Draft – 2016 3.1.2 Territorial Parks Awaiting Full Establishment (Maps 70-84) - PA ...... 51 Chapter 1: Introduction...... 7 3.1.3 Proposed National Parks ...... 51 1.1 How to Use This Document ...... 7 3.1.4 Proposed Territorial Parks (Maps 70-84) - PA...... 51 3.2 Proposed Lancaster Sound National Marine 1.2 Purpose ...... 7 Conservation Areas (Map 85) - PA ...... 52 1.3 How Land Use Decisions Were Made ...... 7 3.3 Conservation Areas ...... 52 1.4 Options for Land Use Policy ...... 7 3.3.1 Thelon Wildlife Sanctuary (Map 86) - PA...... 52 1.4.1 Option 1- Protected Area (PA)...... 8 3.3.2 Migratory Bird Sanctuaries (Maps 87-99) - PA .... 53 1.4.2 Option 2 - Special Management Area (SMA)...... 8 3.3.3 National Wildlife Areas (Maps 95-99) - PA ...... 57 1.4.3 Option 3 - Mixed Use (MU) ...... 8 3.4 Historic Sites (Maps 100-114) - PA ...... 60 1.4.4 Option 4 – Information on Valued Components (VCs) ...... 8 3.5 Heritage Rivers (Maps 115-119) – PA, VEC, & VSEC ...... 61 1.5 Considered Information ...... 8 3.5.1 Recommendation for the Soper River ...... 62 1.6 Guiding Policies, Objectives & Goals ...... 8 3.5.2 Recommendation for the Kazan and Thelon Rivers Chapter 2: Protecting & Sustaining the ...... 62 Environment ...... 9 3.5.3 Recommendation for the Coppermine River ...... 62 2.1 Key Migratory Bird Habitat Sites (Maps 1-46) ....9 Chapter 4: Building Healthier Communities ...... 63 2.1.1 KIVALLIQ REGION ...... 10 4.1 Areas Identified by Communities ...... 63 2.1.2 KITIKMEOT REGION ...... 13 4.1.1 Community Areas of Interest (Maps 120-129) .... 63 2.1.3 QIKIQTAALUK REGION ...... 18 4.1.2 Community Priorities and Values (Tables 3 & 4) - 2.2 Caribou Habitat (Maps 47-58) ...... 38 VSEC ...... 67 2.2.1 Designations on Caribou Habitat ...... 39 4.1.3 Community Land Use Areas (Tables 3 to 5) - VSEC ...... 67 2.3 Polar Bear Denning Areas (Map 59) - VEC ...... 45 4.1.4 Areas of Equal Use and Occupancy (Map 130) - PA 2.4 Walrus Haul-Outs (Map 60) - PA ...... 45 ...... 67 2.5 Beluga Calving Grounds (Map 61) - SMA ...... 46 4.1.5 Denesuline Areas of Asserted Title Claim (Map 131-133) – MU...... 68 2.6 Marine Areas of Importance (Maps 62-57) - VEC ...... 46 4.2 Unincorporated Communities (Maps 134-135) - PA ...... 68 2.6.1 Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas (Map 62) - VEC ...... 46 4.3 Alternative Energy Sources (Maps 136-138) – 2.6.2 Polynyas (Map 63) – SMA or VEC ...... 47 SMA ...... 69 2.6.3 Floe Edges (Map 64) - VEC...... 48 4.4 Health & Safety ...... 69 2.7 Atlantic Cod Lakes (Maps 65-67) – VEC ...... 48 4.4.1 Community Drinking Water Supplies (Maps 139- 163) – PA & VSEC ...... 69 2.8 Transboundary Considerations ...... 48 4.4.2 Land Remediation (Maps 164-165) - SMA ...... 72 2.8.1 Great Bear Watershed (Map 68) - VEC ...... 48 4.4.3 Contaminated Sites (Maps 166-182) - SMA...... 73 2.8.2 Land use outside the NSA ...... 49 4.5 Sovereignty ...... 73 2.9 Climate Change ...... 49 4.5.1 DND Establishments (Maps 183-191) - SMA ...... 73 Chapter 3: Encouraging Conservation Planning . 50 4.5.2 North Warning System Sites (Map 185) - SMA .... 74 3.1 Parks ...... 50 4.6 Aerodromes (Map 192) ...... 74 3.1.1 National Parks Awaiting Full Establishment (Map 69) - PA ...... 51 Chapter 5: Encouraging Sustainable Economic Development ...... 75 5.1 Diversified Economic Development ...... 75 5.2 Mineral Potential (Map 193) - VSEC ...... 75 5.3 Oil and Gas Potential (Map 194) - VSEC...... 76 5.4 Commercial Fisheries (Maps 195-197) – SMA & VSEC ...... 76 5.5 Transportation & Communications ...... 77 (Maps 198-200) – SMA & VSEC...... 77 5.5.1 Terrestrial Linear Infrastructure ...... 77 5.5.2 Marine Shipping...... 77 Appendix A: Tables Table 1: Land Use Designations Table 2: Migratory Bird Setbacks Table 3: Community Priorities and Values for Water Management Areas Table 4: Community Priorities and Values for Marine Areas Table 5: Community Land Use for Water Management Areas Table 6: Data Sources for Nunavut Land Use Plan – Draft 2016 Appendix B: Supporting Maps for each Area Map 1 – Map 200

Draft Nunavut Land Use Plan Options and Recommendations – Draft 2016  3

Hell Gate and Cardigan Strait (Map 18) - SMA ...... 21 Chapter 1: Introduction...... 7 North Spicer Island (Map 19) - SMA ...... 21 1.1 How to Use This Document ...... 7 Prince Leopold Island (outside of the Migratory Bird Sanctuary) (Map 20) - SMA ...... 22 1.2 Purpose ...... 7 Scott Inlet (Map 21) - SMA ...... 22 1.3 How Land Use Decisions Were Made ...... 7 Seymour Island (outside of Migratory Bird 1.4 Options for Land Use Policy ...... 7 Sanctuary) (Map 22) - SMA ...... 23 1.4.1 Option 1- Protected Area (PA)...... 8 Abbajalik and Ijutuk Islands (Map 23) - PA . 23 1.4.2 Option 2 - Special Management Area (SMA)...... 8 Baillarge Bay (Map 24) - PA ...... 24 1.4.3 Option 3 - Mixed Use (MU) ...... 8 Belcher Islands Polynyas (Map 25) - PA...... 25 1.4.4 Option 4 – Information on Valued Components Buchan Gulf (Map 26) - PA ...... 25 (VCs) ...... 8 Cape Searle / Reid (Map 27) - PA ...... 26 1.5 Considered Information ...... 8 Cheyne Islands (Map 28) - PA ...... 27 1.6 Guiding Policies, Objectives & Goals ...... 8 Creswell Bay (Map 29) - PA ...... 27 Chapter 2: Protecting & Sustaining the East Axel Heiberg Islands (Map 30) - PA ..... 28 Environment ...... 9 Eastern Devon Island (Map 31) - PA ...... 28 2.1 Key Migratory Bird Habitat Sites (Maps 1-46) ....9 Eastern Jones Sound (Map 32) - PA...... 29 2.1.1 KIVALLIQ REGION ...... 10 Eastern Lancaster Sound (Map 33) - PA ..... 30 Coats Island Lowlands (Map 1) - VEC ...... 10 Fosheim Peninsula (Map 34) - PA ...... 30 Boas River (Map 2) - VEC ...... 11 Foxe Basin Islands (Map 35) - PA ...... 31 McConnell River (Map 3) - VEC...... 11 Great Plain of the Koukdjuak (Map 36) - PA ...... 32 Middle Back River (Map 4) - SMA ...... 12 Grinnell Peninsula (Map 37) - PA ...... 32 Frozen Strait (Map 5) - VEC ...... 13 Hobhouse Inlet (Map 38) - PA...... 33 2.1.2 KITIKMEOT REGION ...... 13 Inglefield Mountains (Map 39) - PA ...... 33 Adelaide Peninsula (Map 6) - VEC ...... 13 Markham Bay (Map 40) - PA ...... 34 Melbourne Island (Map 7) - VEC...... 14 Nasaruvaalik Island (Map 41) - PA ...... 35 South Eastern Victoria Island (Map 8) - VEC 14 North Water Polynya (Map 42) - PA ...... 35 Bathurst / Elu Inlet (Map 9) - PA ...... 15 Northwestern Brodeur Peninsula (Map 43) - Kagloryuak River (Map 10) - PA ...... 16 PA...... 36 Lambert Channel (Map 11) - PA ...... 16 Sabine Peninsula (Map 44) - VEC ...... 36 Nordenskiöld Islands (Map 12) - PA...... 17 Sleeper Islands (Map 45) - PA ...... 37 Rasmussen Lowlands (Map 13) - PA ...... 17 Western Cumberland Sound Archipelago 2.1.3 QIKIQTAALUK REGION ...... 18 (Map 46) - VEC ...... 38 Cape Graham Moore (Map 14) - SMA ...... 18 2.2 Caribou Habitat (Maps 47-58)...... 38 Cape Hay (outside of Bylot Island Migratory 2.2.1 Designations on Caribou Habitat ...... 39 Bird Sanctuary) (Map 15) - SMA...... 19 Calving Areas (Map 47) – PA ...... 41 Cape Liddon (Map 16) - SMA ...... 19 Post-Calving Areas (Map 48) – PA ...... 42 Frobisher Bay (Map 17) - SMA...... 20 Key Access Corridors (Map 49) – PA ...... 42

4 

Freshwater Caribou Crossings (Map 50) – PA 3.3.2.1.3 McConnell River Migratory Bird Sanctuary ...... 43 (Map 89) ...... 54 Caribou Sea Ice Crossings (Maps 51-53) - SMA KITIKMEOT REGION ...... 55 ...... 43 3.3.2.2.1 Queen Maud Gulf Migratory Bird Caribou Rutting Areas (Map 54) - VEC ...... 43 Sanctuary (Map 90) ...... 55 Caribou Migration Corridors (Map 55) - VEC 44 QIKIQTAALUK REGION ...... 55 Caribou Summer Range (Map 56) - VEC ...... 44 3.3.2.3.1 Bylot Island Migratory Bird Sanctuary (Map 91) ...... 55 Caribou Late Summer Range (Map 57) - VEC 44 3.3.2.3.2 Dewey Soper Migratory Bird Sanctuary Caribou Winter Range (Map 58) - MU ...... 45 (Map 92) ...... 56 2.3 Polar Bear Denning Areas (Map 59) - VEC ...... 45 3.3.2.3.3 Prince Leopold Island Migratory Bird 2.4 Walrus Haul-Outs (Map 60) - PA ...... 45 Sanctuary (Map 93) ...... 56 2.5 Beluga Calving Grounds (Map 61) - SMA ...... 46 3.3.2.3.4 Seymour Island Migratory Bird Sanctuary (Map 94) ...... 57 2.6 Marine Areas of Importance (Maps 62-57) - VEC ...... 46 3.3.3 National Wildlife Areas (Maps 95-99) - PA ...... 57 3.3.3.1.1 Akpait National Wildlife Area (Map 95) 58 2.6.1 Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas (Map 62) - VEC ...... 46 3.3.3.1.2 Ninginganiq National Wildlife Area (Map 96)...... 58 2.6.2 Polynyas (Map 63) – SMA or VEC ...... 47 3.3.3.1.3 Nirjutiqavvik National Wildlife Area (Map 2.6.3 Floe Edges (Map 64) - VEC...... 48 97)...... 59 2.7 Atlantic Cod Lakes (Maps 65-67) – VEC ...... 48 3.3.3.1.4 Polar Bear Pass National Wildlife Area 2.8 Transboundary Considerations ...... 48 (Map 98) ...... 59 2.8.1 Great Bear Watershed (Map 68) - VEC ...... 48 3.3.3.1.5 Qaqulluit National Wildlife Area (Map 99) ...... 60 2.8.2 Land use outside the NSA ...... 49 3.4 Historic Sites (Maps 100-114) - PA ...... 60 2.9 Climate Change ...... 49 3.5 Heritage Rivers (Maps 115-119) – PA, VEC, & Chapter 3: Encouraging Conservation Planning . 50 VSEC ...... 61 3.1 Parks ...... 50 3.5.1 Recommendation for the Soper River ...... 62 3.1.1 National Parks Awaiting Full Establishment (Map 3.5.2 Recommendation for the Kazan and Thelon Rivers 69) - PA ...... 51 ...... 62 3.1.2 Territorial Parks Awaiting Full Establishment (Maps 3.5.3 Recommendation for the Coppermine River ...... 62 70-84) - PA ...... 51 Chapter 4: Building Healthier Communities ...... 63 3.1.3 Proposed National Parks ...... 51 4.1 Areas Identified by Communities ...... 63 3.1.4 Proposed Territorial Parks (Maps 70-84) - PA ..... 51 4.1.1 Community Areas of Interest (Maps 120-129) .... 63 3.2 Proposed Lancaster Sound National Marine Conservation Areas (Map 85) - PA ...... 52 Hiukitak River (Map 120) - PA ...... 64 3.3 Conservation Areas ...... 52 Duke of York Bay (Map 121) - PA ...... 64 3.3.1 Thelon Wildlife Sanctuary (Map 86) - PA ...... 52 Foxe Basin Marine Area of Interest (Map 122) - PA...... 64 3.3.2 Migratory Bird Sanctuaries (Maps 87-99) - PA .... 53 Moffatt Inlet (Map 123) - PA ...... 65 KIVALLIQ REGION ...... 54 Nettilling Lake (Map 124) - PA ...... 65 3.3.2.1.1 East Bay Migratory Bird Sanctuary (Map 87) ...... 54 Walrus Island (Map 125) - PA ...... 65 3.3.2.1.2 Harry Gibbons Migratory Bird Sanctuary Corbett Inlet (Map 126) – VSEC ...... 66 (Map 88) ...... 54 Diana River (Map 127) - PA ...... 66 Draft Nunavut Land Use Plan Options and Recommendations – Draft 2016  5

Essential Char Fishing Rivers (Map 128) - PA 66 4.4.1.2.2 Kugaaruk (Map 159) – PA ...... 72 Naujaat Areas (Map 129) - MU ...... 66 4.4.1.2.3 Arctic Bay (Map 160) - PA ...... 72 4.1.2 Community Priorities and Values (Tables 3 & 4) - 4.4.1.2.4 Pond Inlet (Map 161) - PA ...... 72 VSEC...... 67 4.4.1.2.5 Kugluktuk (Map 162) - VSEC ...... 72 4.1.3 Community Land Use Areas (Tables 3 to 5) - VSEC 4.4.1.2.6 Baker Lake (Map 163) - VSEC ...... 72 ...... 67 4.4.2 Land Remediation (Maps 164-165) - SMA ...... 72 4.1.4 Areas of Equal Use and Occupancy (Map 130) - PA ...... 67 4.4.3 Contaminated Sites (Maps 166-182) - SMA...... 73 4.1.5 Denesuline Areas of Asserted Title Claim (Map 4.5 Sovereignty ...... 73 131-133) – MU ...... 68 4.5.1 DND Establishments (Maps 183-191) - SMA ...... 73 4.2 Unincorporated Communities (Maps 134-135) - 4.5.2 North Warning System Sites (Map 185) - SMA .... 74 PA ...... 68 4.6 Aerodromes (Map 192) ...... 74 4.3 Alternative Energy Sources (Maps 136-138) – SMA ...... 69 Chapter 5: Encouraging Sustainable Economic 4.4 Health & Safety...... 69 Development ...... 75 4.4.1 Community Drinking Water Supplies (Maps 139- 5.1 Diversified Economic Development ...... 75 163) – PA & VSEC...... 69 5.2 Mineral Potential (Map 193) - VSEC ...... 75 Community Drinking Water Supplies within 5.3 Oil and Gas Potential (Map 194) - VSEC ...... 76 Municipal Boundaries...... 70 5.4 Commercial Fisheries (Maps 195-197) – SMA & 4.4.1.1.1 Pangnirtung (Map 139) - PA ...... 70 VSEC ...... 76 4.4.1.1.2 Grise Fiord (Map 140) - PA ...... 70 5.5 Transportation & Communications ...... 77 4.4.1.1.3 Rankin Inlet (Map 141) - PA ...... 70 (Maps 198-200) – SMA & VSEC ...... 77 4.4.1.1.4 Taloyoak (Map 142) - PA ...... 70 5.5.1 Terrestrial Linear Infrastructure...... 77 4.4.1.1.5 Cambridge Bay (Map 143) - PA...... 71 5.5.2 Marine Shipping ...... 77 4.4.1.1.6 Coral Harbour (Map 144) - PA ...... 71 Locations of Highest Risk for Marine Safety . 78 4.4.1.1.7 Iqaluit (Map 145) - PA ...... 71 Ecological Restrictions on Marine Shipping .. 78 4.4.1.1.8 Sanikiluaq (Map 146) - PA ...... 71 Marine On-Ice Transportation Corridors (Map 4.4.1.1.9 Whale Cove (Map 147) – PA...... 71 200) - SMA ...... 78 4.4.1.1.10 Repulse Bay (Map 148) - PA ...... 71 Undersea Utility Corridors ...... 78 4.4.1.1.11 Chesterfield Inlet (Map 149) - PA ...... 71 4.4.1.1.12 Gjoa Haven (Map 150) - PA ...... 71 4.4.1.1.13 Resolute Bay (Map 151) - PA ...... 71 4.4.1.1.14 Clyde River (Map 152) - PA...... 71 4.4.1.1.15 Kimmirut (Map 153) - PA ...... 71 4.4.1.1.16 Qikiqtarjuaq (Map 154) - PA ...... 71 4.4.1.1.17 Igloolik (Map 155) - PA ...... 72 4.4.1.1.18 Hall Beach (Map 156) - PA ...... 72 4.4.1.1.19 Cape Dorset (Map 157) - PA ...... 72 Community Drinking Water Supplies outside of Municipal Boundaries...... 72 4.4.1.2.1 Arviat (Map 158) - PA...... 72

