿ ÿ !  ÿ"ÿ#$ÿ %ÿ&' !  ÿÿ 

e

–—˜™de˜ÿg˜ÿhijÿk—l—mn—oÿpqrÿstst uvwxÿz{|}w

~}w€xÿvƒÿ‹Œ‹ÿ~†{‚‚{ ‚ÿuvv€}†}‡ÿ‚‚}‚‚†}‡

~}w€xÿ‚}ÿvƒÿ€w}}„ ‚}ÿ€v‚ÿ}†{‚‚{ ‚ÿ†vv€}†}‡ ~}w€xÿ‚}ÿvƒÿ€w}}„ ‚}ÿ€v‚ÿ}†{‚‚{ ‚ÿw}ˆ w‡{€ÿ‚x‚‡}†‚ ~}w€xÿvƒÿ€w}}„ ‚}ÿ€v‚ÿ}†{‚‚{ ‚ÿˆ}w‰ w†vŠ}ÿ‡vw€}‡‚

www

ww

w

Q

e

–—˜™de˜ÿg˜ÿhijÿk—l—mn—oÿpqrÿstst uvwxÿz{|}w

89@@9ABÿDEÿFBBGAHIP9 QRSTURTVÿXY`TÿabTcdÿe`Yf`YRgb`TÿhÿipqrÿhÿstaÿucggcYÿ`vÿwddxYRTyc

€@9Aÿ‚ƒ„ÿ 9BG†@B staÿ‡cdxUgdÿipqrÿˆ‰gcYTRUU‘ÿ’cYb“cV” staÿ‡cdxUgdÿipq•

$!! () %0'')  1  "  ") "' !  2!)3456 77

Towards Sustainable Mining Aboriginal and Community Outreach Protocol

ABORIGINAL AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH PROTOCOL

TSM ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL A Tool for Assessing Aboriginal and Community Outreach Performance

Purpose The purpose of the assessment protocol is to provide guidance to facilities in completing their evaluation of Aboriginal and community outreach performance against TSM indicators. The assessment protocol sets out the general expectations for Aboriginal and community outreach as part of the TSM initiative. This protocol supports implementation of the TSM Mining and Aboriginal Peoples Framework. As with any assessment of a management system, professional judgment is required in assessing the degree of implementation of a system indicator and the quality of management processes and intervention. Application of this protocol will, therefore, require a level of expertise in auditing and systems assessment and knowledge of and experience in the practice of Aboriginal and community outreach. This assessment protocol provides an indicator of the level of implementation of proactive outreach and engagement practices as part of the TSM initiative. It is not, of itself, a guarantee of the effectiveness of Aboriginal and community outreach activities.

Performance Indicators The Aboriginal and community outreach protocol contains four indicators:

1. Community of Interest (COI) Identification 2. Effective COI Engagement and Dialogue 3. COI Response Mechanism 4. Reporting

TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE MINING© JUNE 2017 Page 2

ABORIGINAL AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH PROTOCOL

1. COMMUNITY OF INTEREST (COI) IDENTIFICATION Purpose To confirm that efforts have been made to identify COI, including Aboriginal communities and organizations, affected or perceived to be affected by their operations or who have a genuine interest in the performance and activities of a company and/or operation.

Communities of Interest (COI) Identification: Assessment Criteria

LEVEL CRITERIA

C • COI have not been identified.

1. Some local or direct COI have been identified. B 2. Plans are in place to develop a system for identifying COI.

1. A documented system is in place for COI identification at the facility level A that includes those with challenging interests.

1. The documented system in place for identification of COI at the facility AA includes COI whose interest in the operation may be indirect and issues- based (e.g., provincial and national NGOs).

1. The COI are invited to provide regular input into the identification of COIs to AAA ensure that consideration is given to a broad range of interests.

Communities of Interest (COI) Identification: Frequently Asked Questions

# FAQ PAGE

1 What is a Community of Interest (COI)? 10

2 What is an Aboriginal person? 10

3 What is an Indigenous person? 10

How does a facility identify Aboriginal communities and organizations that are affected or perceived to be affected by the operations or those that 4 have a genuine interest in performance and activities of a company and/or 11 operation? Can corporate documentation be used to demonstrate facility-level 6 commitment? 11

TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE MINING© JUNE 2017 Page 3

ABORIGINAL AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH PROTOCOL

2. EFFECTIVE COI ENGAGEMENT AND DIALOGUE Purpose To confirm that processes have been established to communicate with COI, including Aboriginal communities and organizations, to understand their viewpoints, to transparently inform them of company activities and performance, to actively engage them in dialogue and participation on issues of concern to them, and to identify how issues might be addressed through measures such as mitigation, compensation, or other actions.

Effective COI Engagement and Dialogue: Assessment Criteria

LEVEL CRITERIA

• Communications with COI are reactive. o The facility has no engagement and dialogue processes. C o COI are neither consulted nor engaged. o Communications are typically one way only.

1. Informal engagement processes are in place, and occasional dialogue occurs with COI. B 2. There are plans to develop COI engagement systems, but they have not been implemented.

1. Documented COI engagement and dialogue systems are in place, including: a. The facility provides assistance to ensure COI are able to participate in engagement and dialogue processes, where appropriate. b. Communications are written in the local language for COI (as required) and are written in language that is clear and understandable to COI. c. Designated employees have been informed of and trained in meeting A Aboriginal consultation requirements, including those procedural aspects that have been transferred to the proponent by any applicable government. d. Time is built into processes to allow for meaningful review of proposals by COI. e. Relevant materials are provided to COI for review in a timely manner. f. Processes are in place to engage with COI on credible risks to the public that are associated with company activities, including tailings management.

TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE MINING© JUNE 2017 Page 4

ABORIGINAL AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH PROTOCOL

1. COI are invited to provide input to determine the scope of engagement on issues of concern to them, including those associated with identified credible risks to the public such as tailings management. 2. Processes exist to identify the needs of COI for capacity building to allow them to engage in effective participation on issues of interest or concern to them. 3. Accountability for COI engagement and dialogue rests with senior management. 4. Senior management reviews engagement and dialogue systems, and the results from COI engagement, at least annually. AA 5. Engagement and dialogue training is provided to designated personnel, including appropriate culturally specific training. 6. Designated employees are informed of and trained in meeting Aboriginal consultation requirements transferred to the proponent by governments. 7. Traditional knowledge is sought, as appropriate, from local Aboriginal communities and organizations and is applied to support decisions and inform practices including environmental monitoring. 8. Consultation protocols established by Aboriginal communities and organizations are followed or integrated into consultation procedures to the extent possible.

1. Formal mechanisms or agreements with COI are in place to ensure they can effectively participate in issues and influence decisions that may interest or affect them, including: a. The facility has a consistent history of meaningful engagement with COI.

AAA b. Processes to build the capacity of COI to allow them to effectively participate in dialogue exist. c. COI contribute to periodic reviews of engagement processes to allow continual improvement. d. Negotiated agreements with Aboriginal peoples are in place for the operations or projects where appropriate.

TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE MINING© JUNE 2017 Page 5

ABORIGINAL AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH PROTOCOL

Effective COI Engagement and Dialogue: Frequently Asked Questions

# FAQ PAGE

1 What is a Community of Interest (COI)? 10

2 What is an Aboriginal person? 10

3 What is an Indigenous person? 10

5 What are negotiated agreements? 11

Can corporate documentation be used to demonstrate facility-level 6 commitment? 11

9 What does “clear and understandable” mean? 14

10 What is meant by “capacity building”? 14

11 What are “engagement” and “dialogue”? 14

12 How is “senior management” defined? 14

TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE MINING© JUNE 2017 Page 6

ABORIGINAL AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH PROTOCOL

3. COI RESPONSE MECHANISM Purpose To confirm that there are processes to receive complaints and concerns from COI, including Aboriginal communities and organizations, to ensure that they are understood and effectively responded to.

COI Response Mechanism: Assessment Criteria

LEVEL CRITERIA

• Minimal effort has been made to understand or incorporate COI concerns C or consultation requirements. o There are no systems to track or respond to COI concerns.

1. The facility has an incomplete knowledge of COI concerns or consultation requirements. a. The facility occasionally considers COI concerns, based mostly on B assumptions and sporadic consultations. b. An informal complaint system exists. c. A complaint and response system is either planned or in development.

1. The facility has a good understanding of COI concerns and consultation requirements and documents them. A a. A complaint and response system is in place with processes for follow- up and tracking. b. COI input is considered in decision making.

1. The facility has a thorough, documented knowledge of COI issues, concerns and consultation requirements. a. The facility analyzes and acts upon the input received from COI. b. Senior management considers results of the engagement and AA dialogue processes at least annually to determine if and how to act upon them. c. Sufficient time is built into facility processes to consider and respond to COI concerns before specific plans are carried out.

1. Collaboration with COI occurs to establish and achieve common AAA objectives. a. Collaboration extends to address common community goals.

TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE MINING© JUNE 2017 Page 7

ABORIGINAL AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH PROTOCOL

COI Response Mechanism: Frequently Asked Questions

# FAQ PAGE

1 What is a Community of Interest (COI)? 10

2 What is an Aboriginal person? 10

3 What is an Indigenous person? 10

Can corporate documentation be used to demonstrate facility-level 6 commitment? 11

11 What are “engagement” and “dialogue”? 14

12 How is “senior management” defined? 14

TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE MINING© JUNE 2017 Page 8

ABORIGINAL AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH PROTOCOL

4. REPORTING Purpose To confirm that reporting on COI engagement and dialogue activities (including activities with Aboriginal communities and organizations) is open and transparent.

Reporting: Assessment Criteria

LEVEL CRITERIA

C No reporting on COI engagement occurs beyond regulated requirements.

1. Reporting on COI engagement and dialogue activities is inconsistent. B 2. Reporting is internal only.

1. Reporting on COI engagement and dialogue activities occurs and includes A responses to COI on concerns raised by them.

1. Response to COI concerns is reported publicly on a regular basis. 1 AA 2. Opportunities exist for COI to provide feedback on public reporting.

1. COI provide input into the scope of public reporting. AAA 2. COI feedback on engagement, dialogue and consultation processes and outcomes is actively sought and reported publicly.

1 Where COI concerns are considered confidential (e.g. those related to negotiated agreements), public disclosure of the concerns and the company’s response is not required.

TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE MINING© JUNE 2017 Page 9

ABORIGINAL AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH PROTOCOL

Reporting: Frequently Asked Questions

# FAQ PAGE

1 What is a Community of Interest (COI)? 10

2 What is an Aboriginal person? 10

3 What is an Indigenous person? 10

How does a facility identify Aboriginal communities and organizations that are affected or perceived to be affected by the operations or those that 4 have a genuine interest in performance and activities of a company and/or 11 operation? Can corporate documentation be used to demonstrate facility-level 6 commitment? 11

11 What are “engagement” and “dialogue”? 14

TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE MINING© JUNE 2017 Page 10

ABORIGINAL AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH PROTOCOL

APPENDIX 1: FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS Protocol-Specific Guidance 1. What is a Community of Interest (COI)? COI include all individuals and groups who have an interest in, or believe they may be affected by, decisions respecting the management of operations.

They include, but are not restricted to:

• employees • aboriginal or Indigenous peoples • mining community members • suppliers • neighbours • customers • contractors • environmental organizations and other non-governmental organizations • governments • the financial community, and • shareholders.

2. What is an Aboriginal person? An Aboriginal person, for the purposes of this protocol, shall be as defined under Section 35(2) of the Constitution Act (1982) of Canada and includes First Nation, Métis and Inuit peoples.

3. What is an Indigenous person? In the 30-year history of Indigenous issues at the United Nations, considerable thinking and debate have been devoted to the question of definition of “Indigenous Peoples”, but no such definition has ever been adopted by a UN-system body.

The working definition reads as follows: “Indigenous communities, peoples and nations are those which, having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing on those territories, or parts of them. They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal system.

“This historical continuity may consist of the continuation, for an extended period reaching into the present of one or more of the following factors:

A. Occupation of ancestral lands, or at least of part of them; B. Common ancestry with the original occupants of these lands; C. Culture in general, or in specific manifestations (such as religion, living under a tribal system, membership of an indigenous community, dress, means of livelihood, lifestyle, etc.);

TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE MINING© JUNE 2017 Page 11

ABORIGINAL AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH PROTOCOL

D. Language (whether used as the only language, as mother-tongue, as the habitual means of communication at home or in the family, or as the main, preferred, habitual, general or normal language); E. Residence on certain parts of the country, or in certain regions of the world; F. Other relevant factors. “On an individual basis, an indigenous person is one who belongs to these indigenous populations through self-identification as indigenous (group consciousness) and is recognized and accepted by these populations as one of its members (acceptance by the group).

“This preserves for these communities the sovereign right and power to decide who belongs to them, without external interference”.

See: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/workshop_data_background.doc

Note that the term “indigenous person” is used outside of Canada. Within Canada, the term “Aboriginal person” is used.

4. How does a facility identify Aboriginal communities and organizations that are affected or perceived to be affected by the operations or those that have a genuine interest in performance and activities of a company and/or operation? The facility must conduct research to identify a) Aboriginal traditional lands and Treaty rights potentially affected by the organization, and b) on-going traditional use of the land for hunting, fishing, trapping and related harvest activities in the area of development. For some companies, this process is completed as part of the Environmental Impact Statement through which they assess Aboriginal rights to affected areas.

5. What are negotiated agreements? This term refers to agreements negotiated with third parties and may include Impact Management Agreements, Participation Agreements, Impact Benefit Agreements, Socio- Economic Agreements, Environmental Agreements, among others. Many of these agreements contain confidentiality provisions which preclude public reporting of the terms, conditions, and progress made in implementing the agreements.

6. Can corporate documentation be used to demonstrate facility-level commitment? Written senior management commitment at the corporate level (e.g. a corporate policy) can only be accepted as evidence during a facility-level self-assessment or TSM verification if it is accompanied by evidence that the corporate commitment is being applied and adhered to at the facility level. There must be evidence of a link between the corporate documentation and facility-level practices. If this linkage is established, then the corporate documentation can be accepted as evidence of facility-level commitment.

7. How should regional engagement approaches be reflected within the assessment? Where multiple facilities are located within a particular region, the company may choose to adopt a regional approach to COI identification and engagement. In these cases, the division of roles and responsibilities between facility-level and regional-level personnel should be clearly understood and documented and supporting systems should be developed and implemented at the appropriate level. The TSM assessment should consider both facility-level and regional systems when assessing performance for each facility included within the region.

TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE MINING© JUNE 2017 Page 12

ABORIGINAL AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH PROTOCOL

8. How can a facility demonstrate that it has processes in place to engage with COI on credible risks to the public that are associated with company activities? In order to engage effectively with relevant COI on credible risks, a facility must have a good understanding of the credible risks to the public associated with its activities. Identification of credible risks to the public can be done in conjunction with other risk assessment exercises. For example, the facility may choose to identify credible risks to the public while fulfilling the TSM Crisis Management and Communications Protocol’s requirement to identify credible threats and risks.

A facility must also identify COI who have specific relevance to or interest in each identified credible risk. This process should be incorporated into the facility’s document system for COI Engagement as described in Indicator 1. In the case of tailings management, identified COI should include:

• Those who may be directly impacted in the event of a failure of a tailings facility, and

• Those who may be impacted by the presence and operation of a tailings facility.

Issues of interest and importance will vary from one facility to the next and from one community to the next. Topics for engagement should be determined through dialogue with COI. For example, in the case of tailings management, topics of interest and importance to COI could include: • Emergency preparedness and response planning • Nature of tailings (e.g. acid generating vs. non-acid generating) • Environmental impacts • Closure and reclamation • Community safety and health • Regulatory requirements and permitting processes • Design plans for new facilities and expansions • Water usage and quality • Dust suppression • Visual impact • Liability and accountability • Monitoring practices and results • Traditional land use • Adaptation to climate change and preparations for extreme weather events

Definition of Key Terms 9. What does “clear and understandable” mean? Clear and understandable means that language in communications is at a reading level that is appropriate for the typical educational level of attainment of COIs and is free from technical jargon.

10. What is meant by “capacity building”? Capacity building refers to the development, fostering and support of resources and relationships at individual, organizational, inter-organizational and systems levels, so that the COI can effectively engage with facilities and transfer information within the COI.

11. What are “engagement” and “dialogue”?

TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE MINING© JUNE 2017 Page 13

ABORIGINAL AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH PROTOCOL

Engagement is a process of two-way communication that addresses the specific needs for information of COI and the facility in a way that is understandable to the participants in the discussion. Dialogue is a form of communication that leads to shared understanding between participants.

12. How is “senior management” defined? For the purposes of Aboriginal and community outreach performance measurement, senior management refers to the corporate and/or facility-level personnel with overall accountability for engagement and dialogue processes. For large organizations with many sites, outreach takes place at several levels – community, regional and national. In these circumstances, senior management describes personnel with overall responsibility for outreach at each of the various levels.

TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE MINING© JUNE 2017 Page 14

ABORIGINAL AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH PROTOCOL

APPENDIX 2: TSM SELF ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST Aboriginal and Community Outreach

Facility Name: Company Name: Assessed By: Date Submitted:

Supporting Documentation / Evidence: NAME OF DOCUMENT LOCATION

Interviewees: NAME POSITION NAME POSITION

TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE MINING© JUNE 2017 Page 15

ABORIGINAL AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH PROTOCOL

QUESTION Y N NA DESCRIPTION & EVIDENCE

INDICATOR 1: COI IDENTIFICATION

1. Have some local COI been identified? 2. Are there plans in place to develop a

system for identifying COI? If you have answered “Yes” to all the Level B questions, continue to the Level A questions. If you have not

Indicator 1 Indicator B Level answered “Yes” to all the Level B questions, assess the facility as a Level C.

1. Is there a documented system for identifying COI that includes challenging interests? If you have answered “Yes” to all the Level A questions, continue to the Level AA questions. If you have not

Indicator 1 Indicator A Level answered “Yes” to all the Level A questions, assess the facility as a Level B. 1. Is there a documented system in place for identification of COI at the facility, including COI whose interest in the

operation may be indirect and issues-

based (e.g., provincial and national NGOs)? If you have answered “Yes” to all the Level AA questions, continue to the Level AAA questions. If you have

Indicator 1 Indicator AA Level not answered “Yes” to all the Level AA questions, assess the facility as a Level A. 1. Are COI invited to provide regular input

into the identification of COIs to ensure

that consideration is given to a broad range of interests? If you have answered “Yes” to all the Level AAA questions, assess the facility as a Level AAA. If you have not

Indicator 1 Indicator AAA Level answered “Yes” to all the Level AAA questions, assess the facility as a Level AA.

ASSESSED LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE FOR INDICATOR 1 Level: ______

TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE MINING© JUNE 2017 Page 16

ABORIGINAL AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH PROTOCOL

QUESTION Y N NA DESCRIPTION & EVIDENCE

INDICATOR 2: EFFECTIVE COI ENGAGEMENT AND DIALOGUE

1. Are informal engagement processes in place that result in occasional dialogue with COI?

2. Are there plans in place to develop a COI

engagement system? If you have answered “Yes” to all the Level B questions, continue to the Level A questions. If you have not

Indicator 2 Indicator B Level answered “Yes” to all the Level B questions, assess the facility as a Level C. 1. Is there a documented COI engagement

and dialogue system in place, including: a. Does the facility provide assistance to ensure COI are able to participate in

engagement and dialogue processes, where appropriate? b. Are communications clear and understandable to COI, and written in the local language (as required)? c. Have designated employees been informed of and trained in meeting Aboriginal

consultation requirements including those

procedural aspects that have been transferred to the proponent by any applicable government? Level A Level Indicator 2 Indicator d. Is sufficient time built into engagement and dialogue processes to allow for meaningful

COI involvement? If yes, please provide some examples. e. Are relevant materials provided to COI in a

timely manner? f. Are processes in place to engage with COI on credible risks to the public that are

associated with company activities, including tailings management? If you have answered “Yes” to all the Level A questions, continue to the Level AA questions. If you have not answered “Yes” to all the Level A questions, assess the facility as a Level B. 1. Are COI invited to provide input to determine the scope of engagement on issues of concern to them, including

those associated with identified credible

risks to the public such as tailings management? 2. Are processes in place to identify the

Level AA Level needs of COI for capacity building so that Indicator 2 Indicator they can effectively participate? 3. Does accountability for COI engagement and dialogue rest with facility senior management?

TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE MINING© JUNE 2017 Page 17

ABORIGINAL AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH PROTOCOL

QUESTION Y N NA DESCRIPTION & EVIDENCE

4. Does senior management review engagement and dialogue systems, and

the results from COI engagement, at least annually? 5. Is engagement and dialogue training provided to designated personnel,

including appropriate culturally specific training? 6. Does senior management review engagement and dialogue systems, and

the results from COI engagement, at least annually? 7. Is traditional knowledge sought, as appropriate, from local Aboriginal communities and organizations and

applied to support decisions and inform practices including environmental monitoring? 8. Are consultation protocols established by Aboriginal communities and organizations followed or integrated into consultation procedures to the extent possible? If you have answered “Yes” to all the Level AA questions, continue to the Level AAA questions. If you have not answered “Yes” to all the Level AA questions, assess the facility as a Level A. 1. Are there formal mechanisms or agreements with COI in place to ensure they can effectively participate in issues and influence decisions that may interest or affect them, including: a. Does the facility have a consistent history of meaningful engagement with COI? b. Do processes exist to build the capacity of COI to allow them to effectively participate in dialogue? c. Do COI contribute to periodic reviews of engagement processes to allow for continual improvement? d. Are negotiated agreements with

Aboriginal peoples in place for the

operations or projects where appropriate? If you have answered “Yes” to all the Level AAA questions, assess the facility as a Level AAA. If you have not

Indicator 2 Indicator AAA Level answered “Yes” to all the Level AAA questions, assess the facility as a Level AA.

ASSESSED LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE FOR INDICATOR 2 Level: ______

TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE MINING© JUNE 2017 Page 18

ABORIGINAL AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH PROTOCOL

QUESTION Y N NA DESCRIPTION & EVIDENCE

INDICATOR 3: COI RESPONSE MECHANISM 1. Does the facility have some knowledge of COI concerns or consultation requirements, including: a. Does the facility occasionally consider COI concerns, based mostly on assumptions and sporadic consultations? b. Does an informal complaint system

exist?

c. Is a complaint and response system

either planned or in development? If you have answered “Yes” to all the Level B questions, continue to the Level A questions. If you have not

Indicator 3 Indicator B Level answered “Yes” to all the Level B questions, assess the facility as a Level C. 1. Does the facility have a good understanding of COI concerns and

consultation requirements and document them, including: a. Is there a complaint and response system in place with processes for follow-up and tracking? b. Is COI input considered in decision-

making?

If you have answered “Yes” to all the Level A questions, continue to the Level AA questions. If you have not

answered “Yes” to all the Level A questions, assess the facility as a Level B. NOTE: If a facility has not fully identified its COI, it cannot have thorough, documented knowledge of COI issues and concerns. This means that if a facility scored Level B for Indicator 1, it cannot score higher than a

Indicator 3 Indicator A Level Level A for Indicator 3. 1. Does the facility have a thorough, documented knowledge of COI issues,

concerns and consultation requirements, including: a. Does the facility analyze and act on

input received from COI? b. Does facility senior management consider the results of the engagement and dialogue

processes at least annually to determine if and how to act on them? c. Is sufficient time built into facility

processes to consider and respond

to COI concerns before specific plans are carried out? If you have answered “Yes” to all the Level AA questions, continue to the Level AAA questions. If you have

Indicator 3 Indicator AA Level not answered “Yes” to all the Level AA questions, assess the facility as a Level A.

3 1. Does collaboration with COI occur to establish and achieve common AAA objectives, including: a. Collaboration extends to address

Indicator Level common community goals?

TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE MINING© JUNE 2017 Page 19

ABORIGINAL AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH PROTOCOL

QUESTION Y N NA DESCRIPTION & EVIDENCE

If you have answered “Yes” to all the Level AAA questions, assess the facility as a Level AAA. If you have not answered “Yes” to all the Level AAA questions, assess the facility as a Level AA.

ASSESSED LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE FOR INDICATOR 3 Level: ______

QUESTION Y N NA DESCRIPTION & EVIDENCE

INDICATOR 4: REPORTING

1. Is there inconsistent reporting on COI

engagement and dialogue activities?

2. Is there some internal reporting on

community engagement and dialogue? If you have answered “Yes” to all the Level B questions, continue to the Level A questions. If you have not

Indicator 4 Indicator B Level answered “Yes” to all the Level B questions, assess the facility as a Level C. 1. Does reporting on community

engagement and dialogue activities occur and

include responses to COI on concerns raised by them? If you have answered “Yes” to all the Level A questions, continue to the Level AA questions. If you have not

Indicator 4 Indicator A Level answered “Yes” to all the Level A questions, assess the facility as a Level B. 1. Are responses to COI concerns publicly

reported on a regular basis?

2. Do opportunities exist for COI to provide

feedback on public reporting? If you have answered “Yes” to all the Level AA questions, continue to the Level AAA questions. If you have

Indicator 4 Indicator AA Level not answered “Yes” to all the Level AA questions, assess the facility as a Level A. 1. Do COI provide input into the scope of

public reporting?

2. Is COI feedback on engagement and dialogue processes and outcomes actively sought and reported publicly? If you have answered “Yes” to all the Level AAA questions, assess the facility as a Level AAA. If you have not

Indicator 4 Indicator AAA Level answered “Yes” to all the Level AAA questions, assess the facility as a Level AA.

ASSESSED LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE FOR INDICATOR 4 Level: ______

TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE MINING© JUNE 2017 Page 20

For more information about the TSM initiative, visit:

The Mining Association of Canada www.mining.ca/tsm

Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorized without prior written permission from the Mining Association of Canada provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission of the Mining Association of Canada.

©2017 The Mining Association of Canada. Trademarks, including but not limited to Towards Sustainable Mining®, TSM®, and the diamond shaped figure arcs and quadrilaterals designs, are either registered trademarks or trademarks of The Mining Association of Canada in Canada and/or other countries.

.

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal

APPENDIX 11 QUESTIONS IR ATTACHMENTS

March 2021

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal

THERE ARE NO ATTACHMENTS IDENTIFIED FOR THIS GROUP OF RESPONSES, AT THIS TIME

March 2021

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal

APPENDIX 12 TARPS AND TOOLKITS, AMP

March 2021

March 22, 2021

Karen Costello Executive Director Nunavut Impact Review Board

Re: Update on Adaptive Management Plans for Environmental Management Plans

Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation (Baffinland) provides this letter as a summary of work that has been done to date with the Qikiqtani Inuit Association (QIA) to complete the obligations set out in Schedule 2, of the Inuit Certainty Agreement (ICA). Section 2 of the ICA relates to the implementation and establishment of the Adaptive Management Plans for a suite of Environmental Management Plans (EMPs) associated with the Phase 2 Proposal. As of March 22, 2021, QIA has received from Baffinland revised drafts of the Marine Monitoring Plan (MMP), Terrestrial Environment Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (TEMMP), Aquatic Effects Monitoring Plan (AEMP), the Air Quality Noise Abatement Management Plan (AQNAMP) and initial Objectives, Indicators, Thresholds and Responses (OITRs) associated with each of these in the form of Threshold, Action and Response Plans (TARPs) and associated Moderate and High Action Mitigation (Response) Toolkits for each of these plans.

A copy of the first draft of these TARPs and associated Mitigation Toolkits (discussed further below) that have been provided to QIA for each of these plans is provided in Attachment 1a; 1b; 1c; 1d. It is important to note that while this update summarizes and speaks to work related to the Inuit Certainty Agreement, both Baffinland and the QIA understand that the NIRB, regulators and working groups all have a role to play in the development of these Plans before they are considered final. Overview of Initial OITRs In accordance with Schedule 2, Section 2.2.7 of the ICA, it is acknowledged that work done was for initial OITRs only and would be subject to later refinement based on feedback collected by the QIA on Inuit OITRs.

Through the initial OITRs for these management plans, Baffinland has committed to predefined low, moderate and high action level thresholds and responses. Baffinland has used its best efforts to formulate the initial OITRs and refine them based on multiple rounds of written feedback from QIA, and discussions with the joint Baffinland and QIA Adaptive Management Working Group. This work has been ongoing since July 2020.

Baffinland agrees it is critical to integrate IQ and Inuit perspectives into all Final OITRs, and this is an activity that is expected to be carried out by the QIA consistent with the new Inuit oversight mechanisms

2275 Upper Middle Road East, Suite 300 | Oakville, ON, L6H 0C3| Main: 416.364.8820 | Fax: 416.364.0193 | www.baffinland.com MARY RIVER PROJECT Update on Adaptive Management Planning March 22, 2021 agreed to in the ICA. Baffinland recognizes that QIA’s work to develop Inuit OITRs is not yet complete and is not available to Baffinland at this time. Once QIA is in a position to share Inuit OITRs with Baffinland, the Initial OITRs will be revised and further developed.

It should also be noted that refinement of the OITRs is not limited to the current process, and will be ongoing throughout the life of the project, informed by input from the Inuit Stewardship Plan (ISP), Baffinland’s Environmental Management System and the demonstrated effectiveness of any mitigations implemented in accordance with EMP’s. The OITRs should not be viewed in isolation, and must be taken into consideration as a component of the complete EMP’s that requires regulators and QIA’s input and additional engagement with Inuit. Mitigation Action Toolkits

Through its work with QIA on the priority EMPs, Baffinland has received feedback regarding the development of the moderate and high action level thresholds and responses, specifically QIAs need to provide greater certainty to Inuit that the AMP process committed to under Schedule 2 of the ICA will be meaningful to Inuit. To that end, Baffinland provided the QIA with a ‘pool’ of proposed mitigations that could advance the important discussions that must take place with Inuit, and which could be implemented should respective moderate or high action level thresholds be exceeded. Prior to finalization, these ‘pools’ of mitigations, more formally referred to by Baffinland as Moderate and High Action Toolkits, are expected to be subject to further review and appropriate categorisation (moderate versus high, or both at different scales). The development of these action toolkits required extensive internal consultation, as well as approval by the Baffinland executive team, and Baffinland emphasizes they represent a firm and material commitment to take action in the event it is deemed necessary under the Adaptive Management Plan. The next step is to discuss with Inuit the way in which they are to be implemented based on the specific situation, observed impact, potential stressor and feedback received through the ISP framework, including recommendations from the Inuit Committees.

To further illustrate the utility of the mitigation toolkits, Baffinland has also enclosed materials previously shared with QIA. These are example scenarios for the MMP that illustrate potential or actual implementation of the adaptive management framework and the OITRs as they are currently proposed, highlighting where Inuit have ongoing direct roles in the process (see Attachment 2). These examples, presented along side the lists of predetermined mitigations provided in the action toolkits, as well as any materials previously provided by QIA demonstrating how Inuit will have direct involvement in the Project is a reasonable approach to build confidence in the systems agreed to under the ICA.

The Mitigation Action Toolkits are intended to provide the NIRB, regulators, QIA and the impacted communities assurance that that one or more of these actions will be taken in relation to such an effect, and provides an initial starting point for conversations (consistent with Schedule 2, Section 2.2.5) as Baffinland and the QIA move to a final agreed set of OITRs. Additionally, the adaptive management process allows for the implementation of actions not currently identified in the associated toolkit, noting these will require future discussion and agreement with QIA to implement and may consist of new or

Page 2 MARY RIVER PROJECT Update on Adaptive Management Planning March 22, 2021

novel approaches not previously considered in the development of the OITRs as outlined in Item 2.4 of Schedule 2 of the ICA.

Role of the Environmental Working Groups and Inuit Committee in Adaptive Management and Monitoring Through the review process, several interveners have requested additional information regarding the role the Inuit Committee and the Environmental Working Groups will have in overseeing Project monitoring and adaptive management implementation. Following extensive efforts with the Working Groups on revisions to the Terms of References for these Groups, as well as discussions with the QIA on the Inuit Committee, on January 20, 2021 Baffinland developed and shared with the QIA materials to better characterize the role of these Parties (see Attachment 3). As is outlined in these materials, it is Baffinland’s expectation that the Working Groups will continue to provide advice and recommendations related to Project monitoring, through an enhanced process outlined in the most recent version of the Terms of Reference (see Attachment 4). However, these recommendations will now also be considered through the Inuit Committee, to strengthen consideration of Inuit knowledge in Baffinland’s approach to environmental monitoring. The Inuit Committee will also inform the implementation of pre-determined responses should thresholds be exceeded. Additionally, the Inuit Committee may consult with the Working Groups or vice versa on the development of additional recommendations for adaptive management should they be warranted. As stated above, while these materials have been shared with QIA, Baffinland is not aware of the extent to which QIA has advanced the development of the Inuit Committee and the associated Terms of Reference for that Committee. As that advances, modifications to what is proposed here, may be revisited. Despite nuances in processes that may arise, Baffinland believes what is presented demonstrates a precedent-setting commitment to Inuit and ongoing regulatory involvement and oversight in the Project. Should Phase 2 be approved, Baffinland will continue to work with all Parties to finalize an implementation plan for the Commitments related to Adaptive Management that it has put before the Board.

Sincerely,

Lou Kamermans Senior-Director, Sustainable Development

Attachment 1a – MMP TARP and Mitigation Toolkit Attachment 1b – TEMMP TARP and Mitgation Toolkit

Page 3 MARY RIVER PROJECT Update on Adaptive Management Planning March 22, 2021

Attachment 1c – AQNAMP TARP and Mitigation Toolkit

Attachment 1d – AEMP Tarp and Mitigation Toolkit

Attachment 2 – Adaptive Management Implementation Schematic

Attachment 3 – Proposed Role of Environmental Working Groups and Inuit Committee in Adaptive Management and Monitoring

Attachment 4 – October 2020 Working Group Terms of Reference Update

Page 4 Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal

ATTACHMENT 1A MMP TARP AND MITIGATION TOOLKIT

March 2021

TABLE 5.1 MARINE ENVIRONMENT TRIGGER ACTION RESPONSE PLAN

Monitoring Performance Activity Being Condition Status / Threshold Pre-defined Response(s) Objective Plan Indicators Monitored Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk Monitor for potential Water Quality 30-day mean concentration of a Confirmed2 exceedance of an To be determined based on Env’t Dept: Continue scheduled Env’t Dept and Relevant Will be developed concomitant environmental effects from the parameter is greater than 75% of effects benchmark or an outcome of moderate response monitoring Operations: If Low Risk Thresholds with the High Risk • effluent discharge associated with Metals an applicable CCME long-term applicable CCME long-term investigations. Env’t Dept: Develop an effects- were not previously exceeded, Status/Threshold Development 1 1 the Project on the Milne Inlet • TSS guideline . guideline by a mean based benchmark for parameters develop an effects based response plan. receiving environment. • Hydrocarbons concentration. triggering a Low Risk benchmark for parameters triggering the moderate risk • Nutrients OR Status/Threshold as appropriate Responsible Dept(s): Implement and possible (i.e., toxicity Status/Threshold. Provide early warning to prevent High Risk Status/Threshold or avoid adverse environmental literature/data available to do so), Env’t Dept and Relevant response in Mitigation Toolkit if For parameters without an AND effects from the Project and to be used as the Moderate Risk Operations: Investigate trends causal effect or likely relationship applicable long-term CCME identify need for additional Status/Threshold. over time and consider any is determined. guideline, 30-day mean Effluent monitoring and spatial mitigation measures, if necessary. Env’t Dept: If Low Risk uncertainties (e.g., changes in concentration is greater than the water quality receiving Status/Threshold is triggered operational processes, potential 2015 MEEMP (mean + 2SD) value environment suggest that the again in the next scheduled sources, confounding influences) (where detectable concentrations confirmed increase in this program (but Moderate is not), in a formal Response Plan; Initiate were reported in 2015). parameter is related to the Port’s investigate trends over time and component specific targeted effluent discharge. consider any uncertainties (e.g., studies, including risk evaluations Marine differences in program timing, to understand need and/or scale Monitoring Effluent effort, methods, environmental of mitigation, as part of response Plan Discharge variables) as a desktop study. planning. (Compliance) Env’t Dept: Consider refinement Env’t Dept and Relevant of the Moderate Risk Operations: Continue monitoring Status/Threshold if appropriate to confirm effects are linked to the based on results of the desktop project, to assess effectiveness of study. mitigations, and evaluate need for additional monitoring and/or mitigation. Env’t Dept and Relevant Operations: Develop High Action Threshold and Response. Responsible Dept(s): Implement moderate-action response from Mitigation Toolkit (or new mitigation identified through investigation) based on the outcome of targeted studies. Monitor for environmental Sediment Quality Measured concentrations of a Measured concentrations of a To be determined based on Env’t Dept: Continue scheduled Env’t Dept and Relevant Will be developed concomitant effects from the Project on the Effluent parameter at one or more stations parameter at one or more stations outcome of moderate response monitoring. Operations: Investigate trends with the High Risk Particle Size Discharge marine environment at Milne . are > the CCME PEL or another investigations. Env’t Dept: Implement sediment over time and consider any Status/Threshold Development 3 Marine Inlet. . Nutrients relevant upper bound guideline . toxicity testing as a special study uncertainties (e.g., changes in response plan. operational processes, potential Monitoring . Metals Milne Port with appropriate standard test sources, confounding influences) Plan (EEM) Provide early warning to prevent Hydrocarbons Vessel OR species. Responsible Dept(s): Implement . in a formal Response Plan; Initiate or avoid adverse environmental Operations Env’t Dept: If Low Risk High Risk Status/Threshold component specific targeted effect from the Project and Measured gradient4 in sediment Status/Threshold is triggered response in Mitigation Toolkit if studies, including risk evaluations concentration along one or more again in the next scheduled

1 Canadian Council of Minsters of the Environment (CCME) water quality guidelines for the protection of marine aquatic life. With the exception of silver, total suspended solids (TSS), and turbidity, these are long-term water quality guidelines intended to be applied to the average concentration at a receiving environment station collected over a 5-in-30 sampling program (i.e., average of 5 discrete samples collected over a 30-day period). In lieu of a long-term guideline for silver, the short-term guideline will be applied to discrete measured concentrations. The long-term guidelines for TSS and turbidity will be used. 2 Confirmed indicates that the Risk Status/ Threshold trigger has been observed in at least two consecutive monitoring programs, whether during the regular monitoring schedule or confirmed through a special study. Monitoring Performance Activity Being Condition Status / Threshold Pre-defined Response(s) Objective Plan Indicators Monitored Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk identify need for additional Marine are > the CCME ISQG or another transects represents a significant program (but Moderate is not), to understand need and/or scale causal effect or likely relationship mitigation measures, if necessary. Infrastructure relevant lower bound guideline3. change (increase) (i.e., p < 0.1) investigate trends over time and of mitigation, as part of response is determined. from Year 1 (2014 MEEMP) or the consider any uncertainties (e.g., planning. most recent MEEMP year. differences in program timing, Dust Dispersion OR Env’t Dept and Relevant effort, methods, environmental Operations: Continue monitoring and Deposition variables) as a desktop study to confirm effects are linked to the from Ore 4 AND Measured gradient in sediment Env’t Dept: Consider refinement project, to assess effectiveness of Stockpiles and Spatial and temporal sediment concentration along one or more of the Moderate Risk mitigations, and evaluate need for Ship Loading data suggest a pattern indicative transects representing a Status/Threshold if appropriate additional monitoring and/or of Port-related effects. significant change (increase) based on results of the desktop mitigation. (p<0.1) from Year 1 (2014 study. MEEMP) or the most recent Env’t Dept and Relevant AND MEEMP year. Operations: Develop High Action Sediment toxicity testing as a Threshold and Response.

special study indicates a mine- Responsible Dept(s): Implement AND related effect. moderate-action response from Mitigation Toolkit (or new Spatial and temporal sediment mitigation identified through data suggest a pattern indicative investigation) based on the of Port-related effects. outcome of targeted studies.

Monitor for environmental Benthic Infauna Effluent Measured gradient4 in community Measured gradient4 in density and To be determined based on Env’t Dept: Continue scheduled Env’t Dept and Relevant Will be developed concomitant effects from the Project on the . Abundance / density Discharge metric along one or more richness represents a significant outcome of moderate response monitoring Operations: Investigate trends with the High Risk marine environment at Milne transects represents a significant change (i.e., p < 0.1) from Year 1 investigations. over time and consider any Status/Threshold Development . Species richness Env’t Dept: If Low Action Risk Inlet. change (p<0.1) from Year 1 (2018 (2018 MEEMP) or the most recent uncertainties (e.g., changes in response plan. Milne Port Status/ Threshold is triggered . Diversity MEEMP) or the most recent MEEMP year. operational processes, potential Vessel again in the next scheduled MEEMP year. sources, confounding influences) Provide early warning to prevent Operations program (but Moderate is not), Responsible Dept(s): Implement in a formal Response Plan; Initiate or avoid adverse environmental AND investigate trends over time and High Risk Status/ Threshold component specific targeted effect from the Project and AND consider any uncertainties (e.g., response in Mitigation Toolkit if Marine studies, including risk evaluations identify need for additional differences in program timing, causal effect or likely relationship mitigation measures, if necessary. Infrastructure Spatial receiving environment effort, methods, environmental to understand need and/or scale Spatial receiving environment is determined. data (both sediment and benthic) variables) as a desktop study. of mitigation, as part of response Marine data (both sediment and benthic) suggest a pattern indicative of planning. Monitoring Dust Dispersion suggest a pattern indicative of Env’t Dept: Consider refinement Port-related effects. Env’t Dept and Relevant Plan (EEM) and Deposition Port-related effects. to a Moderate Risk from Ore Status/Threshold within a Operations: Continue monitoring

Stockpiles and AND regulated review process if to confirm effects are linked to the project, to assess effectiveness of Ship Loading Moderate Risk Status/Threshold is appropriate based on the results of the trend analysis. mitigations, and evaluate need for triggered for sediment additional monitoring and/or mitigation. Env’t Dept and Relevant Operations: Develop High Action Threshold and Response. Responsible Dept(s): Implement moderate-action response from

4 Measured gradient refers to the spatial patterns in sediment chemistry and benthic community composition observed along each of the transects that radiate out from Milne Port. The purpose of the radial transect design adopted for the sediment and benthic MEEMP monitoring programs is to assess sediment quality and benthic invertebrate communities over time, and relative to previous years, to investigate the potential for project-related effects on these components. The radial transect design allows for repeat measures at select sampling stations to be collected during each MEEMP. The overall trend in sediment and benthic conditions is compared spatially (i.e., to investigate the potential for localized effects) and temporally (i.e., to investigate the potential for alterations relative to previous sampling events). This statistical design is considered more appropriate to detect potential effects related to the project for the sediment and benthic invertebrate programs, compared to other types of designs (e.g., control-impact designs), due to the confounding effects of depth, distance from shore, and grain size (i.e., increased fines content with greater distance offshore) determined during baseline characterizations and previous MEEMP studies. Monitoring Performance Activity Being Condition Status / Threshold Pre-defined Response(s) Objective Plan Indicators Monitored Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk Mitigation Toolkit (or new mitigation identified through investigation) based on the outcome of targeted studies.