6 

Policy decisions were formulated using a four step decision making framework:

•Key Areas of the NSA that required management were identified through the existing planning policy framework, pertinent land use reports, Planning Partner feedback as well as existing land and resource use in the NSA. This document presents the rationales for the various land use designations and policies presented in the 2016 draft of the Nunavut Land Use Plan (NLUP). Chapter 1 explains the systems used in the preparation of policy options and recommendations. •Key areas that shared similar issues and concerns were grouped according to the broad planning Chapters 2-6 describe key areas and issues that have been policies, objectives and goals. identified in support of broad land use planning Goals, and present specific policy recommendations for managing these areas and issues, as well as a summary of the information that was considered. Each area has a corresponding Map, which is •Options were developed to manage each Key Area, identified in the section headings and can be found in based on the identified value of the area, the intent Appendix B of this document. of the applicable Goal, the existing planning policy framework, pertinent land use reports, and, where To research a particular area, find the name of it on Schedule applicable, Planning Partner feedback and existing land and resource use in the area. A or Schedule B of the NLUP. Then use Table 1 of the NLUP to find the type of site it is. Then use either the type or the name of the site to find it in the long table of contents. Terms have the same meaning as defined in the draft NLUP •A preferred Option was recommended for each Key Area that was best able to balance competing land unless otherwise defined. use, build on the strengths and opportunities in the area, and reflect the direction provided by planning partners, planning policy documents and pertinent reports. This document has been prepared to inform the draft Nunavut Land Use Plan. It strives to offer policy direction for land and resource use in the Nunavut Settlement Area (NSA) that;  recognizes competing land use interests and provides a balanced response that builds on strengths and opportunities in the Territory;  promotes economic opportunities, environmental management, conservation initiatives, and community priorities; Four options were considered for each Key Area. The following  reflects direction, priorities and values provided by first three options are land use designations: Protected Areas, planning partners, existing planning policy and Special Management Area and Mixed use. Where no land use pertinent land use and development reports; and conditions or prohibitions are appropriate, a Mixed Use  provides enough flexibility to respond to changing designation is applied, which means all land uses are permitted priorities and additional information. except highways and railways. The land use designations are This document is intended to evolve over time to include presented in Schedule A of the NLUP. additional information as it becomes available. The fourth option applies to areas where known priorities and values exist. Most of these areas will have a Mixed Use designation. Information on Valued Components (VCs) for Regulatory Authorities and/or Plan Stakeholders is presented in Schedule B of the NLUP. Policy options and recommendations contained in this report The general option chosen for each key area will be specifically have been formulated based on best available information and tailored to reflect the unique information considered. the recommendation from the June 2012 Independent Third Party Review on the need to manage expectations of what can be addressed in the first generation Nunavut Land Use Plan.

Draft Nunavut Land Use Plan Options and Recommendations – Draft 2016  7

 The Nunavut Planning Commission’s Broad Planning Policies, Objectives and Goals;  Restricts access to uses that are incompatible with  Parnautit, the Government of Nunavut Mineral environmental and cultural values. Exploration and Mining Strategy identifies the need to  May include conditions to guide land use. create conditions for a strong and sustainable  Shown on Schedule A of the NLUP. minerals industry that contributes to a high and sustainable quality of life for all Nunavummiut;  Priorities and values of residents.  Recommendations from the June 2012 Independent Third Party Review;  May restrict access to some uses.  Results of the 2012-2014 Community Consultation  May include conditions to guide land use. Tour and Planning Partner Consultations;  Shown on Schedule A of the NLUP.  Terriplan’s Socio Demographic and Economic Sector Analysis;  Tunngasaiji, the Government of Nunavut’s Tourism Strategy supports the development and  Allows all uses except highways and railways. enhancement of attractions through the investment  Identified area not discussed in NLUP, and boundary in Parks, Conservation Areas, historic places, heritage of identified area not shown on Schedule A or B. rivers and other attractions.;  Umbrella Inuit Impact and Benefit Agreement for Territorial Parks in the Nunavut Settlement Region (2002), and  Working Together for Caribou, the Government of  Identifies areas that are important to particular Nunavut’s Caribou Strategy identifies caribou as a Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs) or Valued keystone species with important economic and Socio-Economic Components (VSECS). VECs and cultural values identifies caribou as a keystone VSECs are collectively referred to as Valued species with important economic and cultural values. Components (VCs).  Identified area to be included on Schedule B of the NLUP.

This document is guided by the five goals contained in the Direction provided in the existing planning policy framework, Commission’s Broad Planning Policies, Objectives and Goals; pertinent land use and development reports, input from 1. Strengthening Partnership and Institutions; Planning Partners as well as existing land and resource use in 2. Protecting and Sustaining the Environment; the Nunavut Settlement Area (NSA) direct the policy options, 3. Encouraging Conservation Planning; recommendations and decisions contained in this document. 4. Building Healthy Communities, and Accordingly, the options, recommendations and decisions in 5. Encouraging Sustainable Economic Development. this document build upon the direction provided by: The first goal is primarily achieved through the process of  Canada’s Northern Strategy: Our North, Our Heritage, developing the plan. The remaining 4 goals and the associated Our Future; Policies and Objectives lay the foundation for the policy  The Commissions Use and Occupancy Mapping data; options and recommendations that are discussed  Existing land and resource use in the NSA; consecutively in the chapters that follow.  Feedback received from Planning Partners;  Feedback on the 2014 Draft NLUP, including participants’ written submissions and the results of Technical Meetings held in 2015/16The Nunavut Land Claims Agreement; Municipal Land Use Plans for the Nunavut Settlement Area;  Government, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and Regional Inuit Association strategies, policies, management plans and reports;  Ingirrasiliqta, the Government of Nunavut Transportation Strategy;  The Keewatin Regional Land Use Plan;  The North Baffin Regional Land Use Plan; 8 

The Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS), under Environment Canada, has provided the Commission with the location of key bird habitat sites in the NSA. These areas have been identified by Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) for their importance to “The goal of protecting and conserving Nunavut’s air, land and sustaining and supporting terrestrial and marine bird water, i.e. the environment, including wildlife and wildlife populations in the NSA. habitat, is of critical importance to the sustainability of Nunavut’s communities, Inuit culture and the continuation of a Some of the Key Migratory Bird Habitat Sites are located in viable long-term economy.” areas where there are competing land uses and/or areas where other Planning Partners have identified other types of land use activity. Protecting and Sustaining the Environment is one of five The following information has been considered for all the key planning Goals in the Nunavut Planning Commission’s Broad migratory bird habitat sites: Planning Policies, Objectives and Goals. It is the primary aim of  The Nunavut Land Claims Agreement requires a land this Chapter to provide a practical policy direction that is able use plan to take into account environmental to support this Goal. considerations, including wildlife habitat; Specifically, this Chapter:  It is a policy of the Commission’s Goal of Protecting  identifies key areas of Nunavut that are critical to the and Sustaining the Environment to respect and protection and conservation of the environment, consider sites of ecological significance that are not including wildlife and wildlife habitat; officially protected, such as: polynyas, key migratory  provides options for managing these key areas; bird sites, Ramsar sites, and critical habitat that has been identified but not yet declared;  recommends a preferred option for the management  It is an objective NPCs broad planning policies, of these areas that is best able to support the Goal of objectives and goals that any proposed restrictions on Protecting and Sustain the Environment and build on land use are achieved with the least possible impact the direction provided by planning policy, pertinent on undiscovered mineral resources, while taking into reports and feedback from Planning Partners; and account environmental and social objectives;  translates the preferred option into a language that a  Ingirrasiliqta, the Government of Nunavut Land Use Plan can articulate and implement. Transportation Strategy identifies the need for land and marine transportation networks to facilitate the movement of goods and provision of services; Areas and issues of the NSA identified by the  Parnautit, the Government of Nunavut Mineral Commission as important to promoting the protection Exploration and Mining Strategy identifies the need to and conservation of the environment are; create conditions for a strong and sustainable minerals industry that contributes to a high and  Key Migratory Bird Habitat Sites; sustainable quality of life for all Nunavummiut;  Caribou Habitat;  Key Habitat Sites for Migratory Birds in the Nunavut  Polar Bear Denning Areas; Settlement area submitted to the Commission from  Walrus Haul-Outs; Environment Canada;  Atlantic Cod Lakes;  Evironment Canada states that it will review Project  Marine Areas of Importance; Proposals/Projects in key migratory bird habitat sites  Transboundary Considerations; and with an additional level of scrutiny, to ensure  Climate Change. conformity with the Migratory Birds Convention Act and Regulations;  Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) recognizes two categorizes of bird sites: Red Sites and Yellow Sites:  Red Sites (Highly Risk Intolerant):  Are legislated protected areas under the Migratory Birds Convention Act or the Canada Wildlife Act; and/or  Support a percentage of a national species population equal to or greater

Draft Nunavut Land Use Plan Options and Recommendations – Draft 2016  9

than the percentage of ‘sustainable loss’ that the population can tolerate; and/or  host greater than 5% of a national population of a species exhibiting population declines as of 2005; and/or  have been identified, or are anticipated to be identified, as critical habitat for a Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) noted the following: migratory bird species listed as  Category: ‘endangered’ or ‘threatened’ under the o Moderately risk intolerant Species at Risk Act (SARA);  Qualifying criterion:  Yellow Sites (Moderately Risk Intolerant): o Contains 1-5% of the national population of one or  support 5% - 10% of the national more migratory bird species that are exhibiting population of one or more migratory population declines as of 2005 (Black-bellied bird species that are NOT exhibiting Plover, Ruddy Turnstone, Semipalmated population declines as of 2005; or Sandpiper)  support 1 - 5% of the national o Hosts 5%-10% of a national population of a species population of one or more migratory NOT exhibiting population declines as of 2005 bird species that are exhibiting (Dunlin, Purple Sandpiper) population declines as of 2005;  Feature bird group:  Canada Wildlife Service (CWS) recommends o Shorebird access restrictions for the Red Sites and other  Site details: forms of management for the Yellow Sites. In o Species at risk: Peregrine Falcon (Special Concern), May 2016, Environment & Climate Change Polar Bear (Special Concern) Canada (ECCC) recommended some exceptions o Non-binding designations: Important Bird Area; to this based on a reconsideration of the types of International Biological Program Site birds present and the level of knowledge  Current human activities at site: available; o Harvesting and ancillary activities by Nunavut Land  The NWT & Nunavut Chamber of Mines (2015- Claims Agreement beneficiaries 06-20) recommended adequate measures can be  Anticipated human activities at site: developed through the NIRB process and that o Shipping, cruise ship tourism, biological research, “mandatory setbacks may not be appropriate. harvesting and ancillary activities by Nunavut Land Rather, the direction in the plan could be to Claims Agreement beneficiaries require regulatory authorities to have regard to  Threats to birds from current/future activities at the setbacks set out in the Plan. While it is helpful site: to have guidance on potential setback distances, o Marine traffic/shipping disturbance as the area appropriate setback distances for the experiences increasing ship traffic; increasing circumstances should ultimately be determined human disturbance related to cruise ship tourism; on a case by case basis.”; and risk for oil spills and operational releases originating  Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and the from shipping Regional Inuit Associations (2016-05-16) request  Potential consequences for bird populations: that proposed migratory bird Protected Areas o Disruption of feeding and nesting birds resulting in be re-designated as Special Management Areas. loss of eggs and/or young; direct loss of birds due The following information is also relevant for some of the key to contaminants and pollution bird habitat sites:  Recommended restrictions on activities:  Some sites contain Inuit Owned Land and it is o None Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated’s direction that  Recommended setbacks: development activity should not be restricted on Inuit o None Owned Land; and Additional considerations:  Some sites are located within the boundaries of the  The site has Use and Occupancy Mapping activity; Keewatin Regional Land Use Plan. The KRLUP  Priorities and values of residents include caribou, identifies healthy wildlife populations as vital to Inuit. polar bear, walrus, fish, marine mammals, shellfish, It places an emphasis on the protection and potential economic development, existing economic preservation of wildlife and wildlife habitat. The development, and no oil and gas development; and Keewatin Region is recognized for containing  The site contains some Inuit Owned Land. significant habitat for bird populations, which is nationally and internationally recognized.

10 

Option 4 is recommended: Additional considerations:  Identifies areas that are important to particular  The site contains a portion of a Migratory Bird Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs) or Valued Sanctuaries; Socio-Economic Components (VSECS).  The site has Use and Occupancy Mapping activity;  Identified area shown on Schedule B of the NLUP.  Priorities and values of residents include caribou, polar bear, walrus, birds, fish, marine mammals, Information on Valued Components: Identify the key shellfish, drinking water, cultural values, potential migratory bird habitat site as an area of a known Valued economic development, no oil and gas development, Ecosystem Component that should be given particular and protection; and consideration.  The site contains some Inuit Owned Land. Option 4 was chosen given that there are currently no recommended prohibitions or conditions for the area. Option 4 is recommended:  Identifies areas that are important to particular Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs) or Valued Socio-Economic Components (VSECS). Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) noted the following:  Identified area shown on Schedule B of the NLUP.  Category: o Moderately risk intolerant Information on Valued Components: Identify the key  Qualifying criterion: migratory bird habitat site as an area of a known Valued o Contains 5%-10% of the national population of one Ecosystem Component that should be given particular consideration. or more migratory bird species that are NOT exhibiting population declines as of 2005 (Lesser Option 4 was chosen given that there are currently no Snow Goose) recommended prohibitions or conditions for the area.  Feature bird group: o Inland waterfowl (Lesser Snow Goose) o Also important at site: coastal waterfowl (Atlantic Brant), marine shorebird (Red Phalarope) Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) noted the following:  Site details:  Category: o Non-binding designations: Important Bird Area o Moderately risk intolerant o Species at risk: Red Knot ssp. rufa (Endangered);  Qualifying criterion: Polar bear (Special Concern) o Contains 5% to 10% of the national population of  Current human activities at site: one or more migratory bird species that are NOT o Harvesting and ancillary activities by Nunavut Land exhibiting declines as of 2005 (Ross' Goose) Claims Agreement beneficiaries  Feature bird group:  Anticipated human activities at site: o Waterfowl (Ross’ Goose) o Cruise ship tourism; harvesting and ancillary o Also important at site: Shorebird (e.g. activities by Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Semipalmated Sandpiper) beneficiaries  Site details:  Threats to birds from current/future activities at o Non-binding designations: Ramsar Wetland of site: International Importance; Important Bird Area o Marine traffic/shipping disturbance as the area o Species at risk: Short-eared Owl (Special Concern); experiences increasing ship traffic; increasing Polar bear (Special Concern) human disturbance related to cruise ship tourism;  Current human activities at site: risk of oil spills and operational releases originating o Cruise ship tourism; mineral Claim (iron ore); from shipping contaminated site remediation; harvesting and  Potential consequences for bird populations: ancillary activities by Nunavut Land Claims o Higher potential for bird-ship collisions originating Agreement beneficiaries from all shipping activities; disruption of feeding  Anticipated human activities at site: and nesting birds resulting in loss of eggs and/or o Cruise ship tourism; mineral exploration; young; direct loss of birds due to contaminants and contaminated site remediation; harvesting and pollution ancillary activities by Nunavut Land Claims Agreement beneficiaries  Recommended restrictions on activities:  Threats to birds from current/future activities at o None site:  Recommended setbacks: o Marine traffic/shipping disturbance as the area o None experiences increasing ship traffic; increasing

Draft Nunavut Land Use Plan Options and Recommendations – Draft 2016  11

human disturbance related to cruise ship tourism; o Contains 5%-10% of the national population of one risk of oil spills and operational releases originating or more migratory bird species that are NOT from shipping; increased physical, auditory, and exhibiting population declines as of 2005 (Canada visual disturbance related to mining exploration Goose, subspecies maximus activity; increased auditory and visual disturbance  Feature bird group: related to a higher volume of air traffic to support o Waterfowl remediation activities  Site details:  Potential consequences for bird populations: o Species at risk: Wolverine (Special Concern), Grizzly o Marine traffic/shipping disturbance as the area Bear (Special Concern) experiences increasing ship traffic; increasing o Non-binding designations: None human disturbance related to cruise ship tourism;  Current human activities at site: risk of oil spills and operational releases originating o Mineral claims (uranium); harvesting and ancillary from shipping; increased physical, auditory, and activities by Nunavut Land Claims Agreement visual disturbance related to mining exploration beneficiaries activity; increased auditory and visual disturbance  Anticipated human activities at site: related to a higher volume of air traffic to support o Mineral exploration; harvesting and ancillary remediation activities activities by Nunavut Land Claims Agreement  Recommended restrictions on activities: beneficiaries o None  Threats to birds from current/future activities at  Recommended setbacks: site: o o None Increased auditory and visual disturbance related to a higher volume of air and ground traffic to Additional considerations: support mineral exploration; increased physical,  The site has Use and Occupancy Mapping activity, and auditory, visual disturbance related to mining a burial site; exploration activity  Priorities and values of residents include caribou,  Potential consequences for bird populations: polar bear, birds, fish, marine mammals, fishing river o Disturbance-related disruption of bird feeding, or lake, land mammals, drinking water, cultural incubation, brood-rearing, resulting in loss of eggs values, impacts, and protection; and/or young  The site surrounds a Migratory Bird Sanctuaries;  Recommended restrictions on activities:  The site has an Arctic char area of abundance; o None  The site is in a community water supply watershed;  Recommended setbacks:  The site contains prospecting permits; o EC-CWS Aerial Setbacks (All Migratory Birds); EC-  The site includes a proposed transportation corridor; CWS Terrestrial Setbacks (All Migratory Birds) and  The site contains some Inuit Owned Land. Additional considerations:  The site has Use and Occupancy Mapping activity; Option 4 is recommended:  Priorities and values of residents include caribou, land  Identifies areas that are important to particular mammals, wildlife, cultural values, contaminated Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs) or Valued sites, potential economic development, and Socio-Economic Components (VSECS). protection;  Identified area shown on Schedule B of the NLUP.  The site contains some Inuit Owned Land; Information on Valued Components: Identify the key bird  The site has mineral claims; and habitat sites as an area of a known Valued Ecosystem  The site is adjacent to the Thelon Wildlife Sanctuary. Component that should be given particular consideration. Option 2 is recommended: Option 4 was chosen given that there are currently no  May restrict access to some uses recommended prohibitions or conditions for the area.  May include conditions to guide land use.  Identified area to be included on Schedule A Condition: Project Proposals/Projects must comply with the setbacks in Table 2 for the bird populations identified above.

Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) noted the following: Option 2 was chosen given that the area is considered to be  Category: moderately risk intolerant and that setbacks have been o Moderately risk intolerant developed to manage land use within the vicinity of the area.  Qualifying criterion:

12 

Ecosystem Component that should be given particular consideration. Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) noted the following: Option 4 was chosen given that there are currently no  Category: recommended prohibitions or conditions for the area. o Highly risk intolerant  Qualifying criterion: o Supports a percentage of a national species population equal to or greater than the percentage of ‘sustainable loss’ that the population can tolerate (Common Eider)  Feature bird group: Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) noted the following: o Seaduck  Category:  Site details: o Moderately risk intolerant o Species at risk: Polar Bear (Special Concern)  Qualifying Criterion: o Non-binding designations: none o Contains 1-5% of the national population of one or  Current human activities at site: more migratory bird species that ARE exhibiting o Shipping; harvesting and ancillary activities by population declines as of 2005 (Long-tailed Duck, Nunavut Land Claims Agreement beneficiaries King Eider)  Anticipated human activities at site: o Contains 5%-10% of the national population of one o Shipping; harvesting and ancillary activities by or more migratory bird species that are NOT Nunavut Land Claims Agreement beneficiaries exhibiting population declines as of 2005 (Canada  Threats to birds from current/future activities at Goose, Lesser Snow Goose) site:  Feature bird group: o Marine traffic/shipping disturbance as the area o Inland Seaduck experiences increasing ship traffic; risk of oil spills o Waterfowl and operational releases originating from ships  Site details:  Potential consequences for bird populations: o Species at risk: Wolverine (Special Concern), Grizzly o Higher potential for bird-ship collisions originating Bear (Special Concern) from all shipping activities; disruption of feeding o Non-binding designations: none and nesting birds resulting in loss of eggs and/or  Current human activities at site: young; direct loss of birds due to contaminants and o Harvesting and ancillary activities by Nunavut Land pollution Claims Agreement beneficiaries  Recommended restrictions on activities:  Anticipated human activities at site: o None o Shipping; harvesting and ancillary activities by  Recommended setbacks: Nunavut Land Claims Agreement beneficiaries o None  Threats to birds from current/future activities at site: Additional considerations: o Marine traffic/shipping disturbance as the area  The site has Use and Occupancy Mapping activity; experiences increasing ship traffic; risk of oil spills  Priorities and values of residents include caribou, and operational releases originating from shipping polar bear, walrus, bird, fish, marine mammals,  Potential consequences for bird populations: shellfish, fishing river or lakes, land mammals, o Higher potential for bird-ship collisions originating wildlife, drinking water, cultural values, contaminated from all shipping activities; direct loss of birds due sites, potential economic development, existing to contaminants and pollution economic development, no oil and gas, and protection; and  Recommended restrictions on activities:  The site contains limited Inuit Owned Land o None  Recommended setbacks: Option 4 is recommended: None  Identifies areas that are important to particular Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs) or Valued Additional considerations: Socio-Economic Components (VSECS).  The site contains some Inuit Owned Land;  Identified area shown on Schedule B of the NLUP.  The site has Use and Occupancy Mapping activity;  Priorities and values of residents include caribou, Information on Valued Components: Identify the key polar bear, birds, fish, land mammals, wildlife, migratory bird habitat site as an area of a known Valued drinking water, cultural values, existing economic development, and protection; and Draft Nunavut Land Use Plan Options and Recommendations – Draft 2016  13

 The site is adjacent to Queen Maud Gulf Bird  The site has Use and Occupancy Mapping activity and Sanctuary. there is an adjacent possible caribou sea ice crossing.  The area includes core caribou calving areas. Option 4 is recommended: Option 4 is recommended:  Identifies areas that are important to particular  Identifies areas that are important to particular Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs) or Valued Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs) or Valued Socio-Economic Components (VSECS). Socio-Economic Components (VSECS).  Identified area shown on Schedule B of the NLUP.  Identified area shown on Schedule B of the NLUP. Information on Valued Components: Identify the key Information on Valued Components: Identify the key migratory bird habitat site as an area of a known Valued migratory bird habitat site as an area of a known Valued Ecosystem Component that should be given particular Ecosystem Component that should be given particular consideration. consideration. Option 4 was chosen given that that there are currently no Option 4 was chosen given that that there are currently no recommended prohibitions or conditions for the area. recommended prohibitions or conditions for the area.

Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) noted the following: Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) noted the following:  Category:  Category: o Moderately risk intolerant o Moderately risk intolerant  Qualifying Criterion:  Qualifying Criterion: o Contains 1-5% of the national population of one or o Contains 5%-10% of the national population of one more migratory bird species that ARE exhibiting or more migratory bird species that are NOT population declines as of 2005 (Red Phalarope) exhibiting population declines as of 2005 (Canada  Feature bird group: Goose, King Eider) o Shorebird o Contains 1-5% of the national population of one or  Site details: more migratory bird species that ARE exhibiting o Species at risk: Wolverine (Special Concern) populations declines as of 2005 (Long-tailed Duck) o Non-binding designations: none  Feature bird group:  Current human activities at site: o Waterfowl o Harvesting and ancillary activities by Nunavut Land o Inland Seaduck Claims Agreement beneficiaries  Site details:  Anticipated human activities at site: o Species at risk: Red Knot ssp. rufa (Endangered); o Shipping; harvesting and ancillary activities by Short-eared Owl (Special Concern; Polar Bear Nunavut Land Claims Agreement beneficiaries (Special Concern)  Threats to birds from current/future activities at o Non-binding designations: none site:  Current human activities at site: o Marine traffic/shipping disturbance as the area o Shipping; municipality; harvesting and ancillary experiences increasing ship traffic; risk of oil spills activities by Nunavut Land Claims Agreement and operational releases originating from shipping beneficiaries  Potential consequences for bird populations:  Anticipated human activities at site: o Higher potential for bird-ship collisions originating o Shipping; municipality; contaminated site from all shipping activities; direct loss of birds due remediation; harvesting and ancillary activities by to contaminants and pollution Nunavut Land Claims Agreement beneficiaries  Recommended restrictions on activities:  Threats to birds from current/future activities at o None site:  Recommended setbacks: o Marine traffic/shipping disturbance as the area o None experiences increasing ship traffic; increasing human disturbance related to cruise ship tourism; Additional considerations: risk of oil spills and operational releases originating  The site is all Inuit Owned Land; from shipping; increased auditory and visual  Priorities and values of residents include caribou, fish, disturbance related to a higher volume of air traffic land mammals, cultural values, and existing economic to support municipality and remediation activities; development; and ground traffic related to growth of municipality  Potential consequences for bird populations:

14 

o Higher potential for bird-ship collisions originating o Non-binding designations: Important Bird Area; from all shipping activities; disruption of feeding International Biological Programme Site and nesting birds resulting in loss of eggs and/or  Current human activities at site: young; direct loss of birds due to contaminants and o Shipping; mining lease; harvesting and ancillary pollution; potential for bird-aircraft collisions activities by Nunavut Land Claims Agreement originating from air traffic at low altitude or too beneficiaries close from concentration of birds  Anticipated human activities at site:  Recommended setbacks: o Shipping; mine construction and mineral o None production; harvesting and ancillary activities by Nunavut Land Claims Agreement beneficiaries Additional considerations:  Threats to birds from current/future activity:  The site contains some Inuit Owned Lands; o Marine traffic/shipping disturbance as the area  The site is in an Arctic char area of abundance and has experiences increasing ship traffic; risk of oil spills a commercial fishery; and operational releases originating from ships;  The site has North Warning System sites, land potential from dredging of channel to support large remediation areas and a community water supply ship access; increase in air traffic disturbance watershed; related to mining activities; human disturbance  The site has Use and Occupancy Mapping activity and from mining activities encompasses a community;  Potential consequences for bird populations:  Priorities and values of residents include caribou, land o Higher potential for bird-ship collisions originating mammals, and existing economic development; and from all shipping activities; direct loss of birds due  The site is adjacent to a possible caribou sea ice to contaminants and pollution; potential for direct crossing. or indirect impact on seaduck food sources; Option 4 is recommended: potential for bird-aircraft collisions originating from  Identifies areas that are important to particular air traffic at low altitude or from flying too close to Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs) or Valued concentration of birds; 2ii. Disruption of feeding Socio-Economic Components (VSECS). and nesting birds resulting in loss of eggs and/or  Identified area shown on Schedule B of the NLUP. young  Recommended setbacks: Information on Valued Components: Identify the key o EC-CWS Aerial Setbacks (All Migratory Birds); EC- migratory bird habitat site as an area of a known Valued CWS Marine Setbacks (Coastal Waterfowl and Ecosystem Component that should be given particular Seaducks); EC-CWS Terrestrial Setbacks (Coastal consideration. Waterfowl and Seaducks) Option 4 was chosen given that that there are currently no Additional considerations: recommended prohibitions or conditions for the area.  The site contains Inuit Owned Lands;  The site is in an Arctic char area of abundance and has mineral leases;  The site has Use and Occupancy Mapping activity and possible caribou sea ice crossings; and Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) noted the following:  Priorities and values of residents include caribou,  Category: birds, fish, marine mammals, shellfish, land o Highly risk intolerant mammals, drinking water, cultural values, impacts,  Qualifying Criterion: and existing economic development. o Hosts more than 10% of a national population of  A portion of the area falls within an identified high one or more migratory bird species (Common Eider, potential mineral area. Thayer’s Gull) o Supports a percentage of a national species Option 1 is recommended: population equal to or greater than the percentage  Restricts access to uses that are incompatible with of ‘sustainable loss’ than the population can environmental and cultural values. tolerate (Common Eider)  May include conditions to guide land use.  Feature bird group:  Identified area to be included on Schedule A o Seaduck, Seabird The following uses are prohibited:  Site details:  Oil and gas exploration and production; and o Species at risk: Polar Bear (special concern),  Related research except Non-exploitive Scientific Peregrine Falcon (special concern) Research.

Draft Nunavut Land Use Plan Options and Recommendations – Draft 2016  15

Condition: Project Proposals/Projects must comply with the Condition: Project Proposals/Projects must comply with the setbacks in Table 2 for the bird populations identified above. setbacks in Table 2 for the bird populations identified above. Option 1 was chosen given that the area is considered to be Option 1 was chosen given that the area is considered to be highly risk intolerant and that access to uses that are highly risk intolerant and that access to uses that are incompatible with the protection of environmental values incompatible with the protection of environmental values should be restricted. should be restricted.

Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) noted the following: Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) noted the following:  Category:  Category: o Highly risk intolerant o Highly risk intolerant  Qualifying Criterion:  Qualifying Criterion: o Contain habitat likely to be identified as Critical o Hosts more than 10% of a national population of Habitat for a migratory bird listed as ‘endangered’ one or more migratory bird species (Pacific or ‘threatened’ under the Species at Risk Act (Red Common Eider) Knot) o Supports a percentage of a national species  Feature bird group: population equal to or greater than the percentage o Shorebird of ‘sustainable loss’ that the population can  Site details: tolerate (Pacific Common Eider) o Species at risk: Red Knot spp. rufa (Endangered),  Feature bird group: Polar Bear (Special Concern), Short-eared Owl o Seaduck (Special Concern)  Site details: o Non-binding designations: NWT portion of key o Critical polynya habitat and critical spring staging, habitat site zoned as a community conservation moulting, breeding area for Pacific Common Eider zone o Species at risk: Short-eared Owl (Special Concern)  Current human activities at site: o Non-binding designations: None o None (NU portion of site)  Current human activities at site:  Anticipated human activities at site: o Shipping; harvesting and ancillary activities by o None (NU portion of site) Nunavut Land Claims Agreement beneficiaries  Threats to birds from current/future activities at  Anticipated human activities at site: site: o Shipping; cruise ship tourism; contaminated site o None (NU portion of site) remediation; marine cable Installation; harvesting  Potential consequences for bird populations: and ancillary activities by Nunavut Land Claims o None (NU portion of site) Agreement beneficiaries  Recommended setbacks:  Threats to birds from current/future activities at o EC-CWS Aerial Setbacks (All Migratory Birds); EC- site: CWS Terrestrial Setbacks (All Migratory Birds) o Marine traffic/shipping disturbance as the area experiences increasing ship traffic; increasing Additional considerations: human disturbance related to cruise ship tourism;  Priorities and values of residents include caribou; and risk for oil spills and operational releases originating  The site has mineral claims and mineral leases. from shipping; air traffic related to contaminated Option 1 is recommended: site remediation - associated activities; human  Restricts access to uses that are incompatible with disturbance related to contaminated site environmental and cultural values. remediation - associated activities; alteration of  May include conditions to guide land use. seabed due to dredging  Identified area to be included on Schedule A  Potential consequences for bird populations: o Higher potential for bird-ship collisions originating The following uses are prohibited: from all shipping activities; disruption of feeding  Mineral exploration and production; and nesting birds resulting in loss of eggs and/or  Oil and gas exploration and production; young; direct loss of birds due to contaminants and  Quarries; pollution; potential for bird-aircraft collisions  Hydro-Electrical and Related Infrastructure; originating from air traffic at low altitude or too  All weather roads; and close from concentration of birds; disruption of  Related research except Non-exploitive Scientific feeding and nesting birds resulting in loss of eggs Research.

16 

and/or young; loss of benthic prey for  Anticipated human activities at site: seaducks/waterfowl and seabirds o Shipping; cruise ship tourism; contaminated site  Recommended setbacks: remediation o EC-CWS Aerial Setbacks (Coastal Waterfowl and  Threats to birds from current/future activities at Seaducks); EC-CWS Terrestrial Setbacks (Coastal site: Waterfowl and Seaducks) EC-CWS Marine Setbacks o Marine traffic/shipping disturbance as the area (Coastal Waterfowl and Seaducks) experiences increasing ship traffic; risk for oil spills and operational releases originating from shipping; Additional considerations: air traffic related to contaminated site remediation  The site has Use and Occupancy Mapping activity and - associated activities; human disturbance related is in an anadromous coregonids area of abundance; to cruise ship tourism; contaminated site  Priorities and values of residents include caribou, remediation - associated activities birds, fish, river or lake of interest, land mammals,  Potential consequences for bird populations: cultural values, and existing economic development; o Higher potential for bird-ship collisions originating and from all shipping activities; disruption of feeding  The site has North Warning System sites and land and nesting birds resulting in loss of eggs and/or remediation areas; and young; direct loss of birds due to contaminants and  The site contains some . pollution; potential for bird-aircraft collisions Option 1 is recommended: originating from air traffic at low altitude or too  Restricts access to uses that are incompatible with close from concentration of birds environmental and cultural values.  Recommended setbacks:  May include conditions to guide land use. o EC-CWS Aerial Setbacks (Coastal Waterfowl and  Identified area to be included on Schedule A Seaducks); EC-CWS Terrestrial Setbacks (Coastal Waterfowl and Seaducks) EC-CWS Marine Setbacks The following uses are prohibited: (Coastal Waterfowl and Seaducks)  Oil and gas exploration and production; and  Related research except Non-exploitive Scientific Additional considerations: Research.  Priorities and values of residents include caribou, polar bear, fish, marine mammals, land mammals, Condition: Project Proposals/Projects must comply with the cultural values, impacts, contaminated sites, setbacks in Table 2 for the bird populations identified above. potential economic development, existing economic Option 1 was chosen given that the area is considered to be development, and no shipping. highly risk intolerant and that access to uses that are Option 1 is recommended: incompatible with the protection of environmental values  Restricts access to uses that are incompatible with should be restricted. environmental and cultural values.  May include conditions to guide land use.  Identified area to be included on Schedule A The following uses are prohibited:  Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) noted the following: Oil and gas exploration and production; and   Category: Related research except Non-exploitive Scientific o Highly risk intolerant Research.  Qualifying Criterion: Condition: Project Proposals/Projects must comply with the o Supports a percentage of a national species setbacks in Table 2 for the bird populations identified above. population equal to or greater than the percentage Option 1 was chosen given that the area is considered to be of 'sustainable loss' that the population can highly risk intolerant and that access to uses that are tolerate (Common Eider) incompatible with the protection of environmental values o Hosts more than 10% of a national population of should be restricted. one or more migratory bird species (Common Eider)  Feature bird group: o Seaduck  Site details: o Species at risk: None Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) noted the following: o Non-binding designations: None  Category:  Current human activities at site: o Highly risk intolerant o Shipping  Qualifying Criterion: Draft Nunavut Land Use Plan Options and Recommendations – Draft 2016  17