Monitor for environmental Fish Health A statistically significant Confirmed7 Low Risk Status/ To be determined based on Env’t Dept: Continue scheduled Env’t Dept and Relevant Will be developed concomitant 8 effects from the Project on the • Effect difference (p<0.1) in effect Threshold and mean/median for outcome of moderate response monitoring. Operations: Investigate trends with the High Risk Status/ 8 marine environment at Milne indicators5 indicators relative to the the same effect indicator is investigations. Env’t Dept: If Low Risk Status/ over time and consider any Threshold Development response Inlet and provide data to assess reference area and change is in beyond the baseline (FEIS) normal Threshold is triggered again in the uncertainties (e.g., changes in plan. 9 relevant predictions from the direction that indicates an range (if available) or regional next scheduled program (but operational processes, potential FEIS. impairment to fish health and is of normal range10 sources, confounding influences) Moderate is not), investigate Responsible Dept(s): Implement magnitude greater than or equal in a formal Response Plan; Initiate AND trends over time and consider any High Risk Status/ Threshold to a defined critical effect size component specific targeted Provide early warning to prevent Effluent Is supported by consistent effects uncertainties (e.g., differences in response in Mitigation Toolkit if (CES)6 for that effect indicator. studies, including risk evaluations or avoid adverse environmental Discharge in one or more other study program timing, effort, fishing causal effect or likely relationship to understand need and/or scale effect from the Project and components (i.e., water quality, methods, environmental is determined. identify need for additional variables, IQ input) as a desktop of mitigation, as part of response Milne Port sediment quality and benthic mitigation measures, if necessary. study. planning. Vessel invertebrates) which links the Env’t Dept and Relevant Operations results to the Project. Env’t Dept: Consider refinement Marine Operations: Continue monitoring to a Moderate Risk Status/ Monitoring to confirm effects are linked to the Plan (EEM) Threshold if appropriate based on Dust Dispersion the results of the trend analysis. project, to assess effectiveness of and Deposition mitigations, and evaluate need for from Ore additional monitoring and/or Stockpiles and mitigation. Ship Loading Env’t Dept and Relevant Operations: Develop High Action Threshold and Response. Responsible Dept(s): Implement moderate-action response from Mitigation Toolkit (or new mitigation identified through investigation) based on the outcome of targeted studies.

5 Effect indicators include: Hiatella arctica: whole animal wet weight, relative gonad size (gonad weight against body weight) if observable, whole-animal dry weight, dry shell or soft tissue weight related to shell length, and length frequency analysis; Fourhorn sculpin: size at age/length (i.e., body weight against age/length), relative gonad size (gonad weight against body weight), body weight relative to length (i.e., condition), relative liver weight (liver weight against body weight) and length frequency analysis. 6 Definition of a magnitude of change that is indicative of impairment to fish health is based on the critical effect sizes defined by Environment Canada’s Metal Mining Effluent Regulations Guidance Document (Environment Canada 2012) and refers to an increase or a decrease in fish health endpoints. Additional critical effect sizes may be defined in the future (i.e., beyond those defined by ECCC). 7 Confirmed indicates that the Risk Status/ Threshold trigger has been observed in at least two consecutive monitoring programs, whether during the regular monitoring schedule or confirmed through a special study. For fish, the two or more endpoints that triggered the Moderate Risk Status/ Threshold may be in one species (i.e., two endpoints in one species) or two species (i.e., one endpoint in one species, as second endpoint in another species). 8 The use of the mean or median will depend on the normality of the dataset used to calculate the normal range for each endpoint or tissue chemistry parameter (i.e., if raw or transformed data do not meet the assumptions of normality, the median will be used to provide an estimate of central tendency instead of the mean). 9 Baseline (FEIS) normal range is based on the FEIS dataset, including operational monitoring data from Milne Inlet and Steensby Inlet, and includes fish length, weight and condition (K). 10 Regional normal range will be calculated using all available reference area data (i.e., will include annual and ongoing reference area data as it becomes available). Monitoring Performance Activity Being Condition Status / Threshold Pre-defined Response(s) Objective Plan Indicators Monitored Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk Monitor for environmental Fish Tissue Chemistry A statistically significant A confirmed14 Low Risk Status/ To be determined based on Env’t Dept: Continue scheduled Env’t Dept and Relevant Will be developed concomitant effects from the Project on the • Metals difference (p<0.1) in one or more Threshold for one or more metals outcome of moderate response monitoring. Operations: Investigate trends with the High Risk Status/ marine environment at Milne metals concentrations in a that is also outside the regional investigations. Env’t Dept: If results are over time and consider any Threshold Development response 15 Inlet and provide data to assess sentinel species relative to the normal range , and is supported confirmed in next scheduled uncertainties (e.g., changes in plan. relevant predictions from the reference area, and change is in by consistent effects in one or program, investigate trends over operational processes, potential FEIS. the direction 12 that indicates more other study components sources, confounding influences) time and address any Responsible Dept(s): Implement impairment to fish health and is of (i.e., water quality, sediment in a formal Response Plan; Initiate uncertainties (e.g., program High-Risk Status/ Threshold magnitude13 greater than or equal quality and benthic invertebrates) component specific targeted Provide early warning to prevent timing, effort, fishing methods, response in Mitigation Toolkit if Milne Port to the defined CES. which links the results to the studies, including risk evaluations or avoid adverse environmental environmental variables, IQ input) causal effect or likely relationship Vessel Traffic Project. to understand need and/or scale effect from the Project (i.e., as a desktop study. is determined. of mitigation, as part of response predicted of unforeseen effects) Env’t Dept: Consider refinement planning. and identify need for additional Effluent OR to a Moderate Risk Status/ Marine mitigation measures, if necessary. Discharge Threshold within a regulated Env’t Dept and Relevant Monitoring The mean mercury or selenium review process, if appropriate Operations: Continue monitoring Plan to confirm effects are linked to the Dust Dispersion concentrations (or ≥50% of the based on the results of the trend (Supporting11 project, to assess effectiveness of ) and Deposition individual samples) in Arctic Char analysis. mitigations, and evaluate need for from Ore tissue chemistry samples are 16 additional monitoring and/or Stockpiles and beyond the respective CFIA or 17 mitigation. Ship Loading BCMOE guidelines. Env’t Dept and Relevant

Operations: Develop High Action Threshold and Response. Responsible Dept(s): Implement moderate-action response from Mitigation Toolkit (or new mitigation identified through investigation) based on the outcome of targeted studies.

Marine To be determined in consultation To be determined in consultation To be determined in consultation To be determined in consultation To be determined in consultation To be determined in consultation Monitoring Placeholder for Inuit OITR’s TBD TBD with Inuit. with Inuit. with Inuit. with Inuit. with Inuit. with Inuit. Plan

No introduction of AIS as a result Ballast water To be determined following the National Framework for the Development of Response Plans for Aquatic To be determined following implementation oof the National Framework for the Development of Response AIS Occurrence of AIS of Project activities exchange Invasive Species (Fisheries and Oceans, 2020) Plans for Aquatic Invasive Species (Fisheries and Oceans, 2020)

11 The Fish Tissue Chemistry program may not always be undertaken as a regular monitoring component (e.g., mercury and selenium monitoring are only required under the MDMER if effluent concentrations trigger a fish tissue study); therefore, the Risk Status/ Thresholds described herein will be implemented as and when a tissue chemistry program is implemented. 12 For tissue chemistry, only an increase in concentration will be considered indicative of a toxicological response. 13 For fish tissue chemistry parameters, the critical effect size is a difference of 100%. 14 Confirmed indicates that the Action Status/Threshold trigger has been observed in at least two consecutive monitoring programs, whether during the regular monitoring schedule or confirmed through a special study. 15 Regional normal range is anticipated to include Arctic Char tissue chemistry data from the FEIS (i.e., Milne Inlet and Steensby Inlet) as well as ongoing reference area tissue chemistry data (for Hiatella arctica and Arctic Char). 16 Value is 0.5 mg/kg ww per CFIA (2014) Canadian Food Inspection Agency Fish Products Standards and Methods Manual: Appendix 3 Canadian Guidelines for Chemical Contaminants and Toxins in Fish and Fish Products. Ottawa, ON. 17 Protection of aquatic life chronic criterions for fish tissue are 15.1 mg/kg dw for ovary, 8.5 mg/kg dw for whole body, or 11.3 mg/kg dw for skinless, boneless muscle fillet per USEPA (2016) Technical Support for Fish Tissue Monitoring for Implementation of EPA’s 2016 Selenium Criterion Draft, EPA 820-F-16-007, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. TABLE 5.2 MARINE MAMMAL TRIGGER ACTION RESPONSE PLAN

VEC / Condition Status / Threshold Pre-defined Response(s) Performance Activity Being Monitoring Objective Indicators Monitored Plan Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk Monitor for potential effects of . Stock abundance Moderate severity behavioural Confirmed21 Moderate severity Confirmed4 Moderate severity Env’t Dept: Continue scheduled Env’t Dept and Relevant Will be developed concomitant shipping (vessel noise, vessel . Calving rate responses (Severity Score 5 and behavioural responses (Severity behavioural responses (Severity monitoring Operations: Investigate trends with the High Action Level presence) on narwhal in the RSA 620) that do not persist beyond the Score 5 and 6) that persist for a set Score 5 and 6) 1 that persists for a over time and consider any Development response plan. . Change in surface Env’t Dept: If Low Action and identify responses for 1 acoustic detection period. This time beyond the acoustic set time beyond the acoustic Threshold is triggered again in the uncertainties (e.g., changes in behaviour 22 avoiding and/or minimizing may include: detection period . This may detection period) as described in next scheduled program (but operational processes, potential Responsible Dept(s): Implement . Change in dive adverse effects that exceed FEIS include: moderate risk column Moderate is not), investigate sources, confounding influences) high-action level response in predictions. behaviour18 in a formal Response Plan; Initiate . Change in dive behaviour trends over time and consider any Mitigation Toolkit if causal effect . Change in vocal component specific targeted (e.g. surface time, bottom . Prolonged change in dive AND/OR uncertainties (e.g., differences in or likely relationship is behaviour19 program timing, effort, methods, studies as part of response determined. dive, dive duration) behaviour (surface time, environmental variables) as a planning. . Change in surface behaviour bottom dive, dive duration) 4 Confirmed High severity desktop study. Env’t Dept and Relevant . Prolonged change in surface . Modification or cessation of responses (Severity Score 7 to Operations: Continue monitoring behaviour 23 Env’t Dept: Consider refinement vocal behaviour 10) . This would include: to confirm effects are linked to the of the Moderate Risk Threshold if . Prolonged modification or . Severe and or sustained project, to assess effectiveness of appropriate based on results of cessation of vocal behaviour (long-term) avoidance of mitigations, and evaluate need for Note: disturbance zone area the desktop study. additional monitoring and/or For the threshold to be met, Narwhal / mitigation. Project Shipping responses in movement AND . Outright panic, obvious flight Marine Activities behaviour would need to be or freeze response, Env’t Dept: Based on the results of Monitoring stampede, or stranding continued monitoring and observed as a trend in the (ii) >10.0% decrease in calving Plan (MMP) events that can be directly movement data across individuals rate (proportion of immatures) additional studies, consider linked to shipping relative to pre-Phase 2 shipping refinement of the High Risk dataset Threshold if appropriate. AND Responsible Dept(s): Implement Note: moderate-action response from Mitigation Toolkit (or new For the threshold to be met, (iii) >25.0% decrease in calving mitigation identified through responses in movement rate (proportion of immatures) investigation) based on the behaviour would need to be relative to pre-Phase 2 shipping outcome of targeted studies. observed as a trend in the dataset movement data across individuals. AND/OR

(iv) >25.0% decrease in stock24 size (abundance) relative to 2019 aerial survey abundance

18 Thresholds to be refined as narwhal behavioural data analysis proceeds. Application of behavioural response indicators are contingent on securing necessary permits and MHTO support for running a tagging/telemetry program with concurrent AIS data. 19 Thresholds to be refined as narwhal behavioural data and underwater acoustic analyses proceed. This indicator would be contingent on running an acoustic monitoring program with concurrent AIS data. 20 Moderate severity behavioural responses are consistent with Level 5 and 6 severity response scores from Southall et al. (2007) and Finneran et al. (2017). These consist of responses that could become significant (defined for this purpose as responses with potential to impact critical life functions and/or responses consistent with the level of ‘harassment’ as defined under the U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act) if sustained over a longer duration (lasting over a period of several hours, or enough time to significantly disrupt a narwhal’s daily routine). These would be responses that fall within (if not sustained) or above (if prolonged) predicted behavioural responses in the FEIS Addendum for the Phase 2 Proposal. 21 Confirmed indicates that the Risk Status/ Threshold trigger has been observed in at least two consecutive monitoring programs, whether during the regular monitoring schedule or confirmed through a special study. 22 To be determined based on behavioural analysis data. 23 High severity behavioural responses are consistent with Level 7-10 severity responses from Southall et al. (2007) and Finneran et al. (2017). These consist of responses with immediate consequences (e.g. stranding) and those affecting animals in vulnerable life stages (i.e., calving, pupping) and are therefore always considered to be a significant behavioural reaction. Thresholds to be refined as narwhal behavioural data and underwater acoustic analyses proceed. These would be responses that are above predicted behavioural responses in the FEIS Addendum for the Phase 2 Proposal. 24 Eclipse Sound Summering Stock VEC / Condition Status / Threshold Pre-defined Response(s) Performance Activity Being Monitoring Objective Indicators Monitored Plan Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk Monitor for potential ship strikes . Ship strikes (i) ship strike of 1 individual (i) ship strike of more than 1 (i) observed trend of ship strikes Env’t Dept: Continue scheduled Env’t Dept and Relevant Will be developed concomitant on narwhal and identify individual in a shipping season (i.e. over multiple years) of more monitoring Operations: Investigate trends with the High Action Level mitigation measures (responses) than 1 individual Env’t Dept: If Low Action over time and consider any Development response plan. for avoiding and/or minimizing Threshold is triggered again in the uncertainties (e.g., changes in effect. next scheduled program (but operational processes, potential Responsible Dept(s): Implement Moderate is not), investigate sources, confounding influences) high-action level response trends over time and consider any in a formal Response Plan; Initiate relevant to ship strikes in uncertainties (e.g., differences in component specific targeted Mitigation Toolkit (or new program timing, effort, methods, studies as part of response mitigation identified through environmental variables) as a planning. investigation) desktop study. Env’t Dept and Relevant Operations: Continue monitoring Env’t Dept: Consider refinement to confirm effects are linked to the of the Moderate Risk Threshold if project, to assess effectiveness of appropriate based on results of mitigations, and evaluate need for the desktop study. additional monitoring and/or mitigation. Project Shipping Narwhal / Activities Env’t Dept: Based on the results of MMP continued monitoring and additional studies, consider refinement of the High Risk Threshold if appropriate. Responsible Dept(s): Develop High Action Level; Implement moderate-action response from Mitigation Toolkit if causal effect or likely relationship is determined. Responsible Dept(s): Implement moderate-action response from Mitigation Toolkit (or new mitigation identified through investigation) relevant to ship strikes based on the outcome of targeted studies Monitor for potential effects of . Change in seal None None (i) Confirmed4 >25.0% decrease in Will be developed concomitant 25 shipping (vessel noise, vessel density density throughout the Local with the High Action Level presence) on ringed seal in the Study Area (LSA) Development response plan. RSA and identify responses for avoiding and/or minimizing Project Shipping Ringed seal / Activities Responsible Dept(s): Implement MMP adverse effects that exceed FEIS high-action level response in predictions. Mitigation Toolkit if causal effect or likely relationship is determined.

25 To be developed as ringed seal aerial survey design and data analyses proceed. This indicator would be contingent on running a ringed seal aerial survey program or equivalent. VEC / Condition Status / Threshold Pre-defined Response(s) Performance Activity Being Monitoring Objective Indicators Monitored Plan Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk Monitor for potential ship strikes . Ship strikes26 (i) Ship strike of 1 individual (i) Ship strike of more than 1 (i) observed trend of ship strikes Env’t Dept: Continue scheduled Env’t Dept and Relevant Will be developed concomitant on ringed seal and identify individual in a shipping season (i.e. over multiple years) of more monitoring Operations: Investigate trends with the High Action Level mitigation measures (responses) than 1 individual Env’t Dept: If Low Action over time and consider any Development response plan. for avoiding and/or minimizing Threshold is triggered again in the uncertainties (e.g., changes in effect. next scheduled program (but operational processes, potential Responsible Dept(s): Implement Moderate is not), investigate sources, confounding influences) high-action level response trends over time and consider any in a formal Response Plan; Initiate relevant to ship strikes in uncertainties (e.g., differences in component specific targeted Mitigation Toolkit (or new program timing, effort, methods, studies as part of response mitigation identified through environmental variables) as a planning. investigation) desktop study. Env’t Dept and Relevant Operations: Continue monitoring Env’t Dept: Consider refinement to confirm effects are linked to the of the Moderate Risk Threshold if project, to assess effectiveness of Project Shipping appropriate based on results of Ringed seal / Activities mitigations, and evaluate need for MMP the desktop study. additional monitoring and/or

mitigation. Env’t Dept: Based on the results of continued monitoring and additional studies, consider refinement of the High Risk Threshold if appropriate. Responsible Dept(s): Implement moderate-action response from Mitigation Toolkit (or new mitigation identified through investigation) relevant to ship strikes based on the outcome of targeted studies

26 Thresholds to be refined as supporting monitoring program and data analyses proceed. VEC / Condition Status / Threshold Pre-defined Response(s) Performance Activity Being Monitoring Objective Indicators Monitored Plan Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk Monitor for potential ship strikes . Ship strikes (i) Ship strike of 1 individual (i) Ship strike of more than 1 (i) observed trend of ship strikes Env’t Dept: Continue scheduled Env’t Dept and Relevant Will be developed concomitant on bowhead and identify individual in a shipping season (i.e. over multiple years) of more monitoring Operations: Investigate trends with the High Action Level

mitigation measures (responses) than 1 individual Env’t Dept: If Low Action over time and consider any Development response plan. for avoiding and/or minimizing Threshold is triggered again in the uncertainties (e.g., changes in effect.. next scheduled program (but operational processes, potential Responsible Dept(s): Implement Moderate is not), investigate sources, confounding influences) high-action level response trends over time and consider any in a formal Response Plan; Initiate relevant to ship strikes in uncertainties (e.g., differences in component specific targeted Mitigation Toolkit (or new program timing, effort, methods, studies as part of response mitigation identified through environmental variables) as a planning. investigation) desktop study. Env’t Dept and Relevant Env’t Dept: Consider refinement Operations: Continue monitoring to confirm effects are linked to the Project Shipping of the Moderate Risk Threshold if Bowhead / project and evaluate need for Activities appropriate based on results of MMP additional monitoring. the desktop study. Env’t Dept: Based on the results of continued monitoring and additional studies, consider refinement of the High Risk Threshold if appropriate. Responsible Dept(s): Implement moderate-action response from Mitigation Toolkit (or new mitigation identified through investigation) relevant to ship strikes based on the outcome of targeted studies Placeholder for Inuit OITR’S TBD TBD To be determined in consultation To be determined in consultation To be determined in consultation To be determined in consultation To be determined in consultation To be determined in consultation MMP with Inuit. with Inuit. with Inuit. with Inuit. with Inuit. with Inuit.

Notes:

1. Low severity behavioural responses are consistent with Level 1-4 severity response scores from Southall et al. (2007) and Finneran et al. (2017). These consist of either no observable adverse responses or are within a narwhals range of typical (baseline) behaviour and area unlikely to disrupt an individual to a point where natural behaviour patterns are significantly altered. These would be responses that fall below or within predicted behavioural responses in the FEIS Addendum for the Phase 2 Proposal.

1.1 MITIGATION TOOLKIT

The preliminary Moderate and High Action Pre-Defined Responses to be implemented in the event of an exceedance of a moderate risk or high risk threshold are outlined in Table 5.3 for the Marine Environment and Table 5.4 for Marine Mammals. These responses should not be considered exhaustive and may be supplemented pending the results of adaptive management investigations and subsequent QIA approval.

Note - The Moderate and High Action Pre-Defined Responses are preliminary and subject to further review and assignment into specific Moderate and High Risk categories before finalization of the adaptive management components of the Environmental Management Plans, currently planned for August 2021. Even when finalized these responses should not be considered exhaustive and may be supplemented pending the results of adaptive management investigations and subsequent QIA approval.

TABLE 5.3 MARINE ENVIRONMENT - MODERATE AND HIGH ACTION PRE-DEFINED RESPONSES

Area Potential Response Land Based Source • Source dust control: Control o Redesign engineering controls. o Spray (or respray piles) with approved dust suppressant. o Research for alternate dust suppression products. o Evaluate surface watering and sprinkler system options via mister trucks or trailers. o Where applicable, install or redesign conveyor shrouding for fugitive dust. o Review of new technology and solutions available on the market for dust control. • Erosion and sedimentation control o Stabilize eroding surfaces with rip rap or other measures. o Install sediment control infrastructure (i.e. check dams) o Explore redesign of water conveyance structures and culverts. o Construct diversion ditches or berms. o Direct non-contact water away from site infrastructure. o Conduct review of new technology and solution available on the market for erosion and sedimentation control. • Water management o Assess potential use and effectiveness of batch water treatment with reagents, and/or flocculants. o Construct water management structures (i.e. additional settlement ponds, dams etc.) o Install stream specific water treatment plant. o Implement alternate water treatment technologies (e.g., permeable reactive barriers) • Reduction or cessation of activity: o Adapt production rate to environmental conditions Marine Based Source • Altered shipping activities (altered ship and/or tug approach/path to dock, slower Control approach/departure from dock and/or Milne Inlet) Assessment and/or • Update country food risk assessment monitoring • Development of site-specific risk based guidelines Negotiation of compensation

TABLE 5.4 MARINE MAMMAL - MODERATE AND HIGH ACTION PRE-DEFINED RESPONSES

Area Potential Response Shipping Activities • Implement vessel convoy requirements – either southbound, northbound, in certain areas along shipping corridor, certain times of shipping season etc. • Limit the number of vessels allowed to call on Milne Port over the entire shipping season, or during specific periods within the shipping season (i.e. shoulder seasons) • Modify or expand existing transit restrictions • Modify vessel mix (e.g. vessel sizes) according to market availability • Permanent shift in the established shipping route through Eclipse Sound and Milne Inlet to avoid sensitive areas • Temporary deviations from established shipping route through Eclipse Sound and Milne Inlet to avoid heavy ice concentrations during the shoulder seasons • Cease or suspend shipping activities for a season or a component of a season (i.e. shoulder seasons) Monitoring • Install alternate technology for ship-based monitoring (i.e. cameras) as supplement for MWOs • Increase monitoring programs outside of the Regional Study Area Negotiation of compensation

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal

ATTACHMENT 1B TEMMP TARP AND MITGATION TOOLKIT

March 2021

TABLE 5.1 TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT TRIGGER ACTION RESPONSE PLANS

Project Activity Objectives Performance Monitoring Program / Condition Status / Threshold Pre-defined Response(s) Indicators Plan Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk Dustfall Dustfall will not result Annual dust Passive dustfall Details are provided in the Air Quality and Noise Abatement Management Plan (AQNAMP) in impacts to the deposition collection program vegetation and habitat outside of the PDA greater than those predicted in the FEIS 1 Project footprint, The Project will not Percent cover of plant Vegetation abundance Statistically significant (p<0.05) Greater than 25% Greater than 50% change in Env't Dept: Continue Env't Dept and relevant Will be developed dustfall and emissions result in impacts to "functional groups" monitoring program change in mean percent cover of one change in mean mean percent cover of one or scheduled monitoring Operations: Investigate concurrent with the High vegetation growth in (i.e., deciduous or more plant functional groups percent cover of one or more plant functional groups until trends are trends over time and Risk status/threshold the RSA greater than shrubs, evergreen within 30 m of the PDA due to more plant functional due to Project-related effects established. consider any development a formal those predicted in the shrubs, forbs, Project-related effects3 for two groups due to Project- within 30 m of the PDA for any uncertainties (e.g., Response Plan. FEIS2 graminoids, lichens, consecutive sampling years. related effects within sampling year Env't Dept: If low risk changes in operational mosses) 30 m of the PDA for status/threshold is processes, potential Responsible Dept(s): OR any sampling year OR triggered again in the sources, confounding Implement High Risk next scheduled influences) in a formal Status/ Threshold response Statistically significant (p<0.05) OR Greater than 25% change in program (but moderate Response Plan; Initiate in Mitigation Toolkit if the change in percent cover of one or mean percent cover of one or is not), investigate component-specific causal effect or likely more plant functional groups due to Statistically significant more plant functional groups trends over time and targeted studies, relationship is determined. Project-related effects within 100 m (p<0.05) change in within 100 m of the PDA due consider any including risk of the PDA mean percent cover of to Project-related effects for uncertainties (e.g., evaluations to one or more plant two consecutive sampling differences in program understand the need functional groups years. timing, effort, methods, and scale of mitigation, within 100 m of the environmental as part of response PDA due to Project- variables, IQ input) as a planning. related effects for two desktop study. consecutive sampling Env't Dept and Relevant years. Env't Dept: Consider Operations: Continue refinement to a monitoring to confirm Moderate Risk effects are linked to the status/threshold if Project, to assess the appropriate based on effectiveness of the results of the trend mitigations, and analysis. evaluate the need for additional monitoring and mitigation.

Responsible Dept(s): Implement a moderate- action response from Mitigation Toolkit (or

1 Total of 447 6 km² terrestrial area outside of PDA affected by annual dust deposition (303.0 km² Low, 138.0 km² Moderate, 6.7 km² High deposition), as per 2013 Addendum to FEIS (Table 6-3.5). Annual Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) deposition levels were predicted to exceed 50 g/m²/year within the PDA, with TSP levels decreasing to background outside of the PDA (EDI Environmental Dynamics Inc. 2018. Mary River Project — Phase 2 Proposal Technical Supporting Document No. 09: Vegetation Baseline and Impact Assessment. Prepared for Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation, Oakville, Ontario. 189 pp.) 2 Less than 2% decrease in wetlands, less than 1% decrease in other vegetation community types within PDA in relation to the RSA. Effects on vegetation abundance and diversity will be indistinguishable from natural variation, limited to the PDA, and not significant at the RSA scale. 3 Whether or not an effect is Project-related will be determined by comparing post-construction monitoring results to baseline data and reference site data. Monitoring results that are significantly different from baseline and reference sites, have a mechanism for change due to the Project, and cannot be attributed to natural causes or natural variation, may be deemed to be Project-related. TABLE 5.1 TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT TRIGGER ACTION RESPONSE PLANS

Project Activity Objectives Performance Monitoring Program / Condition Status / Threshold Pre-defined Response(s) Indicators Plan Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk new mitigation identified through an investigation) based on targeted studies' outcomes.

Env't Dept and Relevant Operations: Develop candidate list of suitable High Action Responses if High Risk Threshold surpassed.

Dustfall and emissions Project activities will The concentration of Vegetation and soils Statistically significant (p<0.05) Exceedance of CCME Mean concentration of one or Env't Dept: Continue Env't Dept and Relevant Will be developed result in a not Contaminants of base metals monitoring increase from baseline values in the soil quality guidelines more COPCs over any study scheduled monitoring Operations: Investigate concurrent with the High significant increase in Potential Concern program mean concentration of one or more and/or lichen indicator area (Mine Site, Milne Port, or until trends are trends over time and Risk status/threshold metals uptake in (COPCs)4 in lichen and COPCs over any study area (Mine Site, values for more than Tote Road) in the Far distance established. If consider any development a formal vegetation or surficial concentration of Milne Port, or Tote Road) in the Near one COPC at more than class (101–1,000 m of the necessary, repeat uncertainties (e.g., Response Plan. soils at the RSA scale, COPCs in surficial soil distance class (within 100 m of the one sample site in any PDA) exceeds CCME soil sampling to eliminate changes in operational as per the FEIS2. PDA) due to Project-related effects3, Project area or distance guidelines and lichen indicator uncertainty due to processes, potential Responsible Dept(s): but below Canadian Council of class in any sampling values in any sampling year potential lab or sources, confounding Implement High Risk Ministers of the Environment (CCME) year due to Project related effects sampling errors — influences) in a formal Status/ Threshold response soil quality guidelines and/or continued Response Plan; Initiate in Mitigation Toolkit if the available lichen indicator values5, for OR AND implementation of dust component-specific causal effect or likely two consecutive sampling years dispersion mitigation targeted studies, relationship is determined. Mean concentration of Negative effects on vegetation measures outlined in including risk OR one or more COPCs health are quantified within the AQNAMP. evaluations to over any Project area in 101–1,000 m of the PDA as a understand the need and scale of mitigation, Exceedance of CCME soil quality the Near distance class Project-related effect Env't Dept: If Low Risk as part of response guidelines and/or lichen indicator (within 100 m of the status/threshold is planning. values for one COPC at a single PDA) exceeds CCME triggered again in the sample site in any Project area or soil guidelines and/or next scheduled distance class in any sampling year. lichen indicator values program (but Moderate Env't Dept and Relevant in any sampling year. is not), investigate Operations: Continue trends over time and monitoring to confirm OR consider any effects are linked to the uncertainties (e.g., Project, assess the differences in program effectiveness of timing, effort, methods, mitigations, and environmental evaluate the need for

4 Contaminants of Potential Concern (COPCs) were selected based on considering several factors, including baseline metal concentrations in soils and vegetation, metals present in the Mary River ore, and the level of risk associated with each element. Additional details on COPC selection are included in the TEMMP (Appendix B, Section 4-2). 5 CCME agricultural soil quality guidelines were chosen as indicators of potential COPC toxicity in the soil. In the absence of standardized thresholds for metal toxicity in lichen applicable to the Project, indicator values were selected from peer-reviewed literature as a starting point from which to assess potential Project effects to vegetation health. Indicator values are predictive and indicate the potential for initial adverse effects to vegetation health, not a threshold past which acute toxicity occurs. As data continue to be collected through the vegetation and dustfall monitoring programs, indicator values may be revised to improve the understanding of the dose-response relationship between metals and lichen. Additional details on soil quality guidelines and lichen indicator values are included in the TEMMP (Appendix B, Section 4-2). TABLE 5.1 TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT TRIGGER ACTION RESPONSE PLANS

Project Activity Objectives Performance Monitoring Program / Condition Status / Threshold Pre-defined Response(s) Indicators Plan Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk Statistically significant (p<0.05) variables, IQ input) as a additional monitoring increase from baseline values in the desktop study. and mitigation. mean concentration of one or more COPCs over any study area (Mine Site, Env't Dept and Relevant Milne Port, or Tote Road) in the Far Operations: Implement distance class (101–1,000 m of the a moderate-action PDA) due to Project-related effects, response from the but below Canadian Council of Mitigation Toolkit (or Ministers of the Environment (CCME) new mitigation soil quality guidelines and/or identified through an available lichen indicator values investigation) based on targeted studies' outcomes.

Env't Dept and Relevant Operations: Develop candidate list of suitable High Action Responses if High Risk Threshold surpassed. Transportation of No introduction of The occurrence of Exotic invasive plant A single occurrence (individual plant Multiple occurrences Multiple infestations (large Env’t Dept: Destroy all Env’t Dept: Destroy all Env’t Dept: Destroy all supplies to the site from exotic invasive plant6 exotic invasive plant species monitoring or small patch) of one exotic invasive (individuals or patches patches with numerous exotic invasive plants exotic invasive plants exotic invasive plants and outside of Nunavut species because of species on the land plant species within the PDA. found at more than individuals persisting for more and plant material and plant material plant material present Project activities. one location or several than one year) of one or more present following present following following methods outlined patches at a single site) exotic invasive plant species methods outlined in the methods outlined in the in the TEMMP. Develop of one exotic invasive throughout the Project area. TEMMP. Conduct TEMMP. Conduct further response plant species targeted monitoring in targeted monitoring in concomitant with the High the following season to infested areas in the Risk status/threshold OR verify the removal. If following years. Development response the entry pathway can Destroy any remaining plan. Occurrences of more be determined and exotic invasive plants than one exotic technically feasible, detected during follow- Responsible Dept(s): invasive plant species operational mitigations up monitoring. Implement High Risk within the PDA. will be employed to Continue targeted Status/Threshold response reduce the possibility of monitoring until two in Mitigation Toolkit if the further introduction. consecutive years of no causal effect or likely occurrences. If the relationship is determined. entry pathway can be determined, and it is feasible, operational mitigations will be employed to reduce the

6 Exotic species are species found outside of their natural range where they have not historically been found, often because of human activity. The term 'invasive' is reserved for the most aggressive species that reproduce rapidly and can cause substantial changes to the areas where they are introduced, such as outcompeting and displacing native plant species. TABLE 5.1 TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT TRIGGER ACTION RESPONSE PLANS

Project Activity Objectives Performance Monitoring Program / Condition Status / Threshold Pre-defined Response(s) Indicators Plan Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk possibility of further introduction. Transportation corridor The Project will have a Caribou movement Snow track surveys 25% deflection8 of approaches to the 50% deflection of ≥ 75% deflection of Env’t Dept: Continue to Env't Dept and Relevant Will be developed physical structure and not significant effect on deflections. transportation corridor observed approaches to the approaches to the monitor caribou Operations: Ensure concurrent with the High transportation activities caribou movements Monitoring at structures through snow track survey program9. transportation corridor transportation corridors movement via existing drivers follow Risk status/threshold across Project built to facilitate observed through snow observed through snow track local and regional appropriate rules and development a formal infrastructure7 movement or other AND track survey program. survey program. programs until trends mitigations (i.e., speed Response Plan. crossing areas are established. limits, caribou decision The snow embankments are >1 m AND AND tree) and review if Responsible Dept(s): high at 10% of caribou tracks, and the Env't Dept and relevant necessary. Consider Implement High Risk embankments are >2 m high and The snow The snow embankments are Operations: Follow the additional mitigations Status/ Threshold response slope steeper than 26° (2:1) at 10% of embankments are >1 m >1 m high at >25% of caribou caribou decision tree at caribou trail crossing in Mitigation Toolkit if the existing caribou trails. high at 10–25% of tracks, and embankments are and maintain snowbank points (e.g., caribou causal effect or likely caribou tracks, and >2 m high and slope steeper heights below 1 m to overpass or underpass) relationship is determined. embankments are >2 m than 26° (2:1) at >25% of facilitate caribou high and slope steeper existing caribou trails. movement across Env't Dept and relevant than 26° (2:1) at 10– transportation Operations: Adjust 25% of existing caribou corridors. slopes on trails. embankments that are The Project will not Caribou density Aerial surveys 25%11 of "directional"12 caribou do 50% of "directional" 75% of "directional" caribou Env't Dept: If Low Risk posing a barrier to preclude caribou range not cross the transportation corridor caribou do not cross do not cross the status/threshold is caribou movement use expansion7 as the AND AND observed over three years of caribou the transportation transportation corridor triggered again in the where technically feasible. population increases collar analyses corridor observed over observed over three years of next scheduled and the herd occupies The proportion of Regional collaring data three years of caribou caribou collar analyses program (but Moderate range east and west of collared caribou analyses10 collar analyses is not), investigate Env't Dept and Relevant the transportation showing distinct trends over time and Operations: Investigate corridor. directional movement consider any trends over time and that does not cross uncertainties (e.g., consider any transportation differences in program uncertainties (e.g., corridor. timing, effort, methods, changes in operational environmental processes, potential variables, IQ input) as a sources, confounding desktop study. influences) in a formal Response Plan; Initiate component-specific targeted studies, including risk

7 Historical telemetry data and Inuit knowledge indicate that all the caribou historically did not exhibit whole herd migrations as do other barren ground populations. Therefore, seasonal migration movements may not be a management issue associated with the transportation corridor. However, planned monitoring will assess this issue and, if substantial numbers of caribou do develop seasonal movement patterns, indicators, and monitoring/response plans will be developed to address this issue. It is expected that a small proportion of the caribou population will have home ranges that are near the road, and those individuals may adapt their home range location and local movement patterns relative to the road. 8 Deflection, defined by the Terrestrial Environment Working Group, is "caribou that fail to cross the North Railway or Tote Road after approaching it" (Terrestrial Environment Mitigation and Monitoring Plan) 9 The sample size necessary to determine if deflections are having a population-level impact (as opposed to individual animal responses) will be like the sample sizes necessary for effective collar monitoring program. As of January 2021, the sample size required for this study is being developed (and was presented to the TEWG in December 2020). 10 Baffinland would support a caribou collaring program only if supported by the affected communities’ Hunter and Trapper Organizations/Associations. 11 Thresholds for low, medium and high to be refined as caribou collaring program data analysis proceeds. Application of behavioural response indicators are contingent on securing necessary permits and MHTO support for running a collaring program. 12 Directional movement will be defined using collar movement data and GIS-based current practices at the time of analyses. TABLE 5.1 TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT TRIGGER ACTION RESPONSE PLANS

Project Activity Objectives Performance Monitoring Program / Condition Status / Threshold Pre-defined Response(s) Indicators Plan Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk evaluations to understand the need and scale of mitigation, as part of response planning.

Env't Dept and Relevant Operations: Continue monitoring to confirm effects are linked to the Project, assess the effectiveness of mitigations, and evaluate the need for additional monitoring and mitigation.

Env't Dept and Relevant Operations: Implement a moderate-action response from the Mitigation Toolkit (or new mitigation identified through an investigation) based on targeted studies' outcomes.

Env't Dept and Relevant Operations: Develop candidate list of suitable High Action Responses if High Risk Threshold surpassed. Project operations that The Project will have a Change in effective Regional collaring data 5% effective habitat13 loss of north 10% effective habitat 15% effective habitat loss as Env't Dept: Continue Env’t Dept: Continue Will be developed generate outdoor not significant effect on habitat based on model analysis Baffin Island caribou range as loss as determined by determined by collar analysis supporting caribou supporting caribou concurrent with the High sensory disturbances regional caribou caribou collar data determined by collar analysis and collar analysis collaring and local area collaring and local area Risk status/threshold distribution. analysis (e.g., RSPF). Height of Land surveys RSPF model AND surveillance programs. surveillance programs. development a formal AND Response Plan. AND Env’t Dept: Continue Responsible Dept(s): Caribou visibly the height of land and Develop operational disturbed and incidental caribou mitigations to further

13 Effective caribou habitat is defined as the combination of dynamic abiotic (e.g., topography, microclimate) and biotic (e.g., lichen cover, conspecific density) conditions that support the life history requirements of caribou. Effective habitat can be estimated with resource selection (probability) functions — a fundamental assumption being that the selection probability by caribou is directly proportional to habitat quality. The product of the selection probability and a unit of area equals the amount of effective habitat. Loss of effective habitat is determined by accounting for external (anthropogenic) forces that may degrade actual, or perceived, habitat quality when compared to baseline conditions. It is calculated as the difference in total effective habitat pre- and post-disturbance. TABLE 5.1 TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT TRIGGER ACTION RESPONSE PLANS

Project Activity Objectives Performance Monitoring Program / Condition Status / Threshold Pre-defined Response(s) Indicators Plan Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk No significant changes to caribou displaced at a local Caribou displaced extensively monitoring. Continue reduce disturbance to Responsible Dept(s): distribution — caribou observed level by Project by Project activities at a implementing caribou during the Implement High Risk calving with similar14 distribution as activities, However, regional level; calving habitat mitigations to minimize calving season. Status/ Threshold response baseline studies with no changes to they still calve and use effectiveness is significantly potential disturbance to in Mitigation Toolkit if caribou health. habitat of comparable reduced; calving success is caribou (e.g., the Env't Dept and Relevant causal effect or likely quality within the RSA reduced and/or caribou health caribou decision tree Operations: Investigate relationship is determined. (may require regional is impacted. for drivers, reducing trends over time and monitoring) with no Project-related noise). consider any changes to caribou uncertainties (e.g., health. Env't Dept: If Low Risk changes in operational status/threshold is processes, potential triggered again in the sources, confounding next scheduled influences) in a formal program (but Moderate Response Plan; Initiate is not), investigate component-specific trends over time and targeted studies, consider any including risk uncertainties (e.g., evaluations to differences in program understand the need timing, effort, methods, and scale of mitigation, environmental as part of response variables, IQ input) as a planning. desktop study. Env't Dept and Relevant Operations: Continue monitoring to confirm effects are linked to the Project, assess the effectiveness of mitigations, and evaluate the need for additional monitoring and mitigation.

Env't Dept and Relevant Operations: Implement a moderate-action response from the Mitigation Toolkit (or new mitigation identified through an investigation) based on

14 Baseline information on caribou calving locations were informed entirely by Inuit Knowledge. That knowledge is described and illustrated in Section 2.1.4 — Seasonal Habitats, Mary River FEIS Appendix 6F, Mary River Project Wildlife Baseline 2006–2011. Baffinland expects that consideration of caribou distribution during calving will be more qualitative than quantitative and based on observations from a combination of site monitoring, hunter observations, caribou collar data, and aerial surveys while considering the historical distribution information from knowledge holders. TABLE 5.1 TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT TRIGGER ACTION RESPONSE PLANS

Project Activity Objectives Performance Monitoring Program / Condition Status / Threshold Pre-defined Response(s) Indicators Plan Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk targeted studies' outcomes.