o Contain habitat likely to be identified as Critical The following uses are prohibited: Habitat for a migratory bird listed as ‘endangered’  Mineral exploration and production; or ‘threatened’ under the Species at Risk Act (Red  Oil and gas exploration and production; Knot)  Quarries; o Hosts more than 10% of a national population of  Hydro-Electrical and Related Infrastructure; one or more migratory bird species (Buff-breasted  All weather roads; and Sandpiper, Pectoral Sandpiper)  Related research except Non-exploitive Scientific o Host more than 5% of a national population of one Research. or more species exhibiting population declines as of 2005 (Buff-breasted Sandpiper, Pectoral Condition: Project Proposals/Projects must comply with the Sandpiper) setbacks in Table 2 for the bird populations identified above.  Feature bird group: Option 1 was chosen given that the area is considered to be o Shorebird. Also important at site: Seabird (Sabine’s highly risk intolerant and that access to uses that are Gull); Watefowl (Tundra Swan, Greater White- incompatible with the protection of environmental values fronted Goose) should be restricted.  Site details: o Species at risk: Red Knot ssp. rufa (Endangered); Peregrine Falcon (Special Concern) o Non-binding designations: Important Bird Area; Ramsar Wetland of International Importance  Current human activities at site: o Harvesting and ancillary activities by Nunavut Land Claims Agreement beneficiaries Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) noted the following:  Anticipated human activities at site:  Category: o Harvesting and ancillary activities by Nunavut Land o Moderately risk intolerant Claims Agreement beneficiaries  Qualifying Criterion:  Threats to birds from current/future activities at o Contains 5% to 10% of the national population of site: one or more migratory bird species that are NOT o None exhibiting population declines as of 2005 (Black-  Potential consequences for bird populations: legged Kittiwake, Thick-billed Murre) o None  Feature bird group:  Recommended setbacks: o Seabird o EC-CWS Aerial Setbacks (All Migratory Birds); EC-  Site details: CWS Marine Setbacks (All Migratory Birds*); EC- o Species at risk: Polar bear (Special Concern); CWS Terrestrial Setbacks (All Migratory Birds); Peregrine Falcon (Special Concern); Red Knot ssp. o *the more general migratory birds mitigations are islandica (Special Concern) used here because Sabine’s Gulls are not cliff- o Non-binding designations: Important Bird Area nesting, colonial seabirds  Current human activities at site: o Shipping; cruise ship tourism; harvesting and Additional considerations: ancillary activities by Nunavut Land Claims  The site contains some Inuit Owned Lands; Agreement beneficiaries  The site has Use and Occupancy Mapping activity;  Anticipated human activities at site:  Priorities and values of residents include caribou, o Shipping; cruise ship tourism; commercial fishing; birds, fish, marine mammals, land mammals, wildlife, harvesting and ancillary activities by Nunavut Land cultural values, potential economic development, Claims Agreement beneficiaries existing economic development, and protection;  Threats to birds from current/future activity:  The site has prospecting permits; o Marine traffic/shipping disturbance as the area  The site has a North Warning System site and a land experiences increasing ship traffic; increasing remediation site; and human disturbance related to cruise ship tourism;  The site is a RAMSAR site, which is an international risk of oil spills and operational releases originating agreement on important wetland management. from shipping; risk of bycatch from potential Option 1 is recommended: commercial fishing activities  Restricts access to uses that are incompatible with  Potential consequences for bird populations: environmental and cultural values. o Higher potential for bird-ship collisions originating  May include conditions to guide land use. from all shipping activities; disruption of feeding  Identified area to be included on Schedule A and nesting birds resulting in loss of eggs and/or young; direct loss of birds due to contaminants and

18 

pollution; potential for direct loss of seabirds from o Shipping; cruise ship tourism; commercial fishing fishing bycatch  Threats to birds from current/future activities at  Recommended setbacks: site: o EC-CWS Aerial Setbacks (All Seabirds); EC-CWS o Marine traffic/shipping disturbance as the area Marine Setbacks (All Seabirds); EC-CWS Terrestrial experiences increasing ship traffic; increasing Setback (All Seabirds) human disturbance related to cruise ship tourism; risk of oil spills and operational releases originating Additional considerations: from shipping; risk of bycatch from potential  Priorities and values of residents include polar bear, commercial fishing activities marine mammals, cultural values, existing economic  Potential consequences for bird populations: development, no shipping, and protection; o Higher potential for bird-ship collisions originating  The site’s marine component is in the proposed from all shipping activities; disruption of feeding Lancaster Sound National Marine Conservation Area and nesting birds resulting in loss of eggs and/or and in a Migratory Bird Sanctuaries; young; direct loss of birds due to contaminants and  The site contains Inuit Owned Lands, which is on the pollution; potential for direct loss of seabirds from Migratory Bird Sanctuaries portion and considered fishing bycatch below;  Recommended setbacks:  The site has possible oil and gas potential; o EC-CWS Marine Setbacks (All Seabirds); EC-CWS  Commercial fishery potential; and Aerial Setbacks (All Seabirds); EC-CWS Terrestrial  A small portion of the site is left when the proposed Setbacks (All Seabirds); National Marine Conservation Area and Migratory Bird Sanctuaries are removed. Remaining area is in Additional considerations: Outer Land Fast Ice Zone.  Priorities and values of residents include caribou, polar bear, walrus, birds, fish, marine mammals, Option 2 is recommended: wildlife, cultural values, impacts, existing economic  May restrict access to some uses development, no oil and gas, no shipping, and  May include conditions to guide land use. protection;  Identified area to be included on Schedule A  The site’s marine component is completely within the Condition: Project Proposals/Projects must comply with the proposed Lancaster Sound National Marine setbacks in Table 2 for the bird populations identified above. Conservation Area (NMCA); and  The site’s terrestrial component is completely within Option 2 was chosen given that the area is considered to be Sirmilik National Park. moderately risk intolerant and that setbacks have been developed to manage land use within the vicinity of the area. Option 2 is recommended:  May restrict access to some uses  May include conditions to guide land use.  Identified area to be included on Schedule A Condition: Project Proposals/Projects must comply with the setbacks in Table 2 for the bird populations identified above. Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) noted the following: Option 2 was chosen given that the area is considered to be  Category: moderately risk intolerant and that setbacks have been o Moderately risk intolerant developed to manage land use within the vicinity of the area.  Qualifying Criterion: o Contains 5%-10% of the national population of one or more migratory bird species that are NOT exhibiting population declines as of 2005 (Black- Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) noted the following: legged Kittiwake, Thick-billed Murre)  Category:  Feature bird group: o Moderately risk intolerant o Seabirds  Qualifying Criterion:  Site details: o Contains 5%- 10% of the national population of one o Species at risk: Polar Bear (Special Concern), or more migratory bird species that are NOT Peregrine Falcon (Special Concern), Red Knot ssp. exhibiting population declines as of 2005 (Northern islandica (Special Concern) Fulmar) o Non-binding Designations: Important Bird Area  Feature bird group:  Current human activities at site: o Seabirds o Shipping; cruise ship tourism  Site details:  Anticipated human activities at site: o Species at risk: Polar Bear (Special Concern) Draft Nunavut Land Use Plan Options and Recommendations – Draft 2016  19

o Non-binding Designations: Important Bird Areas; overwintering and migrating seaducks/waterfowl International Biological Program site and seabirds.  Current human activities at site: o Expert opinion indicates the importance of o Shipping Frobisher Bay for seaducks/waterfowl and  Anticipated human activities at site: seabirds. o Shipping; cruise ship tourism; commercial fishing  Feature bird group:  Threats to birds from current/future activities at o Seabird (e.g. Thick-billed Murre), site: Seaduck/Waterfowl (e.g. Common Eider) o Marine traffic/shipping disturbance as the area  Site details: experiences increasing ship traffic; increasing o Important polynya for seaducks and seabirds. Loks human disturbance related to cruise ship tourism; Land may support Nunavut’s largest known colony risk of oil spills and operational releases originating of Razorbills. Dovekies congregate at the south end from shipping; risk of bycatch from potential of Frobisher Bay in late summer. commercial fishing activities o Species at risk: Polar Bear (Special Concern),  Potential consequences for bird populations: Harlequin Duck (Special Concern) o Higher potential for bird-ship collisions originating o Non-binding designations: International Biological from all shipping activities; disruption of feeding Programme Site (Hantzsch Island), Important Bird and nesting birds resulting in loss of eggs and/or Area (Hantzsch Island) young; direct loss of birds due to contaminants and  Current human activities at site: pollution; potential for direct loss of seabirds from o Shipping; mineral claim; cruise ship tourism; fishing bycatch harvesting and ancillary activities by Nunavut Land  Recommended setbacks: Claims Agreement beneficiaries o EC-CWS Marine Setbacks (Seabirds); EC-CWS Aerial  Anticipated human activities at site: Setbacks (All Seabirds); EC-CWS Terrestrial o Shipping; mineral exploration; cruise ship tourism; Setbacks (All Seabirds); commercial fishing; harvesting and ancillary activities by Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Additional considerations: beneficiaries  The existing planning policy framework;  Threats to birds from current/future activity:  The site is partially in the proposed Lancaster Sound o Marine traffic/shipping disturbance as the area National Marine Conservation Area; experiences increasing ship traffic; increase in air  The area has Use and Occupancy Mapping activity traffic disturbance related to mineral exploration and a possible sacred site; activities; human disturbance from mineral  Priorities and values of residents include polar bear, exploration activities; increasing human fish, marine mammals, impacts, existing economic disturbance related to cruise ship tourism; risk of oil development, no oil and gas, no shipping, and spills and operational releases originating from protection; and ships; risk of bycatch from potential commercial Option 2 is recommended: fishing activities  May restrict access to some uses  Potential consequences for bird populations:  May include conditions to guide land use. o Higher potential for bird-ship collisions originating  Identified area to be included on Schedule A from all shipping activities; disruption of feeding and nesting birds resulting in loss of eggs and/or Condition: Project Proposals/Projects must comply with the young; direct loss of birds due to contaminants and setbacks in Table 2 for the bird populations identified above. pollution; potential for direct loss of seabirds and Option 2 was chosen given that the area is considered to be seaducks from fishing bycatch moderately risk intolerant and that setbacks have been  Recommended setbacks: developed to manage land use within the vicinity of the area. o EC-CWS Aerial (All Seabirds) (Coastal Waterfowl and Seaducks); EC-CWS Marine Setbacks (All Seabirds) (Coastal Waterfowl and Seaducks); EC- CWS Terrestrial Setbacks (All Seabirds) (Coastal Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) noted the following: Waterfowl and Seaducks)  Category: Additional considerations: o Moderately risk intolerant  The site has Use and Occupancy Mapping activity and  Qualifying Criterion: burial sites; o Local knowledge experts indicate the importance of  Priorities and values of residents include caribou, Frobisher Bay for nesting seaducks/waterfowl and polar bear, walrus, fish, marine mammals, land seabirds, as well as the importance of the resource- rich polynya and sea-ice floe edge areas for 20 

mammals, cultural values, impacts, contaminated o EC-CWS Marine Setbacks (Seabirds); EC-CWS Aerial sites, no oil and gas, no shipping, and protection; Setbacks (All Seabirds); EC-CWS Terrestrial  The site has a North Warning System site; Setbacks (All Seabirds) EC-CWS Aerial Setbacks  The site contains some Inuit Owned Lands; and (Coastal Waterfowl and Seaducks);  There are prospecting permits on the adjacent shore. Additional considerations: Option 2 is recommended:  The existing planning policy framework; and  May restrict access to some uses  The site has Use and Occupancy Mapping activities;  May include conditions to guide land use.  Priorities and values of residents include caribou, Identified area to be included on Schedule A polar bear, walrus, birds, marine mammals, cultural values, impacts, potential economic development, Condition: Project Proposals/Projects must comply with the existing economic development, and protection. setbacks in Table 2 for the bird populations identified above. Option 2 is recommended: Option 2 was chosen given that the area is considered to be  May restrict access to some uses moderately risk intolerant and that setbacks have been  developed to manage land use within the vicinity of the area. May include conditions to guide land use.  Identified area to be included on Schedule A Condition: Project Proposals/Projects must comply with the setbacks in Table 2 for the bird populations identified above. Option 2 was chosen given that the area is considered to be Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) noted the following: moderately risk intolerant and that setbacks have been  Category: developed to manage land use within the vicinity of the area. o Moderately risk intolerant  Qualifying Criterion: o Contains 5%- 10% of the national population of one or more migratory bird species that are NOT exhibiting population declines as of 2005 (Northern Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) noted the following: Fulmar)  Category:  Feature bird group: o Moderately risk intolerant o Seabirds. Also important at site: Seaducks (e.g.  Common Eider), Coastal Waterfowl (e.g. Brant) Qualifying Criterion: o Contains 1% to 5% of the national populations of  Site details: one or more migratory birds species that ARE o Non-binding Designations: Important Bird Areas exhibiting populations declines as of 2005 (Atlantic (Cape Vera, North Kent Is, Calf Island), International Brant) Biological Programme site  Feature bird group:  Current human activities at site: o Waterfowl o Biological research; harvesting and ancillary  Site details: activities by Nunavut Land Claims Agreement o beneficiaries Non-binding designations: None   Anticipated human activities at site: Current human activities at site: o o Shipping; biological research; harvesting and None  ancillary activities by Nunavut Land Claims Anticipated human activities at site: o Agreement beneficiaries Shipping; contaminated site remediation  Threats to birds from current/future activities at  Threats to birds from current/future activities at site: site: o o Marine traffic/shipping disturbance as the area Marine traffic/shipping disturbance as the area experiences increasing ship traffic; risk of oil spills experiences increasing ship traffic; risk of oil spills and operational releases originating from shipping; and operational releases originating from shipping; human and terrestrial traffic disturbance related to disturbance from aircraft related to contaminated research activities site remediation  Potential consequences for bird populations:  Potential consequences for bird populations: o o Higher potential for bird-ship collisions originating Higher potential for bird-ship collisions originating from all shipping activities; direct loss of birds due from all shipping activities; direct loss of birds due to contaminants and pollution; disruption of to contaminants and pollution; potential for bird- feeding and nesting birds resulting in loss of eggs aircraft collisions originating from air traffic at low and/or young altitude or too close to concentration of birds  Recommended setbacks:  Recommended setbacks: Draft Nunavut Land Use Plan Options and Recommendations – Draft 2016  21

o EC-CWS Aerial Setbacks (Coastal Waterfowl and and nesting birds resulting in loss of eggs and/or Seaducks); EC-CWS Marine Setbacks (Sea-level young; direct loss of birds due to contaminants and Coastal Nesters); EC-CWS Terrestrial Setbacks pollution (Coastal Waterfowl and Seaducks)  Recommended setbacks: o EC-CWS Marine Setbacks (Seabirds); EC-CWS Aerial Additional considerations: Setbacks (All Seabirds); EC-CWS Terrestrial  Priorities and values of residents include polar bear, Setbacks (All Seabirds) walrus, fish, cultural values, and protection. Additional considerations: Option 2 is recommended:  The site is partially in the proposed Lancaster Sound  May restrict access to some uses National Marine Conservation Area;  May include conditions to guide land use.  The site encircles a Migratory Bird Sanctuaries;  Identified area to be included on Schedule A  The site has Use and Occupancy Mapping activity; Condition: Project Proposals/Projects must comply with the  Priorities and values of residents include polar, birds, setbacks in Table 2 for the bird populations identified above. fish, marine mammals, land mammals, wildlife, cultural values, impacts, existing economic Option 2 was chosen given that the area is considered to be development, no oil and gas, no shipping, and moderately risk intolerant and that setbacks have been protection; and developed to manage land use within the vicinity of the area.  The site is adjacent to Inuit Owned Lands; Option 2 is recommended:  May restrict access to some uses  May include conditions to guide land use.  Identified area to be included on Schedule A Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) noted the following: Terms: The NPC may refer a project proposal falling within  Category: Schedule 12-1 to NIRB for screening, where the NPC has o Moderately risk intolerant concerns respecting the cumulative impact of that project  Qualifying Criterion: proposal in relation to other development activities in the o Contains 5%- 10% of the national population of one planning region. or more migratory bird species that are NOT Direction: Regulatory Authorities, where appropriate, must exhibiting population declines as of 2005 (Black- incorporate the setbacks in Table 2 for the bird populations legged Kittiwake, Northern Fulmar) identified above during the issuance of permits, licences and  Feature bird group: authorizations. o Seabirds  Site details: Option 2 was chosen given that the area is considered to be o Major seabird feeding area and adjacent to large moderately risk intolerant and that setbacks have been seabird colonies. developed to manage land use within the vicinity of the area. o Species at risk present: Polar Bear (Special Concern) o Non-binding Designations: Important Bird Area, International Biological Programme site o A large portion of site falls within the proposed Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) noted the following: Lancaster Sound National Marine Conservation  Category: Area. o Moderately risk intolerant  Current human activities at site:  Qualifying Criterion: o Shipping; cruise ship tourism; biological research o Contains 5%- 10% of the national population of one  Anticipated human activities at site: or more migratory bird species that are NOT o Shipping; cruise ship tourism; biological research exhibiting population declines as of 2005 (Northern  Threats to birds from current/future activities at Fulmar) site:  Feature bird group: o Marine traffic/shipping disturbance as the area o Seabird experiences increasing ship traffic; increasing  Site details: human disturbance related to cruise ship tourism o Species at risk present: Polar bear (Special Concern) and biological research; risk of oil spills and o Non-binding Designations: Important Bird Area operational releases originating from ships o Candidate for Territorial Park status  Potential consequences for bird populations:  Current human activities at site: o Higher potential for bird-ship collisions originating o Shipping; harvesting and ancillary activities by from all shipping activities; disruption of feeding Nunavut Land Claims Agreement beneficiaries