Env't Dept and Relevant Operations: Develop candidate list of suitable High Action Responses if High Risk Threshold surpassed. Transportation corridor The Project will cause Project-related Wildlife encounter One Project-related caribou mortality >2 project-related >5 project-related caribou Env’t Dept: Env’t Dept: Increased Will be developed physical structure and minimal direct caribou mortality reporting and in a single year caribou mortalities in mortalities in three Investigation and investigation detail to concomitant with the High transportation activities mortality to caribou. investigations three consecutive years consecutive years corrective actions on test the root cause of Risk Status/ Threshold individual incident project-related caribou Development response OR basis. mortality. Possible plan. change to specific >5 project-related activities if warranted. Responsible Dept(s): caribou mortalities in a Implement High Risk single year Status/ Threshold response in Mitigation Toolkit if the causal effect or likely relationship is determined. Project operations that The Project will have a Peregrine Falcon and Raptor productivity Mean brood size <1.0 in one year Mean brood size <1.0 Mean brood size <1.0 in three Env’t Dept: Continue Env’t Dept and Will be developed generate outdoor not significant effect on Rough-legged Hawk surveys when occupancy is <0.415. in two consecutive consecutive years when regular raptor Responsible Depts: concomitant with the High sensory disturbances cliff-nesting raptor nest site occupancy years when occupancy occupancy is <0.4. monitoring program Revisit Project Risk Status/Threshold occupancy and and reproductive AND AND is <0.4. until trends are components that may Development response reproductive success. success. AND established. Continue have effects on raptors plan. Raptor occupancy A statistically significant decline in AND to follow general and adapt mitigations surveys occupancy, (as measured by average A statistically significant mitigations as per and management, as Responsible Dept(s): rate of change (λ), in one year) A statistically decline in occupancy, (as Project Certificate and necessary. Sponsor a Implement High Risk significant decline in measured by average rate of TEMMP. 3rd-party study to Status/ Threshold response occupancy, (as change (λ), in three investigate potential in Mitigation Toolkit if measured by average consecutive years) Env't Dept: If Low Risk Project-related causal effect or likely rate of change (λ), in status/threshold is mechanism(s) affecting relationship is determined. two consecutive years) triggered again in the raptors. next scheduled program (but Moderate Env't Dept and Relevant is not), investigate Operations: Investigate trends over time and trends over time and consider any consider any uncertainties (e.g., uncertainties (e.g., differences in program changes in operational timing, effort, methods, processes, potential environmental sources, confounding influences) in a formal

15 The combination of brood size and occupancy for Rough-legged Hawks accounts for the natural inter-annual variation in occupancy. TABLE 5.1 TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT TRIGGER ACTION RESPONSE PLANS

Project Activity Objectives Performance Monitoring Program / Condition Status / Threshold Pre-defined Response(s) Indicators Plan Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk variables, IQ input) as a Response Plan; Initiate desktop study. component-specific targeted studies, including risk evaluations to understand the need and scale of mitigation, as part of response planning.

Env't Dept and Relevant Operations: Continue monitoring to confirm effects are linked to the Project, assess the effectiveness of mitigations, and evaluate the need for additional monitoring and mitigation.

Env't Dept and Relevant Operations: Implement a moderate-action response from the Mitigation Toolkit (or new mitigation identified through an investigation) based on targeted studies' outcomes.

Env't Dept and Relevant Operations: Develop candidate list of suitable High Action Responses if High Risk Threshold surpassed. TBD Inuit Objectives TBD Inuit Indicators TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

1.1 MITIGATION TOOLKIT

The preliminary Moderate and High Action Pre-Defined Responses to be implemented in the event of an exceedance of a moderate risk or high risk threshold are outlined in Table 5.2 for the Terrestrial Environment. These responses should not be considered exhaustive and may be supplemented pending the results of adaptive management investigations and subsequent QIA approval.

Note - The Moderate and High Action Pre-Defined Responses are preliminary and subject to further review and assignment into specific Moderate and High Risk categories before finalization of the adaptive management components of the Environmental Management Plans, currently planned for August 2021. Even when finalized these responses should not be considered exhaustive and may be supplemented pending the results of adaptive management investigations and subsequent QIA approval.

TABLE 5.2 TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT - MODERATE AND HIGH ACTION PRE-DEFINED RESPONSES

Terrestrial Environment Emissions and Noise Controls for Vegetation Impacts: • Redesign engineering controls • Spray (or respray piles) with approved dust suppressant • Research for alternate dust suppression products • Evaluate surface watering and sprinkler system options via mister trucks or trailers • Evaluate surface watering and dust suppressant application frequency • Where applicable, install or redesign conveyor shrouding for fugitive dust • Review of new technology and solutions available on the market for dust control • Covering of rail cars • Investigate feasibility of switch to lighter distillate fuels for operation equipment Reduction or cessation of activity: • Adapt production rate to environmental conditions • Modify timing or frequency of operational activities (i.e. blasting frequency)

Rail Based Source Controls for Wildlife Impacts: • Adjust Train Operational Speed in Areas Identified as High-Risk Crossing (Temporarily or permanently) • Construct dedicated caribou crossings • Adjust slope at additional locations along the railway • Replace embankment fill type at additional locations along the railway • Use of Hi-Rail Vehicles Intermittently • Increase use of horn Reduction or cessation of activity: • Adjust Train Trip Frequency intermittently • Temporary stoppage of rail operations during migratory movements Air Based Source Control for Wildlife Impacts TABLE 5.2 TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT - MODERATE AND HIGH ACTION PRE-DEFINED RESPONSES

Terrestrial Environment • Refinement of Overflight Site-Specific Guidelines (i.e. timing and frequency) o Avoidance of sensitive wildlife areas (as identified) o Reduction in air-based travel, as practicable Assessment and/or Monitoring (General) • Update country food risk assessment • Development of site specific risk based guidelines • Hiring of year-round designated caribou monitors • Investigate feasibility of available wildlife detection technology • Increase BIM employee and contractor training on EPP and associated measures Negotiation of compensation

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal

ATTACHMENT 1C AQNAMP TARP AND MITIGATION TOOLKIT

March 2021

TABLE 5.1 AQNAMP TRIGGER ACTION RESPONSE PLAN

Project Activity Objectives Performance Indicators Monitoring Program / Condition Status / Threshold Pre-defined Response(s) Plan Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk

Life of Project Meeting SO2 and NO2 air SO2 and NO2 monitoring Continuous ambient air Measured annual average Measured annual average Measured annual average Env’t Dept: Review Project Env’t Dept: Identify the Env’t Dept: Identify the

quality Project standards data quality monitoring of SO2 and NO2 SO2 and NO2 SO2 and NO2 concentrations sources that may be Project sources and/or Project sources and/or SO2 and NO2 at Milne concentrations are greater concentrations are above are above the annual attributable for the root cause for root cause for Port camp and the Mine than 90% of the annual the annual ambient air ambient air quality Project increase. exceedances of standards. exceedances of Project Standard(s); Site camp ambient air quality Project quality Project standards standards for two (2) or Continue monitoring to Continue monitoring to standards. • 30 µg/m3 averaged standards more successive years determine if elevated assess effectiveness of Continue monitoring to annually for SO2, and levels are sustained or mitigation measures, and assess effectiveness of • 60 µg/m3 averaged continuing to increase. determine if elevated mitigation measures, and annually for NO2 concentrations are determine if elevated Review compliance with relevant policies and sustained concentrations are procedures (i.e. idling Operations Dept: sustained policy). Implement responses from Operations Dept: Review the Mitigation Toolkit (or Operations Dept: schedule and procedures new mitigation developed Implement responses for ongoing maintenance through investigation) from the Mitigation for stationary and mobile Identify high risk Toolkit (or new mitigation diesel-powered equipment mitigation measures for developed through future implementation if investigation). needed. Project Activity Objectives Performance Indicators Monitoring Program / Condition Status / Threshold Pre-defined Response(s) Plan Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk

Life of Project Meeting particulate Particulate matter (PM2.5 Continuous ambient air Measured PM2.5 and/or Measured PM2.5 and/or Measured PM2.5 and/or TSP Env’t Dept: Review Env’t Dept: Verify increase Env’t Dept: Verify

matter (PM2.5 and TSP) air and TSP) monitoring data quality monitoring for TSP concentrations are TSP concentrations are concentrations are above whether increase is can be attributed to the increase can be attributed quality Project standards TSP and PM2.5 at Milne greater than 90% of the above the annual ambient the annual ambient air attributed to the Project. Project. Identify the root to the Project. Identify Port camp and the Mine annual ambient air quality air quality Project quality Project standards Continue monitoring to cause for the measured the root cause for the Project Standard(s); Site camp. Project standards standards for two (2) or more determine if elevated concentrations. measured concentrations. • 60 µg/m3 averaged Temporary (seasonal, successive years levels are sustained or Continue monitoring to Identify impacts to the annually for TSP, and during summer months) continuing to increase. determine if elevated receiving environment • 10 µg/m3 averaged ambient air quality Review the level of concentrations are and/or human health. annually for PM2.5 monitoring for TSP and compliance for mitigation sustained or continuing to Conduct a risk evaluation PM2.5 upwind and measures that are increase. to determine if levels downwind of the major associated with managing Operations: Implement pose an immediate health sources of emissions at the amount of fuel burned responses from the risk. the boundary of the (e.g., idling policy, speed Mitigation Toolkit (or new Operations: Implement Project Development limits, etc.). mitigation developed responses from the Area (PDA) at Milne Port Operations: Review through investigation). Mitigation Toolkit (or new and the Mine Site. schedule and procedures Identify high risk mitigation developed for ongoing maintenance mitigation measures for through investigation). for stationary and mobile future implementation if diesel-powered needed equipment. Review the effectiveness of the dust mitigation at potential source locations. Review schedule, procedures, and make improvements to the dust suppression program.

Project Activity Objectives Performance Indicators Monitoring Program / Condition Status / Threshold Pre-defined Response(s) Plan Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk

Life of Project Controlling dust Dust deposition outside Dustfall monitoring at Measured dustfall Measured dustfall Measured dustfall Env’t Dept: Continue Env’t Dept: Continue Env’t Dept: Verify deposition for nuisance of the Project Milne Port, the Mine Site deposition at Project concentrations are greater deposition is greater than monitoring to determine if monitoring to determine if increase can be attributed and aesthetics Development Area and along the Northern Development Area than the Project Standard the dustfall Project elevated levels are elevated levels are to the Project. Identify Boundary Transportation Corridor Boundary stations are for one (1) or more events Standard for two (2) or sustained or continuing to sustained or continuing to the root cause for the greater than 90% of the (monthly or annually) more consecutive events increase. increase. measured concentrations. (monthly or annually) Project Standard(s); dustfall Project Standard Identify potential source(s) Confirm extent of impacts Confirm extent of impacts that may be contributing through visual observation through visual • 5.3 g/m2/30 day to increasing dustfall. and review of satellite observation and review of • 55 g/m2/annually Review results against imagery. satellite imagery. Inuit Thresholds for Assess monthly data Conduct investigation to aesthetic conditions. results and determine identify impacts to the problem sources and receiving environment timeframes, to focus dust and/or human health. Operations; Review mitigation on these issues. effectiveness of dust Review results against mitigation measures. Review results against Inuit Thresholds for Inuit Thresholds for aesthetic conditions. Review schedule, aesthetic conditions. procedures, and make improvements to the dust Operations: Implement suppression program, Operations: Implement responses from the based on source actions from low risk. Mitigation Toolkit (or new identification. Implement responses from mitigation developed the Mitigation Toolkit (or through investigation). new mitigation developed through investigation). Identify high risk mitigation measures for future implementation if needed

Life of Project Controlling dust Dustfall deposition at co- Dustfall monitoring at deposition for the located vegetation plots. Milne Port, the Mine Site protection of vegetation and along the Northern Project Standard(s); health Transportation Corridor • There are no dustfall Refer to the Terrestrial Environment Monitoring and Mitigation Plan for evaluation of impacts to vegetation. standards identified that are protective of vegetation health

Project Activity Objectives Performance Indicators Monitoring Program / Condition Status / Threshold Pre-defined Response(s) Plan Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk

Life of Project Controlling dust Dust deposition outside Dustfall monitoring at Measured dustfall Measured dustfall Measured dustfall Env’t Dept: Continue Env’t Dept: Continue Env’t Dept: Verify deposition for the of the Project Milne Port, the Mine Site deposition at Project concentrations are greater deposition is greater than monitoring to determine if monitoring to determine if increase can be attributed protection of human Development Area and along the Northern Development Area than the Project Standard the dustfall Project elevated levels are elevated levels are to the Project. Identify health Boundary Transportation Corridor Boundary stations are for one (1) or more events Standard for two (2) or sustained or continuing to sustained or continuing to the root cause for the more consecutive events increase. increase. measured concentrations. Project Standard(s); greater than 90% of the dustfall Project Standard Identify potential source(s) Evaluate impacts to the Identify impacts to the • Mine site: 55 that may be contributing receiving environment receiving environment g/m2/annually; to increasing dustfall. (Terrestrial, Marine and and/or human health. • Milne Port site: 35 Review results against Freshwater) and any Conduct a risk evaluation g/m2/annually Inuit Thresholds for trends in sedimentation to determine if levels aesthetic conditions. rates, concentrations in pose an immediate health soil and sediment, and risk. concentration in tissues. Operations; Review Operations: Implement

effectiveness of dust responses from the mitigation measures. Operations: Implement Mitigation Toolkit (or new actions from low risk. mitigation developed Review schedule, through investigation). procedures, and make Implement responses from improvements to the dust the Mitigation Toolkit (or suppression program, new mitigation developed based on source through investigation). identification. Identify high risk mitigation measures for future implementation if needed

Life of Project Controlling noise Noise level at Noise and Vibration Concerns raised by Noise monitoring greater Noise monitoring greater Env’t Dept: Implement Env’t Dept: Additional Env’t Dept: Additional disturbance on seasonal Accommodations Monitoring at employees than Project Standard at than Project Standard at additional monitoring monitoring to determine if monitoring to determine human dwellings Accommodations one (1) or more locations one (1) or more locations in events based on nature noise is consistently above if noise is consistently during single monitoring consecutive monitoring and location of noise Project Standard. above Project Standard. Project Standard(s); event events concern. Assess additional locations Assess additional • 40 dBA Continue regular to determine extent of locations to determine monitoring program. noise impacts. extent of noise impacts.

Opertations: Review the Operations: Implement feasibility of additional responses from the engineering controls to Mitigation Toolkit (or new reduce noise from the mitigation developed process or equipment that through investigation). is the source of the elevated noise levels. Implement responses from the Mitigation Toolkit (or new mitigation developed through investigation). Project Activity Objectives Performance Indicators Monitoring Program / Condition Status / Threshold Pre-defined Response(s) Plan Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk

Life of Project Meeting emissions In stack concentrations Stack emissions testing Measured emissions are Measures emissions The incinerator emissions Env’t Dept: Continue Env’t Dept; Increase Env’t Dept: Increase standards for incinerator program every 5 years between 80 and 90% of the concentrations are above test results for two (2) monitoring on regular monitoring frequency, re- monitoring frequency to Project Standard(s); facilities for the incinerator Project Standards the Project Standards for consecutive years are interval to determine if sample in following year. annually. • Dioxins and furans: facilities one or more parameters. greater than the Project elevated levels are Return to every five (5)

0.08 ng TEQ/Rm3 at standards for one or more sustained or continuing to years if monitoring Operations: Implement 11% v/v O2 parameters. increase. determines levels below responses from the • Mercury: 20 ug/Rm3 Project Standards. Mitigation Toolkit (or new at 11% v/v O2 Operations: Review mitigation developed schedule and procedures Operations: Investigate for ongoing maintenance root cause of elevated through investigation). for the incinerators. concentrations.

Review the standard Determine if the operating procedures for incinerators are being the incinerators to operated within their determine if non- design specifications. compatible materials are Determine the feasibility in the waste stream. of possible design modifications or waste gas treatment.

Review the standard operating procedures for the incinerators to determine if non- compatible materials are in the waste stream.

Life of Project Inuit Objectives Inuit Indicators TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

1.1 MITIGATION TOOLKIT

The preliminary Moderate and High Action Pre-Defined Responses to be implemented in the event of an exceedance of a moderate risk or high risk threshold are outlined in Table 5.2 for the Atmospheric Environment. These responses should not be considered exhaustive and may be supplemented pending the results of adaptive management investigations and subsequent QIA approval.

Note: These Moderate and High Action Pre-Defined Responses are preliminary and subject to further review. Even when finalized these responses should not be considered exhaustive and may be supplemented pending the results of adaptive management investigations and subsequent QIA approval.

TABLE 5.2 ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT – MODERATE AND HIGH ACTION PRE-DEFINED RESPONSES

Atmospheric Environment Controls for Criteria Air Contaminant (SO2, NO2): • Reduce or suspend activity identified as root cause for elevated concentrations • Review maintenance/repair log for suspect equipment • Conduct emissions testing on equipment to compare to vendor specifications Dust and Particulate Emission Controls: • Spray (or respray piles) with approved dust suppressant • Research and implement alternate dust suppression methods and products • Surface watering and sprinkler system options via mister trucks or trailers • Increase surface watering and dust suppressant application frequency • Where applicable, install or redesign conveyor shrouding for fugitive dust • Review of new technology and engineering solutions available on the market for dust control • Covering of rail cars • Enclosure of facilities or operations Reduction or cessation of activity: • Adapt production rate to environmental conditions • Modify timing or frequency of operational activities (e.g., blasting frequency) Controls for Noise Impacts: • Reduce or suspend activity identified as root cause for elevated concentrations • Modify the timing or frequency of operational activities (e.g., blasting frequency) • Review maintenance/repair log for suspect equipment • Conduct emissions testing on equipment to compare to vendor specifications

Assessment and/or Monitoring (General) • Increase frequency of inspection and audits • Increase frequency of incinerator emission testing • Increase frequency of noise and vibration monitoring • Revisit number and locations of dustfall monitoring locations • Update country food risk assessment if the metals levels determined by the environmental monitoring program are trending upwards • Development of site specific risk based guidelines

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal

ATTACHMENT 1D AEMP TARP AND MITIGATION TOOLKIT

March 2021

TABLE 5.1 TRIGGER ACTION RESPONSE PLANS FOR AQUATIC EFFECTS MONITORING

Monitoring Performance Activity Being Condition Status / Threshold Pre-defined Response(s) Objective Plan Indicators Monitored Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk Detect short-term and long-term Deleterious substances effects of the Project’s activities (As, Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn, TSS, Addressed in the Fresh Water Supply, Sewage and Wastewater Management Plan on the aquatic environment Ra-226) and pH resulting from the Project Evaluate the accuracy of impact MDMER predictions Effluent Monitoring Assess the effectiveness of Acute Lethality Testing: planned mitigation measures Rainbow trout, Daphnia Addressed in the Fresh Water Supply, Sewage and Wastewater Management Plan Identify additional mitigation magna measures to avert or reduce unforeseen environmental effects Effluent characterization: hardness, alkalinity, EC, temperature, Al, Cd, Fe, Addressed in the Fresh Water Supply, Sewage and Wastewater Management Plan Hg, Mo, Se, NO3-N, Cl, Cr, Mine effluent Note there are Hg and Se discharge limits in effluent characterization that trigger a fish tissue study, if exceeded. Co, SO4, Tl, U, P, Mn, Detect short-term and long-term discharges NH3-N effects of the Project’s activities on the aquatic environment Sublethal toxicity testing resulting from the Project (fish and/or invertebrate Addressed in the Fresh Water Supply, Sewage and Wastewater Management Plan MDMER Evaluate the accuracy of impact and/or macrophyte Effluent and predictions and/or algal species) Water Quality Monitoring Assess the effectiveness of Water Quality Studies planned mitigation measures Monitoring at exposure Identify additional mitigation and reference areas: measures to avert or reduce temperature, dissolved unforeseen environmental oxygen, pH, hardness, effects alkalinity, EC, salinity Receiving water quality subject to the AEMP benchmarks established for the CREMP (see below) (marine only), deleterious substances and effluent characterization parameters Monitoring Performance Activity Being Condition Status / Threshold Pre-defined Response(s) Objective Plan Indicators Monitored Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk Critical Effects Sizes for Arctic char health: Total body weight at age: Fish health endpoint at effluent- ± 25% of reference mean exposed area significantly Fish health endpoint at effluent- different from reference area exposed area significantly Liver weight at total body (ρ <0.1) but within Critical Effect different from (ρ <0.1), and at a To be determined based on weight: ± 25% of Env’t Dept: Conduct investigation Size(s), or significantly different magnitude outside of Critical outcome of moderate pre- reference mean of cause of the consistent Env’t Dept: Conduct further from reference area at a Effect Size(s), compared to defined response. differences between effluent- investigation to confirm cause is Total body weight at magnitude outside of Critical reference area, for two Env’t Dept: Continue with exposed area and reference area consistent with results of length (condition): ± 10% Effect Size(s) in one and/or non- consecutive assessments. scheduled monitoring as consistent with the MDMER; investigation conducted under of reference mean consecutive studies. prescribed in the regulations to develop high risk response the moderate risk response Age: ± 25% of reference confirm difference; determine if threshold and evaluate and action; evaluate and implement mean there are contributing factors in effluent (review deleterious implement most appropriate most appropriate action(s) from action(s) from the AEMP Action the AEMP Action Level Toolkit. Critical Effects Sizes for Benthic endpoint at effluent- substances monitoring of effluent benthic invertebrate Level Toolkit. exposed area significantly and acute lethality testing Responsible Dept(s): Implement community: Benthic endpoint at effluent- different from reference area results). Responsible Dept(s): Implement plan to address potential mine- exposed area significantly Density: ± 2 SD of (ρ <0.1) but at a magnitude within plan to address potential mine- related inputs and sources. different from (ρ <0.1), and at a To be determined based on reference mean Critical Effect Size(s), or related inputs and sources. magnitude outside of Critical outcome of moderate pre- Detect short-term and long-term significantly different from Simpson’s Evenness Effects Size(s), compared to defined response. effects of the Project’s activities reference area at a magnitude Index: ± 2 SD of reference area, for two on the aquatic environment reference mean outside of Critical Effect Size(s) in resulting from the Project consecutive assessments. Taxa Richness: ± 2 SD of one and/or non-consecutive MDMER Evaluate the accuracy of impact reference mean studies. Biological predictions Mine effluent Fish Tissue Study1 Env’t Dept: Conduct follow-up Env’t Dept: Conduct follow-up Monitoring Assess the effectiveness of discharges Env’t Dept: Conduct further monitoring and trend analysis to monitoring and trend analysis to Studies planned mitigation measures Mercury (Hg) in muscle investigation to confirm cause is determine if Hg in fish tissue is determine if Hg in fish tissue is Identify additional mitigation tissue: low risk threshold Total Hg in fish tissue exceeds consistent with results of A low risk condition for two increasing with time. Review the increasing with time. Determine if measures to avert or reduce is MDMER effect MDMER threshold for an effect investigation conducted under consecutive assessments that is results of other component there are other project-related Hg unforeseen environmental concentration (0.5 μg/g on fish tissue from Hg (0.5 μg/g To be determined based on the moderate risk response supported by consistent effects in studies. Determine if there are sources other than mine effluent. effects wet weight); moderate wet weight) in fish tissue at an outcome of moderate pre- action; evaluate and implement one or more other study other project-related Hg sources Evaluate and implement most risk threshold is low risk exposure area and is a statistically defined response. most appropriate action(s) from components which links the other than mine effluent. appropriate action(s) from the threshold and consistent significant increase (ρ <0.1) over the AEMP Action Level Toolkit. effects in one or more results to the Project. Responsible Dept(s): Implement a AEMP Action Level Toolkit. the reference area. Responsible Dept(s): Implement other study components review of mine-related processes Responsible Dept(s): Develop and plan to address potential mine- which links results to the to determine if sources can be implement action(s) to reduce Hg related inputs and sources. Project. mitigated. emissions.

Fish Tissue Study2 Env’t Dept: Conduct follow-up Env’t Dept: Conduct follow-up Env’t Dept: Conduct further monitoring and trend analysis to monitoring and trend analysis to Selenium (Se) in muscle investigation to confirm cause is determine if Se in fish tissue is determine if Se in fish tissue is and/or whole-body consistent with results of increasing with time. Review the increasing with time. Determine if tissues: low risk A low risk condition for two investigation conducted under results of other component there are other project-related Se threshold is 100% Total Se in fish tissue from an consecutive assessments with Se the moderate risk response To be determined based on studies. Determine if there are sources other than mine effluent. increase relative to exposure area exceeds the concentrations in fish tissue action; evaluate and implement outcome of moderate pre- other project-related Se sources reference; moderate risk Critical Effects Size (100% exceeding the USEPA (2016) evaluate and implement most most appropriate action(s) from defined response. other than mine effluent. threshold is United States increase relative to reference). chronic effects criterion appropriate action(s) from the the AEMP Action Level Toolkit. Environmental Protection (11.3 μg/g dry weight). Responsible Dept(s): Implement a AEMP Action Level Toolkit. Responsible Dept(s): Implement Agency chronic effects review of mine-related processes Responsible Dept(s): Develop and plan to address potential mine- criterion of 11.3 μg/g dry to determine if sources can be implement action(s) to reduce Se related inputs and sources. weight (USEPA, 2016) mitigated. emissions. Monitoring Performance Activity Being Condition Status / Threshold Pre-defined Response(s) Objective Plan Indicators Monitored Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk Env’t Dept: Determine key contributing source(s) (e.g., dust Detect short-term and long-term Env’t Dept: Evaluate need for emissions, erosion and/or Env’t Dept: Conduct further effects of the Project’s activities increased or modified sedimentation) and evaluate and investigation to confirm cause is on the aquatic environment monitoring; consider potential implement most appropriate consistent with results of resulting from the Project mitigation plans and action(s) from the AEMP Action investigation conducted under Evaluate the accuracy of impact implementation of trend analysis Toolkit. Evaluate effects on fish Sedimentation (i.e., Annual sediment accumulation in the moderate risk response Lake predictions Dustfall, erosion to evaluate potential for population and/or reproduction, amount of sediment Sheardown Lake exceeds natural Annual sediment accumulation in Establish if moderate risk action; evaluate and implement Sedimentation and continued increase. validate thresholds through Assess the effectiveness of accumulation) in range (pre-mining baseline) but Sheardown Lake exceeds 1 mm. condition status is reached. most appropriate action(s) from Monitoring sedimentation scientific study/research, and/or planned mitigation measures Sheardown Lake. below 1 mm threshold. Responsible Dept(s): Implement the AEMP Action Level Toolkit. precautionary mitigation to avoid explore alternative Identify additional mitigation Responsible Dept(s): Implement potential threshold exceedance hypotheses/actions. measures to avert or reduce plan to address potential mine- unforeseen environmental during the next open water Responsible Dept(s): Implement 3 related inputs and sources. effects season . plan to address mine-related inputs and sources during the next open water season3. Env’t Dept: Weight of evidence evaluation / risk assessment; evaluate need for and specifics of Env’t Dept: Conduct further Env’t Dept: Conduct temporal increased monitoring as required investigation to confirm cause is trend analysis; confirm site to further assess mine consistent with results of specific relevance of threshold; contribution; evaluate and Mine-related changes that results investigation conducted under determine next steps as part of implement most appropriate Water and Sediment in one or more parameters the moderate risk response Mine-related changes below annual reporting. action(s) from the AEMP Action Quality exceeding the AEMP benchmarks Establish if moderate risk action; evaluate and implement AEMP benchmarks and/or within Toolkit if trend analysis suggests and/or concentration(s) observed condition status is reached. Responsible Dept(s): Implement most appropriate action(s) from AEMP benchmarks baseline or reference condition. continued increase; develop high during baseline and at an precautionary mitigation to avoid the AEMP Action Level Toolkit. applicable reference area. potential threshold exceedance risk response threshold as part of Detect short-term and long-term Responsible Dept(s): Implement during the next open water annual reporting. effects of the Project’s activities plan to address potential mine- season3. Responsible Dept(s): Implement on the aquatic environment related inputs and sources. Multiple plan to address mine-related Core resulting from the Project stressors (dust, inputs and sources during the Receiving Evaluate the accuracy of impact 3 sedimentation, next open water season . Environment predictions mine and Monitoring Env’t Dept: Weight of evidence Assess the effectiveness of sewage effluent Program evaluation / risk assessment; planned mitigation measures discharges, (CREMP) evaluate need for and specifics of Identify additional mitigation habitat effects) increased monitoring; evaluate Env’t Dept: Conduct further Env’t Dept: Conduct temporal measures to avert or reduce and implement most appropriate investigation to confirm cause is trend analysis; confirm site unforeseen environmental action(s) from the AEMP Action consistent with results of specific relevance of threshold; effects Toolkit if trend analysis suggests investigation conducted under determine next steps as part of >3.7 μg/L (maintain oligotrophic continued increase; evaluate the moderate risk response Phytoplankton annual reporting. <3.7 μg/L (maintain oligotrophic status) that does not reflect a Establish if moderate risk benchmark and condition of BMI action; evaluate and implement Chlorophyll a status) similar change at an applicable condition status is reached. Responsible Dept(s): Implement community to assess ecological most appropriate action(s) from reference area. precautionary mitigation to avoid effects; develop high risk the AEMP Action Level Toolkit. potential threshold exceedance response threshold and action(s) Responsible Dept(s): Implement during the next open water as part of annual reporting. plan to address potential mine- season3. Responsible Dept(s): Implement related inputs and sources. plan to address mine-related inputs and sources during the next open water season3. Monitoring Performance Activity Being Condition Status / Threshold Pre-defined Response(s) Objective Plan Indicators Monitored Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk Benthic Invertebrates Critical Effects Sizes: Benthic endpoint at mine- exposed area significantly Density: ± 2 SD of Benthic endpoint at mine- different from reference area baseline or reference exposed area significantly (ρ <0.1) but at a magnitude within mean different from (ρ <0.1), and at a Critical Effect Size(s), or Establish if moderate risk magnitude outside of Critical Simpson’s Evenness significantly different from condition status is reached. Effects Size(s), compared to Index: ± 2 SD of baseline reference area at a magnitude Env’t Dept: Weight of evidence reference area, for two or reference mean outside of Critical Effect Size(s) in evaluation / risk assessment; consecutive assessments. Taxa Richness: ± 2 SD of one and/or non-consecutive evaluate need for and specifics of Env’t Dept: Conduct temporal increased monitoring as required Env’t Dept: Conduct further Detect short-term and long-term baseline or reference studies. trend analysis; confirm site to further assess mine investigation to confirm cause is effects of the Project’s activities mean Multiple specific relevance of threshold; contribution; evaluate and consistent with results of Core on the aquatic environment Critical Effects Sizes for stressors (dust, determine next steps and implement most appropriate investigation conducted under Receiving resulting from the Project Arctic char health: sedimentation, implement timeline as part of action(s) from the AEMP Action the moderate risk response Environment Evaluate the accuracy of impact Total body weight at age: mine and annual reporting. Toolkit if trend analysis suggests action; evaluate and implement Monitoring predictions ± 25% of baseline or sewage effluent continued increase; develop high most appropriate action(s) from Program Responsible Dept(s): Implement Assess the effectiveness of reference mean discharges, risk response threshold and the AEMP Action Level Toolkit. (CREMP) Fish health endpoint at mine- next steps and/or precautionary planned mitigation measures action(s) as part of annual Total body weight at habitat effects exposed area significantly Fish health endpoint at mine- mitigation to avoid potential Responsible Dept(s): Implement reporting. Identify additional mitigation length (condition): -10% different from reference area exposed area significantly threshold exceedance during the plan to address potential mine- measures to avert or reduce of baseline reference (ρ <0.1) but within Critical Effect different from (ρ <0.1), and at a next open water season3. Responsible Dept(s): Implement related inputs and sources. Establish if moderate risk unforeseen environmental mean Size(s), or significantly different magnitude outside of Critical plan to address mine-related condition status is reached. inputs and sources during the effects Relative abundance of from reference area at a Effect Size(s), compared to next open water season3. YOY (% composition of magnitude outside of Critical reference area, for two YOY) OR relative age- Effect Size(s) in one and/or non- consecutive assessments. class strength: ± 25% of consecutive studies. baseline or reference mean Age: ± 25% of reference mean Fish Passage Fish presence/absence Water crossings Addressed in the Surface Water and Aquatic Ecosystem Management Plan Monitoring

NOTES: 1. A Hg fish tissue study is required if the annual mean concentration of Hg in effluent >0.10 µg/L, unless (i) the results of the previous two biological monitoring studies indicate no effect on fish tissue from mercury, or (ii) the method detection limit used in respect of mercury for the analysis of at least two of four effluent samples in a calendar year is equal to or greater than 0.10 µg/L. 2. A Se fish tissue study is required if the annual mean concentration of Se in effluent is >5 µg/L and/or the grab sample Se concentration is >10 µg/L. 3. Subject to feasibility and regulatory approval as identified during the evaluation of next steps.

Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal

ATTACHMENT 2 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION SCHEMATIC

March 2021

AEMP Action Level “Toolkit” • Source dust control o Redesign engineering controls. o Spray (or respray piles) with approved dust suppressant. o Research for alternate dust suppression products. o Evaluate surface watering and sprinkler system options via mister trucks or trailers. o Where applicable, install or redesign conveyor shrouding for fugitive dust. o Further evaluate blasting practices. o Conduct review of new technology and solutions available on the market for dust control. • Erosion and sedimentation control o Stabilize eroding surfaces with rip rap or other measures. o Install sediment control infrastructure (i.e. check dams). o Explore redesign of water conveyance structures and culverts. o Construct diversion ditches or berms. o Direct non-contact water away from site infrastructure. o Conduct review of new technology and solution available on the market for erosion and sedimentation control. • Water management o Assess potential use and effectiveness of batch water treatment with reagents, and/or flocculants. o Construct water management structures (i.e. additional settlement ponds, dams etc.). o Install stream specific water treatment plant. o Implement alternate water treatment technologies (e.g., permeable reactive barriers). • Progressive reclamation o Explore options for temporary vegetation of disturbed land. • Reduction or cessation of activity o Adapt production rate to environmental conditions. • Compensation under ICA or WCA.

Adaptive Management Implementation Flow Charts High Risk Thresholds, Responses and Investigations Adaptive Management – Moderate and High Risk Thresholds Set Marine Wildlife Monitoring

Plan Evaluate and Learn Objective: Avoid large-scale Review Data: Does monitoring displacement of narwhal Implement & Monitor indicate thresholds have been Adjust Indicator: Stock abundance and Mitigate: Implementation of passed. Example, >25% decrease Mitigate: Implement behavioural response transit restrictions and ship in stock size and sustained Yes, Year 2 appropriate high risk Monitoring Program: Aerial survey speed limits avoidance observed (high risk) response action and tagging program Monitor: Aerial survey and Input from IQ holders: Inuit Monitor: Aerial survey and Threshold: Predetermined tagging program Committee reviews and provides tagging program moderate and high risk thresholds input set Threshold Thresholds not Passed, passed, Year 1, Year 1 Year 2

Investigate Reset AMP cycle with existing Investigate: Establish objectives, indicators, thresholds occurrence in two and monitoring programs consecutive monitoring programs, through regular This shows the flow of decision making monitoring or a special study. Reset AMP cycle with modified when monitoring against a pre-established objectives, indicators thresholds high risk threshold, which could trigger a and monitoring programs project activity scale down or suspension Note: i.e. reduction in maximum allowance of This is an example using non-Inuit objectives, indicators, thresholds and responses; QIA is responsible for driving those examples. vessels or seasonal restrictions in shipping A similar process would be carried out if a moderate threshold was hit as confirmation is required. Adaptive Management – High Risk Thresholds Developed Through Investigation Marine Environmental Effects Monitoring Program

Thresholds not passed, Year 1, Plan Year 2 Reset AMP cycle with existing Objective: Prevent and avoid Evaluate and Learn objectives, indicators, thresholds adverse effects on the marine Implement and Monitor Review Data: Does monitoring and monitoring programs environment Mitigate: Dust and effluent indicate moderate threshold has Indicator: Benthic infauna Management at Milne Port been passed. Monitoring Program: Marine Monitor: Marine Input from IQ holders: Inuit Environmental Effects Monitoring Environmental Effects Committee reviews and provides Investigate Program (MEEMP) Monitoring Program input Evaluate existing and new High-Level Threshold: TBD Threshold mitigations options against Risk Evaluation with QIA/IC Threshold Passed, Passed, Year 2 Year 1

Investigate Adjust Mitigate: Implement appropriate Mitigate: Implement High-Risk moderate risk response action Response Investigate: Continue scheduled Monitor: MEEMP monitoring. Initiate component specific targeted study to This shows the flow of decision making determine Project relationship when an effect must be observed at a low and pathway of effect. Conduct risk evaluation for Reset AMP cycle with modified or moderate threshold before a high risk determining high-level threshold. objectives, indicators thresholds threshold can be established. This will be and monitoring programs required in areas where there is not Notes: This is an example using non-Inuit objectives, indicators, thresholds and responses; QIA is responsible for driving sufficient understanding of the effect to those examples. The figure is provided to illustrate how high-risk thresholds and corresponding responses would be determined if establish a threshold moderate risk thresholds are met. ᐋᕿᒋᐊᕐᕕᖃᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᓂᖅ ᐃᓕᓯᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᖓᓃᑦ ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓇᓪᓚᕆᒃᑐᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑐᖃᖅᑳᖅᑎᓐᓇᒍ ᑭᒡᓖᑦ, ᑭᐅᔾᔪᑏᑦ, ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᓪᓗ ᐋᕿᒋᐊᕐᕕᖃᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᓂᖅ–ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᕿᑎᐊᓃᑉᐸ ᖁᕝᕙᓯᒃᑐᐊᓘᒃᐸᓪᓗ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑐᖃᖅᑳᖅᑎᓐᓇᒍ ᑭᒡᓕᐅᔪᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᒃᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑕᕆᐅᑉ ᐆᒪᔪᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᖅ

ᐸᕐᓇᐅᑎ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᐃᓂᖅ ᐃᓕᑦᑎᓂᕐᓗ ᑐᕌᒐᖅ: ᐅᐸᒃᑕᐃᓕᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᖏᔪᓂᒃ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓗᒋᑦ ᓴᖅᑭᑦᑐᑦ: ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕐᓗᒍ ᐃᓃᖅᓯᓕᖅᐸᑕ ᑑᒑᓕᖕᓂᒃ ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐃᓐᓇᕈᑏᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᕚᑦ ᐊᒃᑐᐃᓗᐊᖅᑕᐃᓂᔾᔪᑎᒍ: ᖃᐅᔨᔾᔪᑎ: ᑑᒑᓖᑦ ᐅᓄᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐃᓐᓇᓂᖅ ᖃᓄᐃᓪᓕᔪᖃᖅᑳᖅᑎᓐᓇᒍ ᑭᒡᓕᐅᔪᑦ ᐃᓕᓯᓗᑎᒃ ᓈᒻᒪᒃᑐᒥᒃ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᖏᑕᓗ ᐅᒥᐊᕐᔪᐊᑉ ᐊᖅᑯᑎᖓ ᐱᐊᓂᒃᑕᐅᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ, ᓲᕐᓗ >25% ᐄ, ᐊᕐᕌᒍ 2 ᖁᕝᕙᓯᒃᑐᐊᓗᖕᒥᒃ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᖓᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᑭᐅᔾᔪᑎᒋᓗᒍ ᐃᓱᒪᖅᓱᕐᓇᖏᓐᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᐅᒥᐊᕐᔪᐊᓪᓗ ᐅᓄᕈᓐᓃᖅᐸᓪᓕᕐᓂᖓ ᐅᓄᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᐊᑦᑕᕐᓇᖅᑐᒦᓐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᑲᐅᔨᓴᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᖅ: ᖃᖓᑕᔫᒃᑯᑦ ᓱᒃᑲᓂᖓ ᓱᒃᑲᐃᒡᓕᒋᐊᓗᒍ ᐱᑕᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᒋᐊᕈᑎᒥᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐃᓂᖅ ᓂᕕᖓᑖᓕᖅᓯᓂᕐᓗ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓗᒍ: ᖃᖓᑕᓲᒃᑯᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐃᓂᖅ ᐅᐸᒃᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᖏᓐᓂᖏᑦ ᑲᔪᓯᔪᖅ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓗᒍ: : ᑲᖓᑕᔪᒃᑯᑦ ᓴᙱᓂᖅ: ᖃᐅᔨᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᕙᒌᖅᑐᑦ ᓂᕕᖓᑖᖅᓕᖅᓯᓂᕐᓗ (ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓇᖅᑐᒦᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ ᖁᕝᕙᓯᒃᑯᖅ) ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐃᓂᖅ ᓂᕕᖓᑖᓕᖅᓯᓂᕐᓗ ᕿᑎᐊᓃᑦᑐᖅ ᖁᕝᕙᓯᒃᑐᐊᓗᖕᒥᓪᓗ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᑐᖃᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑐᖃᖅᑲᖅᑎᓐᓇᒍ ᑭᒡᓕᐅᔪᑦ ᑐᓴᕆᐊᕐᓗᓂ: ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᖏᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᒃᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᐃᔪᑦ ᑐᓴᖅᑎᑦᑎᔪᓪᓗ