22 

 Anticipated human activities at site: o Non-binding Designations: Important Bird Area, o Shipping; cruise ship tourism; harvesting and International Biological Programme site ancillary activities by Nunavut Land Claims o This site provides feeding habitat for the Ivory Gull. Agreement beneficiaries  Current human activities at site:  Threats to birds from current/future activities at o None site:  Anticipated human activities at site: o Marine traffic/shipping disturbance as the area o Shipping experiences increasing ship traffic; increasing  Threats to birds from current/future activities at human disturbance related to cruise ship tourism; site: risk of oil spills and operational releases originating o Marine traffic/shipping disturbance as the area from shipping experiences increasing ship traffic; risk of oil spills  Potential consequences for bird populations: and operational releases originating from shipping o Higher potential for bird-ship collisions originating  Potential consequences for bird populations: from all shipping activities; disruption of feeding o Higher potential for bird-ship collisions originating and nesting birds resulting in loss of eggs and/or from all shipping activities; direct loss of birds due young; direct loss of birds due to contaminants and to contaminants and pollution pollution  Recommended setbacks:  Recommended setbacks: o EC-CWS Aerial Setbacks (All Seabirds); EC-CWS o EC-CWS Marine Setbacks (Seabirds); EC-CWS Aerial Terrestrial Setbacks (Ivory Gulls); Setbacks (All Seabirds); EC-CWS Terrestrial o Based on current knowledge of Ivory Gull feeding Setbacks (All Seabirds) behaviour, and level of human activity at this site, It is classed in the ‘moderately risk intolerant’ Additional considerations: category. EC recommends this site be re-assessed  The site has Use and Occupancy Mapping activity; once additional information on Ivory Gull feeding  Priorities and values of residents include birds, behaviour is acquired or as new industrial activities drinking water, cultural values, impacts, potential are proposed. economic development no oil and gas, shipping, and Additional considerations: protection; and  The existing planning policy framework;  The site contains Inuit Owned Lands.  The site has the potential for oil and gas related Option 2 is recommended: activities;  May restrict access to some uses Option 2 is recommended:  May include conditions to guide land use.  May restrict access to some uses  Identified area to be included on Schedule A  May include conditions to guide land use. Condition: Project Proposals/Projects must comply with the  Identified area to be included on Schedule A setbacks in Table 2 for the bird populations identified above. Condition: Project Proposals/Projects must comply with the Option 2 was chosen given that the area is considered to be setbacks in Table 2 for the bird populations identified above. moderately risk intolerant and that setbacks have been Option 2 was chosen given that the area is considered to be developed to manage land use within the vicinity of the area. moderately risk intolerant and that setbacks have been developed to manage land use within the vicinity of the area.

Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) noted the following: Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) noted the following:  Category:  Category: o Moderately risk intolerant o Highly risk intolerant  Qualifying Criterion:  Qualifying Criterion: o Feeding area adjacent to nesting colony for o Hosts more than 10% of a national population of migratory bird species listed as Endangered on one or more migratory bird species (American Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act (Ivory Gull)* Dovekie)  Feature bird group:  Feature bird group: o Seabirds o Seabird  Site details:  Site details: o Species at risk present: Ivory Gull (endangered) o Only known Dovekie breeding colony in Nunavut o Species at risk: None Draft Nunavut Land Use Plan Options and Recommendations – Draft 2016  23

o Non-binding designations: None o Hosts more than 10% of a national population of  Current human activities at site: one or more migratory bird species (Northern o Shipping Fulmar)  Anticipated human activities at site:  Feature bird group: o Shipping o Seabird  Threats to birds from current/future activities at  Site details: site: o Species at risk: Polar Bear (Special Concern) o Marine traffic/shipping disturbance as the area o Non-binding designations: Important Bird Area experiences increasing ship traffic; risk of oil spills  Current human activities at site: and operational releases originating from ships o Shipping; cruise ship tourism; harvesting and  Potential consequences for bird populations: ancillary activities by Nunavut Land Claims o Higher potential for bird-ship collisions originating Agreement beneficiaries from all shipping activities; direct loss of birds due  Anticipated human activities at site: to contaminants and pollution o Shipping; cruise ship tourism; 3. harvesting and  Recommended setbacks: ancillary activities by Nunavut Land Claims o EC-CWS Aerial Setbacks (All Seabirds); EC-CWS Agreement beneficiaries Marine Setbacks (All Seabirds); EC-CWS Terrestrial  Threats to birds from current/future activities at Setbacks (All Seabirds) site: o Marine traffic/shipping disturbance as the area Additional considerations: experiences increasing ship traffic; increasing  The site has Use and Occupancy Mapping activity; human disturbance related to cruise ship tourism;  Priorities and values of residents include caribou, risk of oil spills and operational releases originating polar bear, birds, fish, marine mammals, drinking from ships water, cultural values, existing economic  Potential consequences for bird populations: development, and protection; and o Higher potential for bird-ship collisions originating  The site has a total area of approximately 17 km2. from all shipping activities; disruption of feeding Option 1 is recommended: and nesting birds resulting in loss of eggs and/or  Restricts access to uses that are incompatible with young; direct loss of birds due to contaminants. environmental and cultural values.  Recommended setbacks:  May include conditions to guide land use. o EC-CWS Marine Setbacks (Seabirds); EC-CWS Aerial  Identified area to be included on Schedule A Setbacks (All Seabirds); EC-CWS Terrestrial Setbacks (All Seabirds) The following uses are prohibited: Additional considerations:  Mineral exploration and production;  The site’s terrestrial component is partially located in  Oil and gas exploration and production; Sirmilik National Park and the site’s marine  Quarries; component is partially within the proposed Lancaster  Hydro-Electrical and Related Infrastructure; Sound National Marine Conservation Area;  All weather roads; and  The site has Use and Occupancy Mapping activity and  Related research except Non-exploitive Scientific shipping; Research.  Priorities and values of residents include caribou, Condition: Project Proposals/Projects must comply with the polar bear, birds, fish, marine mammals, cultural setbacks in Table 2 for the bird populations identified above. values, impacts, existing economic development, no oil and gas, no shipping, and protection; and Option 1 was chosen given that the area is considered to be  The site contains a small portion of Inuit Owned highly risk intolerant and that access to uses that are Lands. incompatible with the protection of environmental values should be restricted. Option 1 is recommended:  Restricts access to uses that are incompatible with environmental and cultural values.  May include conditions to guide land use. Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) noted the following:  Identified area to be included on Schedule A  Category: The following uses are prohibited: o Highly risk intolerant  Oil and gas exploration and production; and  Qualifying Criterion:  Related research except Non-exploitive Scientific Research.

24 

Condition: Project Proposals/Projects must comply with the o EC-CWS Marine Setbacks (Coastal Waterfowl and setbacks in Table 2 for the bird populations identified above. Seaducks); EC-CWS Aerial Setbacks (Coastal Waterfowl and Seaducks); EC-CWS Terrestrial Option 1 was chosen given that the area is considered to be Setbacks (Coastal Waterfowl and Seaducks), highly risk intolerant and that access to uses that are incompatible with the protection of environmental values Additional considerations: should be restricted.  The site has Use and Occupancy Mapping activity;  Priorities and values of residents include caribou, polar bear, walrus, birds, fish, marine mammals, shellfish, fishing river or lake, land mammals, wildlife, drinking water, cultural values, contaminated sites, Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) noted the following: existing economic development, transportation and  Category: infrastructure, and protection; o Highly risk intolerant  Portions of the area have been identified for high  Qualifying Criterion: mineral potential; and o Host more than 10% of a national population of one  The site’s terrestrial component is all Inuit Owned or more migratory bird species (Common Eider ssp. Lands. sedentaria) Option 1 is recommended: o Supports a percentage of a national species  Restricts access to uses that are incompatible with population equal to or greater than the percentage environmental and cultural values. of 'sustainable loss' that the population can  May include conditions to guide land use. tolerate (Common Eider ssp. sedentaria)  Identified area to be included on Schedule A  Feature bird group: o Seaduck The following uses are prohibited:  Site details:  Oil and gas exploration and production; and o Critical breeding islands and critical wintering  Related research except Non-exploitive Scientific polynyas Research. o Species at risk: Polar Bear (Special Concern) Condition: Project Proposals/Projects must comply with the o Non-binding designations: Important Bird Area setbacks in Table 2 for the bird populations identified above.  Current human activities at site: o Shipping; mineral exploration (iron ore) lease; Option 1 was chosen given that the area is considered to be municipality; harvesting and ancillary activities by highly risk intolerant and that access to uses that are Nunavut Land Claims Agreement beneficiaries incompatible with the protection of environmental values  Anticipated human activities at site: should be restricted. o Shipping; mineral production and mine construction; marine cable installation; municipality; harvesting and ancillary activities by Nunavut Land Claims Agreement beneficiaries Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) noted the following:  Threats to birds from current/future activities at  Category: site: o Highly risk intolerant o Marine traffic/shipping disturbance as the area  Qualifying Criterion: experiences increasing ship traffic; risk of oil spills o Hosts more than 10% of a national population of and operational releases originating from ships; one or more migratory bird species (Northern increase in air traffic disturbance related to mining Fulmar) activities; human disturbance from mining  Feature bird group: activities; alteration of seabed due from dredging o Seabird for marine cable  Site details:  Potential consequences for bird populations: o Species at risk: Polar Bear (Special Concern) o Higher potential for bird-ship collisions originating o Non-binding designations: Important Bird Area; from all shipping activities; direct loss of birds due International Biological Programme Site to contaminants and pollution; disruption of  Current human activities at site: feeding and nesting birds resulting in loss of eggs o None and/or young; potential for bird-aircraft collisions  Anticipated human activities at site: originating from air traffic at low altitude or too o Shipping; cruise ship tourism; commercial fishing close from concentration of birds; loss of benthic  Threats to birds from current/future activities at prey for seaducks/waterfowl and seabirds site:  Recommended setbacks:

Draft Nunavut Land Use Plan Options and Recommendations – Draft 2016  25

o Marine traffic/shipping disturbance as the area  Site details: experiences increasing ship traffic; increasing o Species at risk: Peregrine Falcon (Special Concern), human disturbance related to cruise ship tourism; Polar Bear (Special Concern) risk for oil spills and operational releases originating o Non-binding designations: None from shipping; risk of bycatch from commercial  Current human activities at site: fishing activities anticipated o Shipping; cruise ship tourism; harvesting and  Potential consequences for bird populations: ancillary activities by Nunavut Land Claims o Higher potential for bird-ship collisions originating Agreement beneficiaries from all shipping activities; disruption of feeding  Anticipated human activities at site: and nesting birds due to increase of traffic; direct o Shipping; cruise ship tourism; commercial fishing; loss of birds due to contaminants and pollution; harvesting and ancillary activities by Nunavut Land potential for direct loss of seabirds from fishing Claims Agreement beneficiaries bycatch  Threats to birds from current/future activities at  Recommended setbacks: site: o EC-CWS Aerial Setbacks (All Seabirds); EC-CWS o Marine traffic/shipping disturbance as the area Marine Setbacks (Seabirds); EC-CWS Terrestrial experiences ship traffic; increasing human Setbacks (All Seabirds) disturbance related to cruise ship tourism; risk for Additional considerations: oil spills and operational releases originating from shipping; risk of bycatch from commercial fishing  The site is a turbot area of abundance; activities anticipated  The site has Use and Occupancy Mapping activity;  Potential consequences for bird populations:  Priorities and values of residents include polar bear, o Higher potential for bird-ship collisions originating birds, marine mammals, drinking water, cultural from all shipping activities; disruption of feeding values, contaminated sites, existing economic and nesting birds due to increase of traffic; direct development, and protection; and loss of birds due to contaminants and pollution;  The site contains Inuit Owned Lands. potential for direct loss of seabirds from fishing Option 1 is recommended: bycatch  Restricts access to uses that are incompatible with  Recommended setbacks: environmental and cultural values. o EC-CWS Aerial Setbacks (All Seabirds); EC-CWS  May include conditions to guide land use. Marine Setbacks (Seabirds); EC-CWS Terrestrial  Identified area to be included on Schedule A Setbacks (All Seabirds) The following uses are prohibited: Additional considerations:  Oil and gas exploration and production; and  The site has activity identified by Use and Occupancy  Related research except Non-exploitive Scientific Mapping; Research.  Priorities and values of residents include caribou, walrus, birds, fish, marine mammals, cultural values, Condition: Project Proposals/Projects must comply with the impacts, existing economic development, setbacks in Table 2 for the bird populations identified above. transportation and infrastructure, and protection; Option 1 was chosen given that the area is considered to be  The site has a North Warning System site and a land highly risk intolerant and that access to uses that are remediation site; incompatible with the protection of environmental values  The site has two National Wildlife Areas; and should be restricted.  The sites terrestrial component is all Inuit Owned Lands. Option 1 is recommended:  Restricts access to uses that are incompatible with environmental and cultural values. Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) noted the following:  May include conditions to guide land use.  Category:  Identified area to be included on Schedule A o Highly risk intolerant  Qualifying Criterion: The following uses are prohibited: o Supports a percentage of a national species  Oil and gas exploration and production; and population equal to or greater than the percentage  Related research except Non-exploitive Scientific of ‘sustainable loss’ that the population can Research. tolerate (Northern Fulmar and Thick-billed Murre) Condition: Project Proposals/Projects must comply with the  Feature bird group: setbacks in Table 2 for the bird populations identified above. o Seabird

26 

Option 1 was chosen given that the area is considered to be  Related research except Non-exploitive Scientific highly risk intolerant and that access to uses that are Research. incompatible with the protection of environmental values Condition: Project Proposals/Projects must comply with the should be restricted. setbacks in Table 2 for the bird populations identified above. Option 1 was chosen given that the area is considered to be highly risk intolerant and that access to uses that are Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) noted the following: incompatible with the protection of environmental values  Category: should be restricted. o Highly risk intolerant  Qualifying Criterion: o Contains habitat likely to be identified as Critical Habitat for a migratory bird listed as 'endangered' Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) noted the following: or 'threatened' under the Species at Risk Act (Ross's  Category: Gull) o Highly risk intolerant  Feature bird group:  Qualifying Criterion: o Seabird o Contain habitat likely to be identified as Critical  Site details: Habitat for a species listed as ‘endangered’ or o Species at risk: Ross’s Gull (Threatened) ‘threatened’ under the Species at Risk Act (Peary o Non-binding designations: Important Bird Area Caribou)  Current human activities at site: o Hosts more than 5% of a national population of one o None or more species exhibiting population decline as of  Anticipated human activities at site: 2005 (Buff-breasted Sandpiper) o Shipping  Feature bird group:  Threats to birds from current/future activities at o Shorebird site: o Also important at site: Seabirds (e.g. Northern o Marine traffic/shipping disturbance as the area Fulmar, Black-legged Kittiwake), Inland Seaduck experiences increasing ship traffic; risk for oil spills (King Eider, Long-tailed Duck) and operational releases originating from shipping  Site details:  Potential consequences for bird populations: o Species at risk: Peary Caribou (Endangered), Red o Higher potential for bird-ship collisions originating Knot spp. islandica (Special Concern), Polar Bear from all shipping activities; direct loss of birds due (Special Concern) to contaminants and pollution o Non-binding designations: Important Bird Area,  Recommended setbacks: International Biological Programme site o EC-CWS Aerial Setbacks (All Migratory Birds); EC-  Current human activities at site: CWS Marine Setbacks (Sea-level Coastal Nesters) o Land-based tourism; shipping; marine cable (All Seabirds); EC-CWS Terrestrial Setbacks (All installation; harvesting and ancillary activities by Seabirds) Nunavut Land Claims Agreement beneficiaries Additional considerations:  Anticipated human activities at site:  Priorities and values of residents include cultural o Land-based tourism; shipping; cruise ship tourism; values, and existing economic development; marine and terrestrial cable installation; harvesting  The existing planning policy framework; and ancillary activities by Nunavut Land Claims  The site’s three islands are part of the Bathurst Island Agreement beneficiaries proposed National Park.  Threats to birds from current/future activities at site: Option 1 is recommended: o Increased human disturbance related to tourism;  Restricts access to uses that are incompatible with marine traffic/shipping disturbance as the area environmental and cultural values. experiences increasing ship traffic; risk for oil spills  May include conditions to guide land use. and operational releases originating from shipping;  Identified area to be included on Schedule A alteration of seabed and lakebeds, pons due from The following uses are prohibited: dredging for marine, freshwater, terrestrial cable  Mineral exploration and production;  Potential consequences for bird populations:  Oil and gas exploration and production; o Disruption of feeding and nesting birds resulting in  Quarries; loss of eggs and/or young; higher potential for bird- ship collisions originating from all shipping  Hydro-Electrical and Related Infrastructure; activities; direct loss of birds due to contaminants  All weather roads; and