ᓴᙱᓂᖅ ᓴᙱᓂᖅ ᑲᔪᓯᔪᖅ, ᐊᕐᕌᒍ ᑲᔪᓯᖏᑦᑐᖅ, ᐊᕐᕌᒍ 1 1, ᐊᕐᕌᒍ 2

ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓗᒍ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᕐᓗᒍ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕐᕕᖃᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓗᒋᑦ: ᓴᖅᑭᑦᑏᓗᓂ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐸᕐᓇᐅᑎᑦ ᐅᓪᓗᕆᕙᒃᑕᖏᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᖓᓂᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᒪᕐᕉᖕᓄᑦ ᒫᓐᓇ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖕᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᔾᔪᑏᑦ, ᑲᔪᓯᔪᓂᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ, ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑐᖃᖅᑳᖅᑎᓐᓇᒍ ᑭᒡᓕᐅᔪᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᑐᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᑯᓚᐃᓕᕇᑦ ᖃᐅᓯᓴᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᓕᕆᐊᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐃᓐᓇᖅᑕᐅᔾᔪᑏᑦ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᑕᑯᖅᑯᔾᔨᕗᖅ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᖅᖢᑎᒃ ᑐᕌᖓᔪᒧᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐱᕙᖕᒪᖔᑕ ᓴᖅᑭᓯᒪᕙᒌᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐃᓂᖅᒥᒃ. ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᕐᓗᒍ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕐᕕᖃᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᖁᕝᕙᓯᓛᖅ ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓇᕐᓂᖓᑕ ᓴᙱᓂᖓ, ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐸᕐᓇᐅᑎ ᐅᓪᓗᕆᕙᒃᑕᖏᑦ ᒫᓐᓇ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖓ, ᖃᐅᔨᔾᔪᑏᑦ, ᓴᙱᓂᖓ ᐊᒃᑐᐃᒐᔭᖅᑐᖅ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖅ ᑲᑦᑐᖅᑎᑕᐅᓗᓂ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᓗ ᓄᖅᑲᖅᑎᑕᐅᓗᓂᓗᓐᓃᑦ ᓲᕐᓗ ᐅᒥᐊᕐᔪᐊᑦ ᐅᓄᕈᓐᓃᖅᑎᑕᐅᒋᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᐅᒥᐊᕐᔪᐊᖅᑕᖃᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᖓᓗ ᐅᔾᔨᕆᒍᑦ: ᑕᑯᖅᑯᔾᔨᔪᖅ ᐃᓄᖕᓄᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐃᔾᔪᑎᖏᒎᖏᑦᑐᒥᒃ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᖅᖢᑎᒃ, ᖃᐅᔨᔾᔪᑎᖃᖅᖢᑎᒃ, ᓴᙱᓂᖃᖅᖢᑎᒃ ᐃᓱᒪᖅᓱᕐᓇᕈᓐᓃᖅᑎᑕᐅᓗᓂ. ᑭᐅᔾᔪᑎᖃᖅᖢᑎᒡᓗ; ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓃᒃᑯ ᐱᔭᒃᓴᕆᔭᖃᖅᐳᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓂᖓ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᖓᒐᔭᕐᓂᖓᓄᒃ ᑕᑯᙳᐊᕈᑎᒥᒃ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇᓪᓗᐊᖅ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐅᑎ ᐊᐅᓚᓂᖃᕋᔭᕐᒪᑦ ᕿᑎᐊᓃᑦᑐᒥᒃ ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓇᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᓴᙱᓂᖓ ᓱᓕᓐᓂᖅᐸᖅ ᐱᔭᕆᐊᖃᕋᔭᕐᒪᑕ. ᐋᕿᒋᐊᕐᕕᖃᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᓂᖅ–ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᕿᑎᐊᓃᑉᐸ ᖁᕝᕙᓯᒃᑐᐊᓘᒃᐸᓪᓗ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑐᖃᖅᑳᖅᑎᓐᓇᒍ ᑭᒡᓕᐅᔪᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᒃᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑕᕆᐅᑉ ᐊᕙᑎᖓᓂᑦ ᐆᒪᔪᓂᒃ ᑲᐅᔨᓴᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᖅ

ᓴᙱᓂᖅ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᕐᓗᒍ ᐸᕐᓇᐅᑎ ᑲᔪᓯᖏᑦᑐᖅ, ᐊᕐᕌᒍ 1, ᐊᕐᕌᒍ 2 ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕐᕕᖃᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᑐᕌᒐᖅ: ᐊᒃᑐᐃᑎᑦᑎᑦᑕᐃᓕᒪᓂᖅ ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓕᕝᕕᒋᓗᒍ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐸᕐᓇᐅᑎ ᐅᓪᓗᒃᓴᖏᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐃᓐᓇᓂᖅ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓗᒋᑦ ᓴᖅᑭᑦᑐᑦ: ᒫᓐᓇ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖓ, ᖃᐅᔨᔾᔪᑏᑦ, ᐊᒃᑐᐃᓂᕐᓗᒃᑕᐅᑦᑕᐃᓕᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕐᓗᒍ:ᐳᔪᖅ ᐃᒥᖅ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐃᓐᓇᕈᑎᑦ ᓇᓗᓴᐃᖅᓯᕚᑦ ᓴᙱᓂᖓ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᓗ ᑕᒪᐅᖓ ᑕᕆᐅᑉ ᐊᕙᑎᖓᓄᑦ ᓴᓗᒻᒪᖅᓴᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᐊᐅᓚᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᕿᑎᐊᓃᑉᐸᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑐᖃᖅᑳᖅᑎᓐᓇᒍ ᖃᐅᔨᔾᔪᑏᑦ: ᐃᖅᑲᖓᓂᑦ ᐱᕈᖅᑐᑦ ᕿᙳᐊᑕ ᑐᓚᒃᑕᕐᕕᖓᓂᑦ ᑭᒡᓕᐅᔪᑦ ᖄᖏᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᕚᑦ. ᑲᐅᔨᓴᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᖅ: ᑕᕆᐅᑉ ᐊᕙᑎᖓᓄ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐃᓂ: ᑕᕆᐅᑉ ᐊᕙᑎᖓᑕ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᑐᖃᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓗᒍ ᐅᒃᑐᐃᔪᓂᒃ ᑲᐅᔨᓴᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᖅ ᐊᒃᑐᖅᑕᐅᔾᔪᑎᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᑐᓴᕆᐊᕐᓗᓂ: ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᖏᑦ ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᔪᑦ ᓄᑖᓪᓗ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐅᑏᑦ ᖁᕝᕙᓯᒃᑐᐊᓗᖕᒥ ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓇᖅᑐᓄᑦ ᑲᐅᔨᓴᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᖅ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᐃᔪᑦ ᑐᓴᖅᑎᑦᑎᔪᓪᓗ ᖃᐅᔨᒋᐊᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᓂᕈᐅᕈᓐᓇᕐᓗᓂ ᓴᙱᓂᖅ: ᐅᓪᓗᓕᖅᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᓕᒃ ᓴᙱᓂᖅ ᑲᔪᓯᔪᖅ, ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓇᖅᑐᒧᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐅᑎᒃᓴᓂᒃ ᐊᕐᕌᒍ 2 ᓴᙱᓂᖅ ᑲᔪᓯᔪᖅ, ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓃᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᓪᓗ ᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᖏᑦ ᐊᕐᕌᒍ 1

ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓗᒍ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕐᓗᒍ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕐᓗᒍ: ᐃᓕᓯᓗᓂ ᐊᒃᑐᐃᓗᐊᔾᔭᐃᒃᑯᑎ: ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ ᓈᒻᒪᒃᓯᓕᕈᑎᒃᓴᒧᑦ ᕿᑎᐊᓃᓪᓗᓂ ᖁᕝᕙᓯᒃᑐᒥᒃ ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓇᕐᓂᖓᑕ ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓇᕐᓂᖓ ᐱᒋᐊᕈᑎᒃᓴᒥᒃ ᑭᐅᔭᐅᒋᐊᕐᓂᖓ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓗᒍ: ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓂᖓ ᑲᐅᔨᓴᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᖅ:ᑕᕆᐅᑉ ᐊᕙᑎᖓᓄ ᑲᔪᓰᓐᓇᕐᓗᓂ. ᐱᒋᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᓗᓂ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᑐᓕᕆᓂᖅ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᑕᑯᖅᑯᔾᔨᔪᖅ ᐃᓱᒪᓕᐅᕈᑕᔾᔪᑕᐅᓇᔭᖅᑐᓄᑦ ᑐᕌᒐᖃᓪᓚᕆᒃᑐᒥᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᔪᒧᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒋᐊᕐᓗᒍ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖅ ᐊᒃᑐᐃᓃᑦ ᑕᑯᔭᐅᓇᔭᕐᓂᖅᐸᑕ ᐊᒃᐸᓯᒃᑐᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐊᒃᑐᐃᓂᖃᕐᒪᖔᑦ ᐊᒃᑐᖅᑕᐅᔾᔪᑎᒧᑦ ᕿᑎᐊᓃᑉᐸᑕ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑐᖃᖅᑳᖅᑎᓐᓇᒍ ᑭᒡᓕᐅᔪᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓗᓂᓗ ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓇᕐᓂᖓ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᕐᓗᒍ ᖁᕝᕙᓯᒃᑐᐊᓗᖕᒥ ᓴᙱᓂᖃᕐᒪᖔᑦ. ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕐᕕᖃᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᐃᒪᐃᖅᑳᖅᑎᓐᓇᒋᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑐᖃᖅᑳᖅᑎᓐᓇᒍ ᑭᒡᓕᐅᔪᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐸᕐᓇᐅᑎ ᐅᓪᓗᒃᓴᖏᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᒃᑕᐅᓚᐅᖅᑎᓐᓇᒋᑦ. ᐱᑕᖃᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᖅ ᒫᓐᓇ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖓ, ᖃᐅᔨᔾᔪᑏᑦ, ᐃᓂᓂᑦ ᐱᑕᖃᑦᑎᐊᙱᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᓃᑦ ᓴᙱᓂᖓ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᓗ ᐅᔾᔨᕆᒍᑦ: ᐊᒃᑐᐃᓂᕐᓄᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓯᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑐᖃᖅᑳᖅᑎᓐᓇᒍ ᑕᑯᖅᑯᔾᔨᔪᖅ ᐃᓄᖕᓄᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐃᔾᔪᑎᖏᒎᖏᑦᑐᒥᒃ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᖅᖢᑎᒃ, ᖃᐅᔨᔾᔪᑎᖃᖅᖢᑎᒃ, ᓴᙱᓂᖃᖅᖢᑎᒃ ᑭᒡᓕᐅᔪᓂᒃ. ᑭᐅᔾᔪᑎᖃᖅᖢᑎᒡᓗ; ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓃᒃᑯ ᐱᔭᒃᓴᕆᔭᖃᖅᐳᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓂᖓ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᖓᒐᔭᕐᓂᖓᓄᒃ ᑕᑯᙳᐊᕈᑎᒥᒃ. . ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᑕᑯᙳᐊᕈᑎᐅᕗᖅ ᖃᐅᔨᑎᑦᑎᓇᓱᒃᖢᓂ ᖁᕝᕙᓯᒃᑐᐊᓗᖕᒥ ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓇᖅᑐᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᓴᙱᓂᐅᔪᖅ ᑭᐅᒋᐊᕈᑏᓪᓗ ᖃᐅᔨᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᓕᕋᔭᖅᖢᑎᒃ ᕿᑎᐊᓃᑦᑐᒧᑦ ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓇᕐᓂᖓ ᓴᙱᓂᖃᓕᖅᐸᑦ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ. Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal

ATTACHMENT 3 PROPOSED ROLE OF ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUPS AND INUIT COMMITTEE IN ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING

March 2021

Decision Making Flow Charts Environmental Working Groups and Inuit Committees WG Consensus Based WG ToR Recommendation Recommendation Process Consensus Based Submitted Decision Making

IC in Adaptive This shows how consensus based decisions Recommendations coming from the Environmental Working Management Groups related to adaptive management Baffinland BIMC Evaluation of would flow through the Inuit Committee’s accept Baffinland Recommendation Implements before final direction is confirmed and Response Baffinland reject Mitigation Not Baffinland Rejects Mitigation Consistent with with Alternative Consistent with Approved AMP Proposal Approved AMP

QIA/IC Review and Final QIA/IC Review Recommendation Baffinland Baffinland QIA/IC QIA/IC reject accept reject accept QIA / Inuit Baffinland BIM Provides Baffinland Committee Review Implement Alternative Proposal Implements QIA/IC QIA/IC Baffinland Baffinland QIA/IC QIA/IC reject accept reject accept reject accept Baffinland / QIA Inuit Update to Baffinland Arbitration Committee Agree NIRB/regulator Arbitration AMP Implements on Alternative Mitigation WG Consensus Based Recommendation Consensus Based Submitted This shows how consensus based decisions Decision Making coming from the Environmental Working WG Consensus Based in Monitoring Recommendation Groups related to monitoring would flow Submitted through the Inuit Committee’s before final direction is confirmed IC Recommendations

BIMC Response & Final Recommendations on Monitoring Baffinland Baffinland reject accept WG / IC Consider Rationale / BIMC Implements Alternative Proposal IC/WG Reject IC/WG Accepts BIM Alternative BIM Alternative NIRB / Baffinland Regulator Implements Inuit Committee Roles in Adaptive Management Planning

PLAN IMPLEMENT

QIA / Communities BIM adjusts QIA Approval of Inuit Committees BIM Establish develop low, medium, Adaptive Adaptive Inuit Implements Committees high risk thresholds Management Plan Management Plan

Inuit Committees develop and BIM monitors for run programs for scientific thresholds (with Inuit EVALUATE Monitoring Inuit thresholds Involvement)

QIA/Inuit Committees Receive QIA and BIM results and recommendations gets results (see Working Group process) This is a simplified flow chart showing how the Inuit Committees will influence adaptive management through the Evaluate against AMP proposed planning, implementation, evaluation and adjustment cycle Continue Continue Action needed Action needed ADJUST Monitoring Monitoring ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒌᒍᑕᐅᓇᓱᒃᑐᒧᑦ ᑐᙵᕕᒃ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᖓᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᑕᑯᖅᑯᔾᔨᔾᔪᑎ ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑎᒌᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓄᐃ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᖏᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑎᒌᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖏᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑎᒌᑦ ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒌᒐᓱᖕᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᑐᙵᕕᖓ ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᑐᓂᔭᐅᓯᒪᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒌᒐᓱᖕᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑐᙵᕕᒃ ᐋᕿᒋᐊᕐᕕᖃᐃᓐᓇᕐᓗᓂ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᑕᑯᖅᑯᔾᔨᕗᖅ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᖏᑕ ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔭᖏᑦ ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒌᓕᖅᐸᖕᒪᖔᑕ ᐊᕙᓕᑎᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑎᒌᒃᑯᓐᓂᖔᖅᖢᓂ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᖅᖢᑎᒃ ᐋᕿᒋᐊᕐᕕᖃᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐹᕙᓪᓛᓐᑯᑦ ᐹᕙᓐᓛᓐᑯᑦ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᐃᔾᔪᑎᖏᑦ ᑲᔪᓯᑎᑦᑎᔪᑦ ᐹᕙᓐᓛᓐᑯᑦ ᑐᓂᔭᐅᓯᒪᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔭᐅᔾᔪᑎᓂᒃ ᐃᓕᓯᒋᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᑭᖑᓪᓕᖅᐹᒥ ᑲᔪᓯᑎᑕᐅᒋᐊᓚᐅᖏᓐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑭᐅᔾᔪᑎᖏᓪᓗ ᐹᕙᓐᓛᓐᑯᑦ ᑲᔪᓯᑎᑦᑎᖏᑦᑐᑦ

ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᓂᖓ ᒪᓕᒃᓯᒪᖏᑦᑐᖅ ᐹᕙᓐᓛᓐᑯᑦ ᑲᔪᓯᑎᑦᑎᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᓂᖓ ᒪᓕᒃᑐᖅ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕐᕕᖃᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᓂᕈᐊᒐᒃᓴᖔᒥ ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓯᒪᔪᒥᒃ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕐᕕᖃᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᖏᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ ᑐᒃᓯᕋᐅᑎᖃᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᖏᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ

ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓃᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᓪᓗ ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓃᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᓪᓗ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᖏᑦ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᔪᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᖏᑦᕿ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᔪᑦ ᑭᖑᓪᓕᖅᐹᒥᓪᓗ ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔨᔪᑦ

ᐹᕙᓐᓛᓐᑯᑦ ᐹᕙᓪᓛᓐᑯᑦ ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓃᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᓪᓗ ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓃᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᓪᓗ ᑲᔪᓯᑎᑦᑎᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᑲᔪᓯᑎᑦᑎᔪᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᖏᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᖏᑦ ᑲᔪᓯᑎᑦᑎᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᑲᔪᓯᑎᑦᑎᔪᑦ

ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓃᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᓪᓗ ᐹᕙᓐᓛᓐᑯᑦ ᐹᕙᓐᓛᓐᑯᑦ ᑐᓂᓯᔪᑦ ᓂᕈᐊᒐᒃᓴᖔᒥ ᐹᕙᓐᓛᓐᑯᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᖏᑦ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᔪᑦ ᐃᓕᓯᒋᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓯᒪᔪᒥᒃ ᑐᒃᓯᕋᐅᑎᖃᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓕᓯᒋᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓃᒃᑯᑦ ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓃᒃᑯᑦ ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓃᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᓪᓗ ᐃᓄᐃᓪᓗ ᐃᓄᐃᓪᓗ ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓃᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᓪᓗ ᐹᕙᓪᓛᓐᑯᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᖏᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᖏᑦ ᐹᕙᓐᓛᓐᑯᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᖏᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᖏᑦ ᑲᔪᓯᑎᑦᑎᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᑲᔪᓯᑎᑦᑎᔪᑦ ᑲᔪᓯᑎᑦᑎᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᑲᔪᓯᑎᑦᑎᔪᑦ ᑲᔪᓯᑎᑦᑎᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᑲᔪᓯᑎᑦᑎᔪᑦ

ᐹᕙᓐᓛᓐ/ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓃᒃᑯᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯ ᐋᑭᒋᐊᑎᖅᑕᐅᓗᓂ ᐹᕙᓐᓛᓐᑯᑦ ᐋᔩᖃᑎᖃᕆᐊᓕᕐᓂᖅ ᐋᔩᖃᑎᖃᕆᐊᓕᕐᓂᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᖏᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓪᓗ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕐᕕᖃᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᐃᓕᓯᒋᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᖏᕈᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐸᕐᓇᐅᑎ ᓂᕈᐊᖅᓯᓗᑎᒃ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᐊᓛᑦ ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒌᒍᓐᓇᕐᓂᒥᒃ ᑐᙵᕕᖃᖅᖢᑎᒃ ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔭᖓᑦ ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒌᒐᓱᖕᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᑕᑯᖅᑯᔾᔨᕗᖅ ᖃᓄᖅ ᑐᙵᕕᒃ

ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒌᓕᖅᐸᖕᒪᖔᑕ ᐊᕙᓕᑎᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᐊᓛᑦ ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒌᒍᓐᓇᕐᓂᒥᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᑐᙵᕕᖃᖅᖢᑎᒃ ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔭᖓᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᐊᓛᓂᖔᖅᖢᓂ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᖅᖢᑎᒃ ᑐᓂᔭᐅᔪᖅ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᖃᓅᓇᔭᕐᒪᖔᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᑭᖑᓪᓕᖅᐹᒥ ᑲᔪᓯᑎᑕᐅᒋᐊᓚᐅᖏᓐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᖏᑕ ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔭᖓ

ᐹᕙᓐᓛᓐᑯᑦ ᑭᐅᔾᔪᑎᖓ ᑭᖑᓪᓕᖅᐹᒥᓪᓗ ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔭᖓ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ

ᐹᕙᓐᓛᓐᑯᑦ ᑲᔪᓯᑎᙱᑕᖓ ᐹᕙᓐᓛᓐᑯᑦ ᑲᔪᓯᑎᑕᖓ

ᑲᑎᒪᔨᐊᓛᑦ/ᐃᓄᐃᓪᓗ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᖏᑕ ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᕈᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᒥᒃ/ ᐹᕙᓪᓛᓐᑯᓐᓂ ᓂᕈᐊᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᑐᒃᓯᕋᐅᑎ ᐃᓕᔭᐅᒋᐊᖅᑐᖅ

ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᖏᓐᓄᑦ/ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᐊᓛᓪᓗ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᖏᓐᓄᑦ/ ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑎᒌᓄᓪᓗ ᑲᔪᓯᑎᑕᐅᖏᑦᑐᖅ ᐹᕙᓐᓛᓐᑯᑦ ᓂᕈᐊᖅᑕᐅᔪᒃᓴᓕᐊᖓ ᑲᔪᓯᑎᑕᐅᔪᖅ ᐹᕙᓐᓛᓐᑯᑦ ᓂᕈᐊᖅᑕᐅᔪᒃᓴᓕᐊᖓ

ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯ ᐹᕙᓪᓛᓐᑯᓐᓂ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓪᓗ ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᑕᐅᔪᖅ /ᒪᓕᒐᓕᕆᔩᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᖏᑕ ᐋᕿᒋᐊᕐᕕᖃᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐸᕐᓇᐃᔾᔪᑎ ᐸᕐᓇᐅᑎ ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᑕᐅᓂᖓ

ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᖏᑦ ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓃᒃᑯᑦ/ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᓪᓗ ᓴᖅᑭᑦᑎᓗᑎᒃ ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓇᕐᓂᐅᑉ ᐹᕙᓐᓛᓐᑯᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᓯᓗᑎᒃ ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓃᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᔪᓯᑎᑦᑎᓗᑎᒃ ᐹᕙᓐᓛᓐᑯᑦ ᐱᖑᖅᑎᑦᑎᓗᑎᒃ ᓴᖏᓂᖓ ᐊᑖᓃᓛᖅ, ᐋᕿᒋᐊᕐᕕᖃᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᐋᕿᒋᐊᕐᕕᖃᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᑦᑎᓗᑎᒃ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᕿᑎᐊᓃᑦᑐᖅ ᖁᕝᕙᓯᓛᕐᓗ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐸᕐᓇᐅᑎᒥᒃ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐸᕐᓇᐅᑎᒥᒃ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑎᖃᑳᖅᑎᓐᓇᒍ ᑭᒡᓖᑦ

ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᖏᑦ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᓗᑎᒃ ᐹᕙᓐᓛᓐᑯᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᐅᓚᓪᓗᒍ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓄᖓ ᑭᒡᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑐᖃᖅᑳᖅᑎᓐᓇᖑ

ᕿᒥᕐᕈᐃᓂᖅ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᑦᒧ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖏᑦ ᑮᒡᓕᐅᔪᑦ (ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᓚᐅᓗᑎᒃ) ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑐᖃᖅᑳᖅᑎᓐᓇᒍ ᑭᒡᓕᐅᔪᓂᒃ

ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓃᒃᑯᑦ/ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᖏᑦ ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓃᒃᑯᑦ ᐹᕙᓐᓛᓐᑯᓪᓗ ᑐᓂᔭᐅᓗᑎᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᔭᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᐅᑎᕐᕕᐅᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔭᐅᔪᓂᒡᓗ (ᑕᑯᓗᒍ ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑎᒌᓄᑦ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᐅᔭᕆᐊᓕᒃ) ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᑕᑯᖅᑯᔾᔨᕗᖅ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᖏᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᓯᕙᖕᒪᖔᑕ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓗᒍ ᐊᑐᕋᓗᐊᕐᒪᖔᑦ ᐋᕿᒋᐊᕐᕕᖃᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᓂᒥᒃ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕐᕕᖃᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᑐᒃᓯᕋᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᒃᑯᑦ ᐸᕐᓇᐃᓂᕐᒥᒃ, ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐸᕐᓇᐅᑎᒥᒃ ᐃᓕᓯᒋᐊᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ, ᕿᒥᕐᕈᐃᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᓂ ᐋᖅᑮᒋᐊᖅᓯᓂᕐᒥᓪᓗ ᖓ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐃᓂᖅ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕆᐊᖃᓕᖅᑐᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐃᓂᖅ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕆᐊᖃᓕᖅᑐᑦ ᑲᔪᓰᓐᓇᕐᓂᖅ ᑲᔪᓰᓐᓇᕐᓂᖅ Mary River Project Phase 2 Proposal

ATTACHMENT 4 OCTOBER 2020 WORKING GROUP TERMS OF REFERENCE UPDATE

March 2021

MARINE ENVIRONMENT WORKING GROUP

TERMS OF REFERENCE

NOTE:

This updated Marine Environment Working Group (MEWG) Terms of Reference (ToR) (Attachment 1) is being provided consistent with Commitment 164, and as an updated response to Technical Comments, QIA-01, DFO 3.4 NEW, PCA-02 and WWF-FWS-03.

This iteration of the Working Group ToR reflects comments received by Working Group Members and Observers on previous versions of the ToR. Copies of all comments received by Working Group members on a previous version of this ToR have been included as Attachment 2. Baffinland has provided an updated ToR only for the MEWG, but notes that it is Baffinland’s intention to have a consistent ToR among both the Terrestrial and Marine Environment Working Groups. Once this version has been reviewed and general agreement among Working Group members on the content of the ToR has been provided, Baffinland will issue a Final ToR for both the MEWG and TEWG.

2275 Upper Middle Road East, Suite 300 | Oakville, ON, L6H 0C3| Main: 416.364.8820 | Fax: 416.364.0193 | www.baffinland.com

MARINE ENVIRONMENT WORKING GROUP

TERMS OF REFERENCE

The Terms of Reference (ToR) have been developed pursuant to the Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB) Project Certificate No. 005 (PC 005), Term and Condition No. 077, for Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation’s (Baffinland) Mary River Project (the ‘Project’). The Marine Environment Working Group (MEWG) shall function as set out in these ToR which:

• Provide the framework under which the MEWG and its Members and Observers will operate; • Outline the purpose of the MEWG; and • Describe the main functions by which the MEWG will fulfill its purpose.

PURPOSE OF THE MEWG 1.1 The purpose of the MEWG is to consult with and provide advice and recommendations to Baffinland in connection with monitoring of effects on marine environment, developing and evaluating mitigation measures for protection of marine environment, and consideration of adaptive management components of relevant management plans.

FUNCTIONS OF THE MEWG 2.1 The MEWG’s primary function is to consult with and provide advice to Baffinland with respect to its monitoring programs and mitigation measures, including its efforts to collect baseline data, monitor effects of the Project, and determine any adaptive management measures that may be required during the construction, operations, closure and reclamation of the Project.

2.2 In fulfilling its role the MEWG may: 2.2.1 Make recommendations and provide advice to Baffinland on any aspects of the Marine Monitoring Plan (MMP) which require the adoption of additional or revised monitoring programs and mitigation measures in order to comply with applicable regulatory requirements and/or to mitigate adverse Project effects;

2.2.2 Establish cooperative arrangements between, or amongst, members of the MEWG and Inuit of the Qikiqtani Region in order to protect the environment and the traditional relationship of Inuit with the marine environment. Objectives of these arrangements may include, but are not limited to:

• Develop and update baseline data from which the Project can be effectively monitored and managed; • Incorporate an integrated approach for monitoring and management of Project-

2275 Upper Middle Road East, Suite 300 | Oakville, ON, L6H 0C3| Main: 416.364.8820 | Fax: 416.364.0193 | www.baffinland.com

related environmental effects; • Include meaningful participation of members of the MEWG and Inuit in all aspects of environmental monitoring programs in all phases of Project development, including decommissioning and reclamation; and • Integrate Inuit traditional and current/local knowledge into the development and implementation of environmental effects monitoring programs and mitigation measures.

2.2.3 Collaborate on research programs, activities, or initiatives relating to the marine environment;

2.2.4 Review the MMP, its implementation, and suggest recommended changes;

2.2.5 Review and provide technical advice and directions for improvements relating to the following:

• monitoring reports and results provided to the MEWG by Baffinland; • the assessment of potential impacts of the Project on the marine environment and marine wildlife; • the effectiveness of mitigation measures implemented by Baffinland; and • Baffinland’s plans for the development and implementation of adaptive management and/or mitigation measures.

COMPOSITION OF THE MEWG 3.1 The MEWG consists of representatives from each of the member parties. The member parties of the MEWG are the following, all of whom shall be called a ‘Member’ in this ToR:

• Qikiqtani Inuit Association (QIA); • Mittimatalik Hunters and Trappers Organization (MHTO); • Government of Nunavut (GN); • Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO); • Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC); • Parks Canada (PC); and 3.2 Makivik Corporation, at the election of Makivik to participate in the MEWG. 3.3 Voting Members for Recommendations will be determined on a case-by-case basis using the following criteria1:

3.3.1 The Member has the technical expertise to assist in making an informed decision regarding a Recommendation;

3.3.2 The Member, independent of joint submissions with other Parties, has provided technical

1 The MHTO and QIA will retain standing rights as voting members for all Recommendations put forward through the Working Groups.

Page 2

input through the MEWG on the subject matter under consideration through the Recommendation; and

3.3.3 The Member is acting within their mandate over the subject matter under consideration through the recommendation.

3.4 In addition to the Members listed above, the following organizations have requested to participate in the MEWG as observers and are hereafter referred to as "Observers":

• World Wildlife Fund (WWF); • Oceans North; • Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB); and • Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency (CANNOR)

3.5 Each Party (Members and Observers) must designate a maximum of two (2) representatives to participate in the MEWG. It is expected that these members will consistently participate to ensure continuity between meetings of the Working Groups and information shared. Should Parties wish to invite Technical Experts from their respective organizations, a request should be made to Baffinland following issuance of the Draft Agenda.

3.6 The roles of the MEWG Members and its Observers are outlined in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Rights and Responsibilities of Parties in the MEWG

Member Rights and Responsibilities Observer Voting Non-Voting Receives correspondence from Baffinland to the Working o o o Group

Provides comments on Draft Working Group Agendas o o

Attends Working Group Meetings o o o

Actively Participates in Discussions of the Working Group o o

Receives Draft Reports for Review and Comment o o o Eligible to Submit Formal Recommendations to the Working o o Group Eligible to Participate in Consensus Decision Making o Regarding Recommendations Eligible to Participate in Decision Making Regarding the o o Approval or Removal of Observers to the MEWG *At the approval Eligible to provide presentations of interest (i.e. relevant o o of MEWG research initiatives) Members Notes: MHTO and QIA will retain standing rights as voting members for all Recommendations put forward through the Working Groups 3.7 As the responsible Party for ensuring the operation of the Working Group, Baffinland will act as

Page 3

the ‘Governing Party’ to the Working Group. Accordingly, Baffinland will be responsible for:

3.7.1 Ensuring the Annual Schedule for the Working Group is maintained (see Section 6);

3.7.2 Covering costs associated with the operations of the Working Group (see Section 5);

3.7.3 Reviewing and responding to all Formal Recommendations submitted through the Working Group (see Section 7); and

3.7.4 Providing annual reporting to the NIRB on the operations and outcomes of the Working Group (see Section 8).

MATERIALS TO SUPPORT THE MEWG 4.1 When required, Baffinland will make best efforts to provide MEWG Members and Observers, with:

4.1.1 Copies of the MMP and associated documentation; 4.1.2 Copies of operational management plans associated with the Project Certificate; 4.1.3 Copies of all monitoring reports produced by Baffinland relating to the MMP and in relation to the marine environment;

4.1.4 Copies of all reports relating to interactions between the Project and marine wildlife and marine habitat; and

4.1.5 Any other documentation reasonably required by the MEWG relating to the interaction between the Project and the marine environment.

4.2 A summary of the work and activities of the MEWG will be prepared by Baffinland and included in its Annual Report to the NIRB.

COSTS 5.1 Unless otherwise agreed to by Baffinland, each Member will be responsible for its own costs of participation at the MEWG, including travel costs. Baffinland will be responsible for incidental costs of meetings such as venue, printing and interpretation services (if required).

5.2 Baffinland will cover the costs associated with travel, accommodations and incidentals, including an agreed upon daily honorarium for MHTO Member participation.

ANNUAL SCHEDULE To the extent possible, the MEWG will follow the Annual Operating Schedule as outlined in Figure 1. Details regarding meetings of the MEWG and provision of comments on the annual reporting are provided in Section 6.1 and 6.2 that follow. Recommendations under review by the MEWG will be dealt with ad-hoc in accordance with the review timeline as outlined in Section 7, but may also be integrated into discussions at any of the Working Group

Page 4

Annual Meetings identified in Section 6.1.

Submission of Annual Reports

Meeting # 3 Meeting # 1

Responses to Comments from MEWG on Annual Meeting # 2 Reports Provided by Baffinland

Comments on Annual Reports provided by MEWG Members

Figure 1: Working Group Annual Operating Schedule

6.1 Working Group Meetings In fulfilling its duties, the Working Group will hold 3 regularly scheduled working sessions per year, two (2) of which will be in-person, rotating between Iqaluit and Ottawa. The working sessions will be focused on the following topics:

Meeting # 1 (April): The focus of Meeting # 1 will be to review and discuss key results of monitoring programs from the previous field season. An overview of key results captured in the draft monitoring reports will be provided by Baffinland and its technical consultants. Meeting # 1 will also include a review of operational highlights (e.g. key operational activities) from the previous year. The intention of this meeting is to provide the Working Group with a preliminary overview of what has been reported on in advance of the Working Groups review and comment on the Annual Monitoring Reports.

Meeting # 2 (June): The focus of Meeting # 2 will be for Baffinland and its technical consultants to present an overview of the planned monitoring programs for the upcoming field season. Baffinland will present to the Working Group critical aspects of the program design (e.g. programs being proposed, timing, sampling effort) and

Page 5

opportunities to solicit feedback from the Working Group will be provided.

Meeting # 3 (November): The focus of Meeting # 3 will be for Baffinland and its technical consultants to provide an overview of responses to comments received by the Working Group on the Draft Annual Monitoring Reports and key changes (if relevant) that were incorporated into the Final Reports as a result of comments provided. An initial discussion on potential required changes to the following years monitoring programs or operational mitigations as a result of comments received will also be held. A discussion regarding any disagreement on the ‘status of compliance’ with Terms and Conditions related to the marine environment will also be held.

Additionally, the Working Group may elect to hold additional meetings in the first quarter (January to March) of each year. These meetings will be topic-specific, and could include:

• Development and review of 5 year monitoring program schedules • Presentations from Working Group members on relevant regional research initiatives • Review of non-annual relevant materials (i.e. documentation as listed in Section 4) • Presentations from non-Working Group members on relevant research initiatives (i.e. community-based monitoring programs)

6.2 MEWG Meeting Materials and Minutes 6.2.1 Correspondence, documentation and meetings of the MEWG will be conducted primarily in English. However, members agree that MEWG meetings will require simultaneous translation when unilingual MHTO members are present and that copies of meeting materials (i.e. presentations, final agendas, final meeting minutes and executive summaries of reports) will be provided in both English and Inuktitut.

6.2.2 Baffinland will provide a draft agenda to the Working Group twenty-eight (28) days in advance of the Working Group Meeting.

6.2.3 Working Group members will provide comments on the Draft Agenda fourteen (14) days in advance on the Working Group Meeting.

6.2.4 A final agenda and any Meeting Materials (e.g. copies of presentations) will be provided to the Working Groups seven (7) days in advance of the Working Group meeting.

6.2.5 Baffinland will review with Working Group members at the end of each meeting, time permitting, the list of action items as agreed to. Where time does not permit at the meeting, the list of action items will be provided within 7 days following the completion of the meeting.

6.2.6 Baffinland will provide draft meeting minutes to MEWG Members within fourteen (14) days of the completion of the meeting.

6.2.7 MEWG Members will provide comments on draft meeting minutes within fourteen (14) days

Page 6

of receipt of the draft meeting minutes.

o Comments will not include follow-up questions by the Parties. o Comments will not include editorial revisions.

o Each Party will be responsible for correcting any statements of their respective organizations, but will not provide comments on behalf of other Parties.

6.2.8 Final meeting minutes, issued in both English and Inuktitut will be provided back to the Working Group within 30 days.

6.2.9 Baffinland will include official minutes of MEWG meetings as part of its Annual Report to the NIRB.

6.3 Annual Monitoring Report Review

6.3.1 Working Group Members will be provided a copy of Draft Annual Monitoring Reports on March 31 of each year2, concurrent with submission of Baffinland’s Annual Report to the NIBR.

6.3.2 Comments provided on the draft reports by Working Group members will be submitted concurrent to any comments provided by the Parties on Baffinland’s Annual Report to the NIRB. The timeline for which will be set annually by the NIRB (typically 30 days).

6.3.3 Baffinland will subsequently provide responses to comments from Working Group members on both the Annual Report to the NIRB and Draft Monitoring Reports, as well as copies of the Final Annual Monitoring Reports as instructed annually by the NIRB (typically 30 days).

April June March 31 Baffinland Submits June NIRB releases report on Parties Provide Comments Draft Monitorng Reports Baffinland recieves Public Registry and issues on Draft Monitoring Reports and Annual Report to the Comments from Parties on Request for Comments from and BIMs Annual Report to NIRB Monitoring Reports via NIRB Parties the NIRB

June October August Meeting # 2 August Meeting # 3 NIRB releases Baffinland MEWG discusses how Baffinland provides responses to comments and comments provided in MEWG discusses responses responses to Comments and Final Reports on Public previous year have been to Comments and Final Issues Final Reports to NIRB integrated into monitoring Report Registry program design

Figure 2: Annual Report Review Schedule

2 Unless alternate timing for submission of the Annual Reports is issued by the NIRB.

Page 7

RECOMMENDATIONS BY CONSENSUS 7.1 Any Recommendations made by the Working Group must be officially designated3 as such and clearly stated in writing. Recommendations for consensus-based decision making must be put forward by Working Group members that have a relevant mandate and technical expertise or Inuit traditional knowledge. Recommendations must be Evidence based and include a discussion of supporting Inuit current and local knowledge, monitoring data, relevant peer-reviewed scientific and technical literature or examples from other comparable operations.

7.2 Recommendations are intended to be primarily focused on mitigation or adaptive management measures designed to protect the marine environment, monitoring of effects on the marine environment, and/or adaptive management plans.

7.3 Recommendations will be reviewed by Members of the Working Group and Baffinland in accordance with the following process.

7.3.1 Draft recommendations from the sponsoring Party will be sent to all MEWG Members, including Baffinland, of which there will be a 30-day review period for Members to provide comments and input into the draft recommendation being put forward for consideration.

• The sponsoring Party may incorporate feedback from other MEWG Members, as appropriate, to be reflected in final recommendations. • Final Recommendation will be sent by the sponsoring Party to all MEWG members, including Baffinland, within 30-days of receiving feedback from the Working Group. • Upon submission of final recommendations to Baffinland, Baffinland will be provided with a 60-day response period to address final recommendations. • Baffinland will provide an evidence-based response to substantiate its position whether to incorporate recommendations made by the MEWG and will include a consideration of operational and financial limitations. This response will also include a discussion of efforts made to seek feedback or additional guidance from the Inuit Committee and how this advice was taken into consideration in Baffinland’s response.

7.3.2 If recommendations made by the Working Group has been agreed to by Baffinland, Baffinland will submit an Action Plan and Timeline for implementing the Recommendation within 120 days.

7.3.3 If recommendations made by the Working Group members have not been agreed to by Baffinland, the Recommendation will be circulated to voting members of the Working Group for consideration.

7.3.4 Each voting member4 will have a 30-day period to review the final Recommendation and

3 For the purposes of s. 5.2, “officially designated” means each of the Member Parties has affixed its signature to the advice, decision or recommendation. The signature may be provided by: an employee of the Member Party or has been given authority on behalf of the Member Party, as stated in writing by the Member Party they represent, to provide advice, decisions or recommendations. For the purposes of the Working Group an electronic signature is considered acceptable. 4 Baffinland and the sponsoring Party will not be included as a ‘voting member’.

Page 8

Baffinland’s response and clearly indicate whether or not they are supportive of the proposed Recommendation, or an iteration thereof. If it is determined by consensus of the voting members5 that the Recommendation be implemented by Baffinland, a final action plan will be issued within 120-days.

7.3.5 In the event Baffinland continues to object to the Recommendation, or an iteration thereof, for several reasons, including but not limited to concerns regarding conflicting advice with other oversight groups, health and safety, operational limitations, or financial viability, Baffinland will provide the rationale to the NIRB as part of annual monitoring and reporting cycles. If deemed appropriate, the NIRB would then be in a position to provide final direction through their Annual Monitoring Report for the Mary River Project and associated Board Recommendations.

7.4 A record of all Recommendations from the Working Group, Baffinland’s responses to all Recommendations, and any subsequent actions taken, as relevant, will be reported in Baffinland’s Annual Monitoring Report to the NIRB per PC 005 Term and Condition No. 077.

•Member submits Draft Recommendation to Working Group for Feedback 30 days

•Working Group Members provide written feedback to submitting Party 30 Days

•Member submits Final Recommendation to Baffinland 30 Days

•Baffinland provides response to Final Recommendation 60 Days

•If adopted, Baffinland Prepares Action Plan and Timeline for Implementing Recommendation 120 •If not adopted, see subsequent Steps Days

•Final Recommendation and Baffinland Response Circulated to Voting Members of Working Group for 30 Days Decision

•If adopted, Baffinland Prepares Action Plan and Timeline for Implementing Recommendation 120 •If not adopted, Baffinland includes Record of Recommendation in Annual Reporting to NIRB Days

Figure 3: Process for Rendering of Advice and Recommendations from the Working Groups

5 Consensus shall be reflected by votes of 50% +1 cast in favour of a motion/recommendation/decision.

Page 9

COMMUNICATIONS, REPORTING AND COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 8.1 Annual Reports on the operations of the Working Group, including a copy of the Final Meeting Minutes will be provided for in Baffinland’s Annual Report to the Working Group

8.2 All Recommendations made by the Working Group will be tracked and reported on to the NIRB and Working Group as required.

8.3 Baffinland and the QIA, in consultation with the MHTO, will seek to coordinate the work of the MEWG with programs for community participation and the Inuit Committee.

8.4 Baffinland will ensure that affected communities receive monitoring reports related to the implementation of the MMP in an effective and timely manner and that the results of the monitoring programs and mitigation measures are communicated in ways meaningful to Inuit.

8.5 Baffinland will provide the Inuit Committee with a copy of all Meeting Minutes and Recommendations of the Working Group and subsequent Action Plans from Baffinland.

REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS PREVAIL 9.1 Nothing in these Terms of Reference will have the effect of altering the requirements of any legislative or regulatory requirements applicable to the Project.

Page 10

Appendix 1 – Project Certificate No. 005: Relevant Terms and Conditions

Page 11

Page 12