Draft Nunavut Land Use Plan Options and Recommendations – Draft 2016  27

and pollution; loss of benthic prey for shorebirds, o Shipping; coal exploration license seabirds, and seaducks  Anticipated human activities at site:  Recommended setbacks: o Shipping; coal exploration o EC-CWS Aerial Setbacks (Coastal Waterfowl and  Threats to birds from current/future activity: Seaducks); EC-CWS Marine Setbacks (All Seabirds); o Marine traffic/shipping disturbance as the area EC-CWS Terrestrial Setbacks (All Migratory Birds) experiences increasing ship traffic; risk of oil spills Additional considerations: and operational releases originating from ships;  The site is an Arctic char area of abundance; human disturbance from mineral  The site has Use and Occupancy Mapping activity, prospecting/mining activities anticipated; increase burial sites and a possible sacred area; in air traffic disturbance related to mineral  Priorities and values of residents include caribou, prospecting/mining activities anticipated. polar bear, marine mammals, land mammals, wildlife,  Potential consequences for bird populations: drinking water, cultural values, impacts, existing o Higher potential for bird-ship collisions originating economic development, no oil and gas, no shipping, from all shipping activities; direct loss of birds due and protection; and to contaminants and pollution; higher potential for  The site’s terrestrial component is Inuit Owned Lands. bird-aircraft collisions originating from air traffic at low altitude or from flying too close to Option 1 is recommended: concentration of birds; disruption of feeding and  Restricts access to uses that are incompatible with nesting birds resulting in loss of eggs and/or young. environmental and cultural values.  Recommended setbacks:  May include conditions to guide land use. o None  Identified area to be included on Schedule A Additional considerations: The following uses are prohibited:  The existing planning policy framework;  Oil and gas exploration and production; and  The site contains Inuit Owned Lands;  Related research except Non-exploitive Scientific  The site has possible oil and gas potential; Research.  The site has the potential for coal related activities; Condition: Project Proposals/Projects must comply with the Option 1 is recommended: setbacks in Table 2 for the bird populations identified above.  Restricts access to uses that are incompatible with Option 1 was chosen given that the area is considered to be environmental and cultural values. highly risk intolerant and that access to uses that are  May include conditions to guide land use. incompatible with the protection of environmental values  Identified area to be included on Schedule A should be restricted. The following uses are prohibited:  Mineral exploration and production;  Oil and gas exploration and production;  Quarries;  Hydro-Electrical and Related Infrastructure; Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) noted the following:  All weather roads; and  Category:  Related research except Non-exploitive Scientific o Highly risk intolerant Research.  Qualifying Criterion: o Hosts more than 5% of a national population of one Option 1 was chosen given that the area is considered to be or more species exhibiting population declines as of highly risk intolerant and that access to uses that are 2005 (Red Knot ssp. islandica) incompatible with the protection of environmental values o Contains habitat likely to be identified as Critical should be restricted. Habitat for Peary Caribou which is listed as 'endangered' or 'threatened' under the Species at Risk Act  Feature bird group: o Shorebird Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) noted the following:  Site details:  Category: o Important habitat for Peary Caribou o Highly risk intolerant o Species at risk: Peary Caribou (Endangered), Red  Qualifying Criterion: Knot spp. islandica (special concern) o Contains habitat likely to be identified as Critical o Non-binding designations: none Habitat for a migratory bird listed as ‘endangered’  Current human activities at site:

28 

or ‘threatened’ under the Species at Risk Act (Ivory or ‘threatened’ under the Species at Risk Act (Ivory Gull) Gull)  Feature bird group: o Hosts more than 10% of a national population of o Seabird one or more migratory bird species (Thick-billed  Site details: Murre, Black-legged Kittiwake) o Species at risk: Ivory Gull (Endangered) o Supports a percentage of a national species o Non-binding designations: Important Bird Area population equal to or greater than the percentage  Current human activities at site: of ‘sustainable loss’ that the population can o None tolerate (Thick-billed Murre)  Anticipated human activities at site:  Feature bird group: o None o Seabird  Threats to birds from current /future activities at  Site details: site: o Species at risk: Ivory Gull (Endangered), Polar Bear o None (Special Concern)  Potential consequences for bird populations: o Non-binding designation: None o None  Current human activities at site:  Recommended setbacks: o Shipping; harvesting and ancillary activities by o EC-CWS Marine Setbacks (Ivory Gull); EC-CWS Nunavut Land Claims Agreement beneficiaries Terrestrial Setbacks (Ivory Gull); EC-CWS Aerial  Anticipated human activities at site: Setbacks (All Seabirds), o Shipping; commercial fishing; harvesting and ancillary activities by Nunavut Land Claims Additional considerations: Agreement beneficiaries  Priorities and values of residents include polar bear,  Threats to birds from current/future activities at and existing economic development; and site:  The existing planning policy framework. o Marine traffic/shipping disturbance as the area Option 1 is recommended: experiences increasing ship traffic; risk for oil spills  Restricts access to uses that are incompatible with and operational releases originating from shipping; environmental and cultural values. risk of bycatch from commercial fishing activities  May include conditions to guide land use. anticipated  Identified area to be included on Schedule A  Potential consequences for bird populations: o Higher potential for bird-ship collisions originating The following uses are prohibited: from all shipping activities; risk for oil spills and  Mineral exploration and production; operational releases originating from shipping;  Oil and gas exploration and production; potential for direct loss of seabirds from fishing  Quarries; bycatch  Hydro-Electrical and Related Infrastructure;  Recommended setbacks:  All weather roads; and o EC-CWS Aerial Setbacks (All Seabirds); EC-CWS  Related research except Non-exploitive Scientific Marine Setbacks (All Seabirds); EC-CWS Terrestrial Research. Setbacks (All Seabirds) Condition: Project Proposals/Projects must comply with the Additional considerations: setbacks in Table 2 for the bird populations identified above.  The existing planning policy framework; Option 1 was chosen given that the area is considered to be  Portions of the site are in the proposed Lancaster highly risk intolerant and that access to uses that are Sound National Maine Conservation Area (NMCA); incompatible with the protection of environmental values  Portions of the site are in the Nirjutiqavvik National should be restricted. Wildlife Area (NWA);  The site has adjacent prospecting permits;  The site has Use and Occupancy Mapping activities;  Priorities and values of residents include polar bear, birds, fish, marine mammals, wildlife, cultural values, impacts, contaminated sites, existing economic Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) noted the following: development, no oil and gas, no shipping, and  Category: protection; and o Highly risk intolerant  The site is used for shipping.  Qualifying Criterion: o Contains habitat likely to be identified as Critical Option 1 is recommended: Habitat for a migratory bird listed as ‘endangered’  Restricts access to uses that are incompatible with environmental and cultural values. Draft Nunavut Land Use Plan Options and Recommendations – Draft 2016  29

 May include conditions to guide land use. risk of oil spills and operational releases originating  Identified area to be included on Schedule A from ships; risk of bycatch from commercial fishing activities anticipated The following uses are prohibited:  Potential consequences for bird populations:  Oil and gas exploration and production; and o Higher potential for bird-ship collisions originating  Related research except Non-exploitive Scientific from all shipping activities; disruption of feeding Research. and nesting birds resulting in loss of eggs and/or Condition: Project Proposals/Projects must comply with the young; direct loss of birds due to contaminants and setbacks in Table 2 for the bird populations identified above. pollution; potential for direct loss of seabirds from fishing bycatch Option 1 was chosen given that the area is considered to be  Recommended setbacks: highly risk intolerant and that access to uses that are o EC-CWS Aerial Setbacks (All Seabirds); EC-CWS incompatible with the protection of environmental values Marine Setbacks (All Seabirds); EC-CWS Terrestrial should be restricted. Setbacks (All Seabirds) Additional considerations:  Priorities and values of residents include polar bear, walrus, birds, fish, marine mammals, wildlife, cultural Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) noted the following: values, impacts, existing economic development, no oil and gas, no shipping, and protection; and  Category:

o Highly risk intolerant  The area is mainly in the proposed Lancaster Sound  Qualifying Criterion: National Marine Conservation Area. o Hosts more than 10% of a national population of one or more migratory bird species (Black-legged Option 1 is recommended: Kittiwake, Northern Fulmar, Thick-billed Murre)  Restricts access to uses that are incompatible with o Supports a percentage of a national species environmental and cultural values. population equal to or greater than the percentage  May include conditions to guide land use. of 'sustainable loss' that the population can Identified area to be included on Schedule A tolerate (Thick-billed Murre) o Contains habitat likely to be identified as Critical The following uses are prohibited: Habitat for a migratory bird listed as ‘endangered’  Oil and gas exploration and production; and or ‘threatened’ under the Species at Risk Act (Ivory  Related research except Non-exploitive Scientific Gull) Research.  Feature bird group: Condition: Project Proposals/Projects must comply with the o Seabird setbacks in Table 2 for the bird populations identified above.  Site details: o Important stopover during migration for many Option 1 was chosen given that the area is considered to be migratory bird species highly risk intolerant and that access to uses that are o Important feeding site – floe edge and polynya incompatible with the protection of environmental values o Important area for many species of marine should be restricted. mammals o Species at risk: Ivory Gull (Endangered), Polar Bear (Special Concern) o Non-binding designations: Important Bird Area  Current human activities at site: Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) noted the following: o Shipping; cruise ship tourism; harvesting and  Category: ancillary activities by Nunavut Land Claims o Highly risk intolerant Agreement beneficiaries  Qualifying Criterion:  Anticipated human activities at site: o Hosts more than 5% of a national population of one o Shipping; commercial fishing; cruise ship tourism; or more species exhibiting population declines as of harvesting and ancillary activities by Nunavut Land 2005 (Ruddy Turnstone, Red Knot) Claims Agreement beneficiaries o Contains habitat likely to be identified as Critical  Threats to birds from current/future activities at Habitat for a species listed as 'endangered' or site: 'threatened' under the Species at Risk Act (Peary o Marine traffic/shipping disturbance as the area Caribou) experiences increasing ship traffic; increasing  Feature bird group: human disturbance related to cruise ship tourism; o Shorebird

30 

 Site details: Option 1 was chosen given that the area is considered to be o Species at risk: Peary Caribou (Endangered), Red highly risk intolerant and that access to uses that are Knot spp. islandica (Special Concern) incompatible with the protection of environmental values o Non-binding designations: None should be restricted.  Current human activities at site: o Coal exploration license; shipping; weather station/military base  Anticipated human activities at site: o Coal exploration; shipping; weather CWS noted the following: station/military base  Category:  Threats to birds from current/future activities at o Highly risk intolerant site:  Qualifying Criterion: o Human and terrestrial traffic disturbance related to o Contain habitat likely to be identified as Critical mining-exploration, military, and weather station Habitat for a migratory bird listed as ‘endangered’ activities; air traffic disturbance related to mining or ‘threatened’ under the Species at Risk Act (Red exploration, military, and weather station activities; Knot, Ross’s Gull) marine traffic/shipping disturbance as the area o Hosts more than 10% of a national population of experiences increasing ship traffic; risk of oil spills one or more migratory bird species (Dunlin, Red and operational releases originating from ships Phalarope, White-rumped Sandpiper, Ruddy  Potential consequences for bird populations: Turnstone, Purple Sandpiper, Long-tailed Jaeger, o Disruption of feeding and nesting birds resulting in Sabine's Gull, Atlantic Brant) loss of eggs and/or young; potential for bird-aircraft o Hosts more than 5% of a national population of one collisions originating from air traffic at low altitude or more species exhibiting population decline as of or too close from concentration of birds 2005 (Dunlin, Red Phalarope, Ruddy Turnstone)  Recommended setbacks:  Feature bird group: o None o Seabird, Shorebird, Waterfowl Additional considerations:  Site details:  The existing planning policy framework; o Species at risk: Red Knot spp. rufa (Endangered),  The site contains Inuit Owned Lands; Ross’s Gull (Endangered), Polar Bear (Special  The site has potential for coal related activities; Concern)  The site has possible oil and gas potential; o Non-binding designations: Important Bird Area  The site provides suitable habitat high-arctic habitat  Current human activities at site: o for Peary caribou and muskox; Shipping  The site includes Canadian Forces Station (CFS)  Anticipated human activities at site: o Eureka, and; Shipping  The Nunavut Impact Review Board (the NIRB)  Threats to birds from current/future activities at previously recommended that coal exploration in the site: o area, as proposed, was not appropriate. Marine traffic/shipping disturbance as the area experiences increasing ship traffic; risk for oil spills Option 1 is recommended: and operational releases originating from shipping  Restricts access to uses that are incompatible with  Potential consequences for bird populations: environmental and cultural values. o Higher potential for bird-ship collisions originating  May include terms to guide land use. from all shipping activities; direct loss of birds due  May include direction to regulatory authorities. to contaminants and pollution  May identify priorities and values that need to be  Recommended setbacks: considered in the design, review, and conduct of the o EC-CWS Aerial Setbacks (Coastal Waterfowl and activity. Seaducks); EC-CWS Marine Setbacks (Coastal Waterfowl and Seaducks); EC-CWS Terrestrial The following uses are prohibited: Setbacks (Coastal Waterfowl and Seaducks)  Mineral exploration and production;  Oil and gas exploration and production; Additional considerations:  Quarries;  Priorities and values of residents include cultural  Hydro-Electrical and Related Infrastructure; values, and protection.; and  All weather roads; and  The site hafs possible oil and gas potential;  Related research except Non-exploitive Scientific Option 1 is recommended: Research.

Draft Nunavut Land Use Plan Options and Recommendations – Draft 2016  31

 Restricts access to uses that are incompatible with o Marine traffic/shipping disturbance as the area environmental and cultural values. experiences increasing ship traffic; risk for oil spills  May include conditions to guide land use. and operational releases originating from shipping  Identified area to be included on Schedule A  Potential consequences for bird populations: o Disruption of feeding and nesting birds resulting in The following uses are prohibited: loss of eggs and/or young; direct loss of birds due  Mineral exploration and production; to contaminants and pollution  Oil and gas exploration and production;  Recommended setbacks:  Quarries; o EC-CWS Aerial Setbacks (All Migratory Birds); EC-  Hydro-Electrical and Related Infrastructure; CWS Marine Setbacks (Coastal Waterfowl and  All weather roads; and Seaducks); EC-CWS Terrestrial Setbacks (Coastal  Related research except Non-exploitive Scientific Waterfowl and Seaducks) Research. Additional considerations: Condition: Project Proposals/Projects must comply with the  The site has an Arctic char area of abundance; setbacks in Table 2 for the bird populations identified above.  The site has Use and Occupancy Mapping activity; Option 1 was chosen given that the area is considered to be  Priorities and values of residents include caribou, highly risk intolerant and that access to uses that are birds, fish, marine mammals, river or lake of interest, incompatible with the protection of environmental values wildlife, drinking water, cultural values, contaminated should be restricted. sites, existing economic development, and protection;  The site is adjacent to a Migratory Bird Sanctuaries on both sides; and  The site has some Inuit Owned Lands. Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) noted the following: Option 1 is recommended:  Category:  Restricts access to uses that are incompatible with o Highly risk intolerant environmental and cultural values.  Qualifying Criterion:  May include conditions to guide land use. o Contains habitat likely to be identified as Critical  Identified area to be included on Schedule A Habitat for a migratory bird listed as 'endangered' or 'threatened' under the Species at Risk Act (Red The following uses are prohibited:  Knot) Mineral exploration and production; o Hosts more than 10% of a national population of  Oil and gas exploration and production; one or more migratory bird species (Black-bellied  Quarries; Plover, Dunlin, Red Phalarope, Red Knot, Ruddy  Hydro-Electrical and Related Infrastructure; Turnstone, White-rumped Sandpiper, Lesser Snow  All weather roads; and Goose)  Related research except Non-exploitive Scientific o Hosts more than 5% of a national population of one Research. or more species exhibiting population decline as of Condition: Project Proposals/Projects must comply with the 2005 (American Golden-Plover, Black-bellied setbacks in Table 2 for the bird populations identified above. Plover, Dunlin, Red Phalarope, Red Knot, Ruddy Turnstone) Option 1 was chosen given that the area is considered to be  Feature bird group: highly risk intolerant and that access to uses that are o Shorebird, Waterfowl. Also important at site: incompatible with the protection of environmental values Coastal Waterfowl (Atlantic Brant) should be restricted.  Site details: o Species at risk: Red Knot spp. rufa (Endangered) o Non-binding designations: Ramsar Wetland of International Importance; International Biological Programme Site; Important Bird Area Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) noted the following:  Current human activities at site:  Category: o None o Highly risk intolerant  Anticipated human activities at site:  Qualifying Criterion: o Shipping o Contain habitat likely to be identified as Critical  Threats to birds from current/future activities at Habitat for a migratory bird listed as ‘endangered’ site: or ‘threatened’ under the Species at Risk Act (Ivory Gull) 32 

 Feature bird group:  Current human activities at site: o Seabird o Shipping  Site details:  Anticipated human activities at site: o Species at risk: Ivory Gull (Endangered) o Shipping; cruise ship tourism; commercial fishing o Non-binding designations: None  Threats to birds from current/future activities at  Current human activities at site: site: o None o Marine traffic/shipping disturbance as the area  Anticipated human activities at site: experiences increasing ship traffic; increasing o None human disturbance related to cruise ship tourism;  Threats to birds from current/future activities at risk of oil spills and operational releases originating site: from ships; risk of bycatch from commercial fishing o None activities anticipated  Potential consequences for bird populations:  Potential consequences for bird populations: o None o Higher potential for bird-ship collisions originating  Recommended setbacks: from all shipping activities; disruption of feeding o EC-CWS Aerial Setbacks (All Seabirds); EC-CWS and nesting birds resulting in loss of eggs and/or Terrestrial Setbacks (All Seabirds) young; direct loss of birds due to contaminants and pollution; potential for direct loss of seabirds from Additional considerations: fishing bycatch  Priorities and values of residents include caribou.  Recommended setbacks: Option 1 is recommended: o EC-CWS Marine Setbacks (Seabirds); EC-CWS Aerial  Restricts access to uses that are incompatible with Setbacks (All Seabirds); EC-CWS Terrestrial environmental and cultural values. Setbacks (All Seabirds);  May include conditions to guide land use. Additional considerations:  Identified area to be included on Schedule A  Priorities and values of residents include walrus, fish, The following uses are prohibited: marine mammals, land mammals, wildlife, cultural  Mineral exploration and production; values, impacts, no oil and gas, no shipping, and  Oil and gas exploration and production; protection; and  Quarries;  The area is in the proposed Lancaster Sound National  Hydro-Electrical and Related Infrastructure; Marine Conservation Area;  All weather roads; and Option 1 is recommended:  Related research except Non-exploitive Scientific  Restricts access to uses that are incompatible with Research. environmental and cultural values. Condition: Project Proposals/Projects must comply with the  May include conditions to guide land use. setbacks in Table 2 for the bird populations identified above.  Identified area to be included on Schedule A. Option 1 was chosen given that the area is considered to be The following uses are prohibited: highly risk intolerant and that access to uses that are  Oil and gas exploration and production; and incompatible with the protection of environmental values  Related research except Non-exploitive Scientific should be restricted. Research. Condition: Project Proposals/Projects must comply with the setbacks in Table 2 for the bird populations identified above.

Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) noted the following: Option 1 was chosen given that the area is considered to be  Category: highly risk intolerant and that access to uses that are o Highly risk intolerant incompatible with the protection of environmental values  Qualifying Criterion: should be restricted. o Hosts more than 10% of a national population of one or more migratory bird species (Northern Fulmar)  Feature bird group: o Seabird Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) noted the following:  Site details:  Category: o Species at risk: Polar Bear (Special Concern) o Highly risk intolerant o Non-binding designations: International Biological  Qualifying Criterion: Programme Site; Important Bird Area

Draft Nunavut Land Use Plan Options and Recommendations – Draft 2016  33

o Contains habitat likely to be identified as Critical  Qualifying Criterion: Habitat for a migratory bird listed as ‘endangered’ o Supports a percentage of a national species or ‘threatened’ under the Species at Risk Act (Ivory population equal to or greater than the percentage Gull) of ‘sustainable loss’ that the population can  Feature bird group: tolerate (Common Eider) o Seabird  Feature bird group:  Site details: o Seaduck o Species at risk: Ivory Gull (Endangered)  Site details: o Non-binding designations: Important Bird Area o Species at risk: Polar Bear (Special Concern)  Current human activities at site: o Non-binding designations: Important Bird Area o None  Current human activities at site:  Anticipated human activities at site: o Shipping; harvesting and ancillary activities by o None Nunavut Land Claims Agreement beneficiaries  Threats to birds from current/future activities at  Anticipated human activities at site: site: o Shipping; harvesting and ancillary activities by o None Nunavut Land Claims Agreement beneficiaries  Potential consequences for bird populations:  Threats to birds from current/future activities: o None o Marine traffic/shipping disturbance as the area  Recommended setbacks: experiences increasing ship traffic; risk for oil spills o EC-CWS Aerial Setbacks (All Seabirds); EC-CWS and operational releases originating from shipping Terrestrial Setbacks (Ivory Gull)  Potential consequences for bird populations: o Higher potential for bird-ship collisions originating Additional considerations: from all shipping activities; disruption of feeding  Priorities and values of residents include polar bear and nesting birds resulting in loss of eggs and/or and existing economic development; young; direct loss of birds due to contaminants  The existing planning policy framework;  Recommended setbacks:  The site is comprised of different areas; and o EC-CWS Aerial Setbacks (Coastal Waterfowl and  One of the areas contains Inuit Owned Lands. Seaducks); EC-CWS Marine Setbacks (Coastal Option 1 is recommended: Waterfowl and Seaducks)  Restricts access to uses that are incompatible with Additional considerations: environmental and cultural values.  The site has Use and Occupancy Mapping activity,  May include conditions to guide land use. burial sites and a possible sacred site;  Identified area to be included on Schedule A  Priorities and values of residents include caribou, The following uses are prohibited: polar bear, walrus, birds, fish, marine mammals,  Mineral exploration and production; shellfish, land mammals, drinking water, cultural  Oil and gas exploration and production; values, contaminated sites, potential economic  Quarries; development, and protection; and  Hydro-Electrical and Related Infrastructure;  The site contains some Inuit Owned Lands.  All weather roads; and Option 1 is recommended:  Related research except Non-exploitive Scientific  Restricts access to uses that are incompatible with Research. environmental and cultural values. Direction: Regulatory Authorities, where appropriate, must  May include conditions to guide land use. incorporate the setbacks in Table 2 for the bird populations  Identified area to be included on Schedule A. identified above during the issuance of permits, licences and The following uses are prohibited: authorizations.  Oil and gas exploration and production; and Option 1 was chosen given that the area is considered to be  Related research except Non-exploitive Scientific highly risk intolerant and that access to uses that are Research. incompatible with the protection of environmental values Condition: Project Proposals/Projects must comply with the should be restricted. setbacks in Table 2 for the bird populations identified above. Option 1 was chosen given that the area is considered to be highly risk intolerant and that access to uses that are Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) noted the following: incompatible with the protection of environmental values  Category: should be restricted. o Highly risk intolerant

34 

 Hydro-Electrical and Related Infrastructure;  All weather roads; and  Related research except Non-exploitive Scientific Research. Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) noted the following:  Category: Condition: Project Proposals/Projects must comply with the o Highly risk intolerant setbacks in Table 2 for the bird populations identified above.  Qualifying Criterion: Option 1 was chosen given that the area is considered to be o Contain habitat likely to be identified as Critical highly risk intolerant and that access to uses that are Habitat for a migratory bird listed as ‘endangered’ incompatible with the protection of environmental values or ‘threatened’ under the Species at Risk Act (Ross’s should be restricted. Gull) o Hosts more than 10% of a national population of one or more migratory bird species (Ross's Gull)  Feature bird group: o Seabird Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) noted the following: o Also important at site: Seaduck (Common eider)  Category:  Site details: o Highly risk intolerant o Species at risk: Ross’s Gull (Threatened)  Qualifying Criterion: o Non-binding designations: None o Contains habitat likely to be identified as Critical  Current human activities at site: Habitat for a migratory bird listed as ‘endangered’ o None or ‘threatened’ under the Species at Risk Act (Ivory  Anticipated human activities at site: Gull) o Shipping o Contains species with population >10% of national  Threats to birds from current/future activities at population (Black-legged Kittiwake, Thick-billed site: Murre, Ivory Gull) o Marine traffic/shipping disturbance as the area o Supports a percentage of a national species experiences increasing ship traffic; risk for oil spills population equal to or greater than the percentage and operational releases originating from shipping of 'sustainable loss' (Thick-billed Murre)  Potential consequences for bird populations:  Feature bird group: o Higher potential for bird-ship collisions originating o Seabird, Seaducks (Common Eider) from all shipping activities; disruption of feeding  Site details: and nesting birds resulting in loss of eggs and/or o Species at risk: Ivory Gull (Endangered); Polar Bear young; direct loss of birds due to contaminants and (Special Concern) pollution o Non-binding designations: None  Recommended setbacks:  Current human activities at site: o EC-CWS Aerial Setbacks (All Seabirds) (Coastal o Shipping; cruise ship tourism Waterfowl and Seaducks); EC-CWS Marine  Anticipated human activities at site: Setbacks (All Seabirds) (Coastal Waterfowl and o Shipping; cruise ship tourism; commercial fishing Seaducks); EC-CWS Terrestrial Setbacks (All  Threats to birds from current/future activities at Seabirds) (Coastal Waterfowl and Seaducks) site: Additional considerations: o Marine traffic/shipping disturbance as the area  Priorities and values of residents include cultural experiences increasing ship traffic; increasing values, existing economic development, and human disturbance related to cruise ship tourism; protection; and risk for oil spills and operational releases originating  The existing planning policy framework. from shipping; risk of bycatch from commercial fishing activities anticipated Option 1 is recommended:  Potential consequences for bird populations:  Restricts access to uses that are incompatible with o Higher potential for bird-ship collisions originating environmental and cultural values. from all shipping activities; disruption of feeding  May include conditions to guide land use. birds resulting in compromised energetics; direct  Identified area to be included on Schedule A loss of birds due to contaminants and pollution; The following uses are prohibited: potential for direct loss of seabirds from fishing  Mineral exploration and production; bycatch  Oil and gas exploration and production;  Recommended setbacks:  Quarries;

Draft Nunavut Land Use Plan Options and Recommendations – Draft 2016  35

o EC-CWS Aerial Setbacks (All Seabirds); EC-CWS concentration of birds; disruption of feeding and Marine Setbacks (All Seabirds); nesting birds resulting in loss of eggs and/or young  Recommended setbacks: Additional considerations: o EC-CWS Aerial Setbacks (All Seabirds); EC-CWS  Priorities and values of residents include polar bear, Terrestrial Setbacks (Ivory Gull) and existing economic development;  The existing planning policy framework; Additional considerations:  Within the NSA, the site is comprised of two areas and  Priorities and values of residents include marine is considered biologically diverse; and mammals, wildlife, and potential economic  The site has oil and gas production potential. development;  The site is comprised of three areas that are each Option 1 is recommended: approximately 1 km2 in size; and  Restricts access to uses that are incompatible with  The site has active mineral claims. environmental and cultural values.  May include conditions to guide land use. Option 1 is recommended:  Identified area to be included on Schedule A  Restricts access to uses that are incompatible with environmental and cultural values. The following uses are prohibited:  May include conditions to guide land use.  Oil and gas exploration and production; and  Identified area to be included on Schedule A  Related research except Non-exploitive Scientific Research. The following uses are prohibited:  Mineral exploration and production; Condition: Project Proposals/Projects must comply with the  Oil and gas exploration and production; setbacks in Table 2 for the bird populations identified above.  Quarries; Option 1 was chosen given that the area is considered to be  Hydro-Electrical and Related Infrastructure; highly risk intolerant and that access to uses that are  All weather roads; and incompatible with the protection of environmental values  Related research except Non-exploitive Scientific should be restricted. Research. Condition: Project Proposals/Projects must comply with the setbacks in Table 2 for the bird populations identified above. Option 1 was chosen given that the area is considered to be Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) noted the following: highly risk intolerant and that access to uses that are  Category: incompatible with the protection of environmental values o Highly risk intolerant should be restricted.  Qualifying Criterion: o Contains habitat likely to be identified as Critical Habitat for a migratory bird listed as 'endangered' or 'threatened' under the Species at Risk Act (Ivory Gull) Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) noted the following: o Hosts more than 10% of a national population of a  Category: migratory bird species (Ivory Gull) o Highly risk intolerant  Feature bird group:  Qualifying Criterion: o Seabird o Contains habitat likely to be identified as Critical  Site details: Habitat for a species listed as 'endangered' or o Species at risk: Ivory Gull (Endangered) 'threatened' under the Species at Risk Act (Peary o Non-binding designations: Important Bird Area Caribou)  Current human activities at site: o Also expected to qualify as ‘site containing 5 to o Mineral claim 10% of one or more species listed as declining as of  Anticipated human activities at site: 2005’, pending field studies in summer 2014. o Mineral claim  Feature bird group:  Threats to birds from current/future activities at o Shorebird (e.g. Purple Sandpiper), Waterfowl (e.g. site: high arctic Brant) o Air traffic disturbance related to mining exploration  Site details: activities o High quality Arctic wetland – an oasis among dry  Potential consequences for bird populations: uplands o Potential for bird-aircraft collisions originating from air traffic at low altitude or from flying too close to 36 

o Species at risk: Peary Caribou (Endangered), Red  Site details: Knot spp. islandica (Special Concern), Buff-breasted o Virtually all of Hudson Bay subspecies of Common Sandpiper (Special Concern) Eider overwinter and breed here, and in the Belcher o Non-binding designations: None Island polynyas  Current human activities at site: o Species at risk: None o None o Non-binding designations: Important Bird Area  Anticipated human activities at site:  Current human activities at site: o Shipping; oil and gas exploration and production o Shipping  Threats to birds from current/future activities at  Anticipated human activities at site: site: o Shipping o Marine traffic/shipping disturbance as the area  Threats to birds from current/future activities at experiences increasing ship traffic; risk for oil spills site: and operational releases originating from shipping; o Marine traffic/shipping disturbance as the area risk of oil spills and operational releases originating experiences increasing ship traffic; risk for oil spills from oil and gas exploration and operational releases originating from ships  Potential consequences for bird populations:  Potential consequences for bird populations: o Higher potential for bird-ship collisions originating o Higher potential for bird-ship collisions originating from all shipping activities direct loss of birds due from all shipping activities direct loss of birds due to contaminants and pollution; increased risk of oil to contaminants and pollution blow outs and/or spills, causing acute oil pollution  Recommended setbacks:  Recommended restrictions on activities: o EC-CWS Aerial Setbacks (Coastal Waterfowl and o None Seaducks); EC-CWS Marine Setbacks (Coastal  Recommended setbacks: Waterfowl and Seaducks); EC-CWS Terrestrial o None Setbacks (Coastal Waterfowl and Seaducks) Additional considerations: Additional considerations:  The existing planning policy framework;  The site contains mostly Inuit Owned Lands;  The site has the potential for oil and gas related  The site has Use and Occupancy Mapping activity; activities and other future economic development.  Priorities and values of residents include polar bear, walrus, birds, fish, marine mammals, land mammals, Option 4 is recommended: drinking water, cultural values, existing economic  Identifies areas that are important to particular development, and protection; and Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs) or Valued  The site is partly in an area of equal use and Socio-Economic Components (VSECS). occupancy.  Identified area shown on Schedule B of the NLUP. Option 1 is recommended: Information on Valued Components: Identify the key  Restricts access to uses that are incompatible with migratory bird habitat site as an area of a known Valued environmental and cultural values. Ecosystem Component that should be given particular  May include conditions to guide land use. consideration.  Identified area to be included on Schedule A Option 4 was chosen given that there are currently no recommended prohibitions or conditions for the area. The following uses are prohibited:  Mineral exploration and production;  Oil and gas exploration and production;  Quarries; Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) noted the following:  Hydro-Electrical and Related Infrastructure;  Category:  All weather roads; and o Highly risk intolerant  Related research except Non-exploitive Scientific  Qualifying Criterion: Research. o Supports a percentage of a national species Condition: Project Proposals/Projects must comply with the population equal to or greater than the percentage setbacks in Table 2 for the bird populations identified above. of ‘sustainable loss’ that the population can tolerate (Common Eider) Option 1 was chosen given that the area is considered to be o Hosts more than 10% of a national population of highly risk intolerant and that access to uses that are one or more migratory bird species (Common incompatible with the protection of environmental values Eider) should be restricted.  Feature bird group: o Seaduck Draft Nunavut Land Use Plan Options and Recommendations – Draft 2016  37

o None  Recommended setbacks: o EC-CWS Aerial Setbacks (Coastal Waterfowl and Seaducks); EC-CWS Marine Setbacks (Coastal Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) noted the following: Waterfowl and Seaducks); EC-CWS Terrestrial  Category: Setbacks (Coastal Waterfowl and Seaducks) o Highly risk intolerant Additional considerations:  Qualifying Criterion:  The site contains Inuit Owned Lands; o Host more than 10% of a national population of one or more migratory bird species (Iceland Gull)  The site has Use and Occupancy Mapping activity, o Supports a percentage of a national species burial sites and possible sacred sites; population equal to or greater than the percentage  Priorities and values of residents include caribou, of 'sustainable loss' that the population can polar bear, walrus, birds, fish, marine mammals, tolerate (Common Eider) shellfish, river or lake of interest, wildlife, drinking  Feature bird group: water, cultural values, impacts, contaminated sites, o Seabird, Seaduck potential economic development, existing economic  Site details: development, no shipping, and protection; o Largest breeding concentration of Iceland Gulls in  The site has mineral claims and prospecting permits; Canada  Importance of Clearwater Fiord to the residents of o Species at risk: Polar Bear (Special Concern), Beluga Pangnirtung; Whale (Endangered, schedule 2, SE Baffin  The site has both an Arctic char and shrimp area of Island/Cumberland Sound population) abundance. o Non-binding designations: None Option 4 is recommended:  Current human activities at site:  Identifies areas that are important to particular o Shipping; mineral claim; harvesting and ancillary Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs) or Valued activities by Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Socio-Economic Components (VSECS). beneficiaries  Identified area shown on Schedule B of the NLUP.  Anticipated human activities at site: o Shipping; mineral exploration; commercial fishing; Information on Valued Components: Identify the key harvesting and ancillary activities by Nunavut Land migratory bird habitat site as an area of a known Valued Claims Agreement beneficiaries Ecosystem Component that should be given particular  Threats to birds from current/future activities at consideration. site: Option 4 was chosen given that there are currently no o Marine traffic/shipping disturbance as the area recommended prohibitions or conditions for the area. experiences increasing ship traffic; risk for oil spills and operational releases originating from shipping; risk of bycatch from commercial fishing activities anticipated; air traffic disturbance related to mineral exploration; human and terrestrial traffic disturbance related to mineral exploration; risk of Caribou are an essential part of northern ecosystems and Inuit bycatch from commercial fishing activities cultural heritage. Most caribou rely on vast ranges at different anticipated. times of the year.  Potential consequences for bird populations: NPC is aware of five types of caribou in Nunavut: o Higher potential for bird-ship collisions originating 1. Mainland Migrating herds of Barrenland caribou from all shipping activities; disruption of feeding summer in tundra areas and winter in taiga or and nesting birds resulting in loss of eggs and/or forested habitat, usually in the Northwest Territories, young; direct loss of birds due to contaminants and Manitoba, or Saskatchewan. pollution; potential for direct loss of seabirds from 2. Tundra Wintering herds of Barrenland caribou live all fishing bycatch; potential for bird-aircraft collisions year north of the treeline, but move south in the originating from air traffic at low altitude or from winter and north in the summer . To some degree, flying too close to concentration of birds the wintering ranges of the Tundra Wintering herds  Recommended restrictions on activities:

1 The Dolphin & Union Herd, which spends summers on Victoria Island and winters on the mainland, is included here.

38 

are similar to the summer ranges of the mainland a. 9 Subgroups in Nunavut, associated with island migrating herds. clusters in the Arctic Archipelago: 3. Island herds, which are the same species as the . Ellesmere Island Mainland Tundra Wintering herds, live all year on the . Axel Heiburg Island tundra of the Arctic Archipelago. There are few . Prime Minister Island known particular habitats for these caribou. . Ringnes Island 4. Peary caribou, a smaller type of caribou, live mainly in . Bathurst Island the High Arctic. There are few known particular . Devon Island habitats for these caribou. The subgroups of Peary . Melville Island caribou are listed as Threatened or Endangered. . Prince of Wales/Somerset Island 5. Reindeer, which live on the Belcher Islands around . Boothia Peninsula Sanikiluaq. 5. Belcher Islands Reindeer NPC is aware of 10 types of caribou seasonal ranges: 1. Calving Areas- used by cows annually to drop Figure 1 identifies the caribou herds of Nunavut as they existed in 2011. newborn caribou. 2. Post-calving Areas- where cows take young caribou for the first weeks of life, when they are the most vulnerable. 3. Key Access Corridors - used by cows to enter a calving area, and by cows and young caribou to leave post- Considered Information for all caribou habitat: calving areas.  The Nunavut Land Claims Agreement requires a land 4. Freshwater crossings - where caribou frequently cross use plan to take into account environmental larger bodies of freshwater, either through open considerations, including wildlife habitat. water or on ice.  It is an objective of the Commission’s Goal of 5. Marine Sea Ice crossings - where caribou typically Protecting and Sustaining the Environment to cross between islands, or from the mainland to an manage land use in and around areas of biological island. importance. 6. Rutting areas - where caribou typically mate.  Parnautit, the Government of Nunavut Mineral 7. Spring Migration areas - the paths used by caribou at Exploration and Mining Strategy identifies the need to the end of winter for their annual trip north. create conditions for a strong and sustainable 8. Fall Migration areas - the paths used by caribou at the minerals industry that contributes to a high and end of summer for their annual trip south. sustainable quality of life for all Nunavummiut; 9. Summer and late summer areas - used to forage.  10. Winter ranges - the widespread areas where caribou Ingirrasiliqta, the Government Of Nunavut spend the winter. Transportation Strategy identifies the need for land and marine transportation networks to facilitate the Following are the known caribou herds of Nunavut: movement of goods and provision of services; 1. Mainland Migrating  Working Together for Caribou, the GOVERNMENT OF a. Qamanirjuaq NUNAVUT’s Caribou Strategy identifies caribou as a b. Bathurst keystone species with important economic and c. Bluenose East cultural values identifies caribou as a keystone d. Beverly species with important economic and cultural values; 2. Tundra Wintering Mainland and a. Lorillard  It is an objective NPCs broad planning policies, b. Wager Bay objectives and goals that any proposed restrictions on c. Qu. Maud Gulf land use are achieved with the least possible impact d. Dolphin & Union on undiscovered mineral resources, while taking into e. Melville account environmental and social objectives. f. Boothia-K.William Island 3. Tundra Wintering Island a. South Baffin b. North Baffin c. East Baffin d. Southampton e. Coates f. Mansel 4. Peary Caribou

Draft Nunavut Land Use Plan Options and Recommendations – Draft 2016  39

Figure 1: Caribou Herds of Nunavut

Development should be restricted to avoid disturbing caribou;  The North Baffin Regional Land Use Plan prohibits Calving areas are generally acknowledged as areas where development in calving areas during calving season. caribou are particularly vulnerable to disturbance. Identifies caribou calving areas as significant areas; Additional considerations for managing caribou calving areas:  There are some existing mineral rights in caribou  The Government of Nunavut has identified core calving areas; calving areas for mainland herds based on tracking  Some areas contain Inuit Owned Lands; caribou (collared cows) by telemetry;  17.1.3 Inuit Owned Lands shall, to the extent possible,  Caribou cows and calves are most sensitive to provide for a mix of the characteristics outlined above disturbance during the calving and post-calving in order to secure balanced economic development. season; However, the relative weighting of the characteristics  The following participants have recommended with respect to any particular community or region protection of caribou calving areas: shall turn on the actual or potential economic o Nunavut Wildlife Management Board (2014-05- opportunities at hand and the particular community 21) or regional preferences; o Beverly and Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management  Some areas have qualities that have been recognized Board (2015-06-22) as important to promoting other Goals; and o Kivalliq Wildlife Board (2016-03-04)  The Commission recognizes the Caribou Protection o Kitikmeot Regional Wildlife Board (2016-03-17) Measures designed and implemented by Aboriginal o Qikiqtaaluk Wildlife Board (2016-03-02) Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC); o Kivalliq Inuit Association (2016-03-11) NOTE: o Qikiqtani Inuit Association (2016-03-24)  Ukkusiksalik National Park contains caribou calving o Baker Lake HTO (2015-09-15) and post-calving areas; o Aqigiq HTO (2015-09-18)  o Arviat HTO (2015-09-24) The Queen Maud Gulf Migratory Bird Sanctuaries o Whale Cove HTO (2015-09-30) contains caribou calving areas; and o Arviq HTO (2015-10-20)  The Thelon Wildlife Sanctuary contains caribou o Athabasca Denesuline Né Né Land Corporation calving and post-calving areas and is assigned a (2013-12-11) Protected Area designation below. o Fort Smith Metis Council (2014-02-05) o Lutsel K’e Dene First Nation (2014-01-31) Recommendation for Caribou Calving Areas o Northwest Territory Metis Nation, Option 1 is recommended for caribou calving areas: o Sayisi Dene First Nation (2014-05-15)  Restricts access to uses that are incompatible with o Northlands Denesuline (2014-05-27) environmental and cultural values. o Government of NunavutWT Department of  May include conditions to guide land use. Environment and Natural Resources (2014-02-  Identified area to be included on Schedule A 13) o WWF (2014-02-14) The following uses are prohibited: o Mining Watch Canada (2014-04-14)  Mineral exploration and production;  The Government of Nunavut (2016-05-16) has  Oil and gas exploration and production; recommended that mitigation measures can be  Quarries; implemented through the NIRB environmental  Hydro-Electrical and Related Infrastructure; assessment process;  All weather roads; and  The Chamber of Mines (2015-06-20) and Baffinland  Related research except Non-exploitive Scientific (2016-03-04) have recommended calving areas be Research. identified in the plan for consideration by the NIRB. Option 1 was chosen given that these areas have been  The NIRB (2015-07-07 – Screening Decision Report for identified by multiple participants as areas requiring File No. 15EN009) recommended the NPC consider protection. In addition, although several participants formalized protection of important caribou habitat; recommended that NIRB could adequately address impacts,  The Kitikmeot Inuit Association (2015-06-22) NIRB has recommended that formalized protection be supports the implementation of mobile caribou considered and that cumulative impacts should be considered protection measures; at a regional scale.  The Kugluktuk HTO (2016-02-19) recommends seasonal restrictions for caribou calving areas;  The Keewatin Regional Land Use Plan prohibits development activities on all public lands and waters in caribou calving areas during calving season. Recommendation for Post-Calving Areas Option 1 is recommended for caribou post-calving areas:  Restricts access to uses that are incompatible with Post-calving areas are geographically defined areas used by environmental and cultural values. caribou for the nursing of calves and nutrition uptake to sustain  May include conditions to guide land use. the high energy demands required by lactating females.  Identified area to be included on Schedule A Disturbance in these areas while caribou are present can lead The following uses are prohibited: to demographic impacts to populations resulting in higher calf  Mineral exploration and production; mortality because of reduced nursing time, or cow-calf  Oil and gas exploration and production; abandonment. Additionally, adults are affected by  Quarries; displacement from areas with high quality forage required to  Hydro-Electrical and Related Infrastructure; maintain milk production.  All weather roads; and Additional considerations for managing post-calving areas:  Related research except Non-exploitive Scientific  The Government of Nunavut has identified post- Research. calving areas for mainland herds based on tracking Option 1 was chosen given that these areas have been caribou (collared cows) by telemetry; identified by multiple participants as areas requiring  The following participants have recommended protection. protection of caribou post-calving areas: o Nunavut Wildlife Management Board (2014-05- 21) o Beverly and Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board (2015-06-22) o Kivalliq Wildlife Board (2016-03-04) Key access corridors are the paths used by pregnant cow o Qikiqtaaluk Wildlife Board (2016-03-02) caribou to access the calving areas. o Baker Lake HTO (2015-09-15) Additional Considerations for managing caribou key access o Aqigiq HTO (2015-09-18) corridors: o Arviat HTO (2015-09-24)  The Government of Nunavut has identified key access o Whale Cove HTO (2015-09-30) corridor areas for mainland herds based on tracking o Arviq HTO (2015-10-20) caribou (collared cows) by telemetry; o Athabasca Denesuline Né Né Land Corporation  The areas are within post-calving areas noted above; (2013-12-11)  The following participants have recommended o Fort Smith Metis Council (2014-02-05) protection of key access corridors: o Lutsel K’e Dene First Nation (2014-01-31) o BQCMB (2015-06-22) o Northwest Territory Metis Nation, o KWB (2016-03-04) o Sayisi Dene First Nation (2014-05-15) o NWMB (2016-06-18) o Northlands Denesuline (2014-05-27) o QWB (2016-03-02) o GNWT Department of Environment and Natural o WWF-Canada (2015-03-04) Resources (2014-02-13) o WWF (2014-02-14) Recommendation for Key Access Corridors o Mining Watch Canada (2014-04-14) Option 1 is recommended for key access corridors:

  The Qikiqtani Inuit Association (2016-03-24) Restricts access to uses that are incompatible with recommends mobile protection measures. environmental and cultural values.  May include conditions to guide land use.  The Government of Nunavut (2016-05-16) has  recommended that mitigation measures can be Identified area to be included on Schedule A implemented through the NIRB en vironmental The following uses are prohibited: assessment process.  Mineral exploration and production;  The Chamber of Mines (2015-06-20) and Baffinland  Oil and gas exploration and production; (2016-03-04) have recommended post-calving areas  Quarries; be identified in the plan for consideration by the  Hydro-Electrical and Related Infrastructure; NIRB.  All weather roads; and  The Kivalliq Inuit Association (2016-05-12)  Related research except Non-exploitive Scientific recommend a 25 km buffer be applied around core Research. calving areas where mobile caribou conservation measures would apply.

42 

Option 1 was chosen given that these areas have been Additional considerations for managing caribou sea ice identified by participants noted above as areas requiring crossings: protection, particularly between June 15 and August 1.  The Government of Nunavut has noted that “The Dolphin and Union herd was assessed as a Species of Special Concern by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) in 2004, up-listed under part 4 of Schedule 1 of the federal Locations where caribou regularly cross freshwater during Species at Risk Act in 2011 (SARA). Dolphin and Union their migration are unique areas of limited geographic extent caribou major feature is their sea-ice migration. They where caribou are sensitive to disturbance. migrate to Victoria Island in the spring where they spend the summer calving; in the fall, they migrate to Additional considerations for managing freshwater caribou the mainland to spend the winter. Since 1980, the crossings: Dolphin and Union migrate from the entire south  The following participants have recommended coast of Victoria Island from the Dolphin and Union protection of freshwater caribou crossings: Strait to Cape Colborne without interruption. o Baker Lake HTO (2015-09-15) Therefore, seasonal connectivity of the sea ice o Kivalliq Wildlife Board (2016-03-04) between Victoria Island and the mainland is essential o Arviat HTO (2015-09-24) to their migration and is associated to a healthy and o Beverly and Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management viable population that can sustain harvest Board (2015-06-22) opportunities. An increase in ice-breaking activity and o Kivalliq Inuit Association (2016-05-12) associated shipping traffic has important negative o Kitikmeot Regional Wildlife Board (2016-03-17) consequences for the Dolphin and Union caribou  The Fall Caribou Crossing has been identified for its (IUCN Threat #4.3 Shipping lanes- High Impact).” historic significance and is assigned a Protected Area  The following participants have recommended designation below; protection of caribou sea ice crossings:  The Commission recognizes the Caribou Protection  Kitikmeot Regional Wildlife Board (2016-03- Measures designed and implemented by Aboriginal 17) Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC)  WWF (2014-02-14) that identify designated water crossings;  Dolphin Union heard trans-island movements have Recommendation for Freshwater Caribou Crossings been identified (Victoria Island);  Peary caribou trans-island movements have been Option 1 is recommended for freshwater caribou crossings: identified (Prince of Wales, Somerset and Boothia  Restricts access to uses that are incompatible with Peninsula; and environmental and cultural values.  Peary caribou trans-island movements within the  May include conditions to guide land use. Bathurst Island Complex have been identified.  Identified area to be included on Schedule A Recommendation for Caribou Sea Ice Crossings The following uses are prohibited:  Mineral exploration and production; Option 2 is recommended:  Oil and gas exploration and production;  May restrict access to some uses  Quarries;  May include conditions to guide land use.  Hydro-Electrical and Related Infrastructure;  Identified area to be included on Schedule A  All weather roads; and Condition: Seasonal restrictions are applied to icebreaking  Related research except Non-exploitive Scientific through the caribou sea-ice crossings. Any project in Nunavut Research. that involves shipping that would violate these conditions is Option 1 was chosen given that these areas have been prohibited. identified by multiple participants as areas requiring Option 2 was chosen for these areas given the particular protection. importance and unusual form of migratory corridor, which is essential for one or two particular times each year.

Some caribou herds migrate across the frozen sea ice to reach their calving areas. These herds are vulnerable to changing sea In rutting areas, caribou are known to be particularly ice conditions, and disturbance by ice breaking. vulnerable to disturbance during the breeding process. This disturbance can result in lower pregnancy rates. This is also a

Draft Nunavut Land Use Plan Options and Recommendations – Draft 2016  43

critical time for breeding and for pregnant cows to gain added Option 4 was chosen for these areas given the large geographic nutrition before the winter. extent of the areas, and the relatively low impacts that disturbance can have (as compared to calving areas). Additional considerations for managing caribou rutting areas:  The Government of Nunavut has identified caribou rutting areas for mainland herds based on tracking caribou (collared cows) by telemetry; Recommendation for Caribou Rutting Areas Seasonal ranges represent vast areas of Nunavut that are important for the survival and success of caribou herds. Option 4 is recommended:  Does not restrict access. Additional considerations for managing caribou late summer range:  Identifies areas that are important to particular Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs) or Valued  The Government of Nunavut has identified caribou Socio-Economic Components (VSECS). late summer range for mainland herds based on  Identified area to be included on Schedule B of the tracking caribou (collared cows) by telemetry; NLUP. Recommendation for Caribou Summer Range Information on Valued Components: Identify caribou rutting Option 4 is recommended: areas as areas of a known Valued Ecosystem Component that  Does not restrict access. should be given particular consideration.  Identifies areas that are important to particular Option 4 was chosen for these areas given the large geographic Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs) or Valued extent of the areas, and the relatively low impacts that Socio-Economic Components (VSECS). disturbance can have (as compared to calving areas).  Identified area to be included on Schedule B of the NLUP. Information on Valued Components: Identify caribou summer range as an area of a known Valued Ecosystem Component that should be given particular consideration. Migration corridors are critical for movement between Option 4 was chosen for these areas given the large geographic important areas of caribou seasonal ranges. extent of the areas, and the relatively low impacts that Additional considerations for managing caribou migration disturbance can have (as compared to calving areas). corridors:  The Government of Nunavut has identified caribou migration corridors for mainland herds based on tracking caribou (collared cows) by telemetry; Seasonal ranges represent vast areas of Nunavut that are  Disturbance and obstacles along the migration route important for the survival and success of caribou herds. can displace herds and alter access to critical habitat and forage. Disrupting these migratory routes can Additional considerations for managing caribou late summer lead to a change or loss of migratory behaviour over range: time resulting in lower productivity and abundance,  The Government of Nunavut has identified caribou and change caribou distribution across the landscape late summer range for mainland herds based on which may impact subsistence harvesters. tracking caribou (collared cows) by telemetry; Recommendation for Caribou Migration Corridors Recommendation for Caribou Late Summer Range Option 4 is recommended: Option 4 is recommended:  Does not restrict access.  Does not restrict access.  Identifies areas that are important to particular  Identifies areas that are important to particular Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs) or Valued Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs) or Valued Socio-Economic Components (VSECS). Socio-Economic Components (VSECS).  Identified area to be included on Schedule B of the  Identified area to be included on Schedule B of the NLUP. NLUP. Information on Valued Components: Identify caribou Information on Valued Components: Identify caribou late migrations corridors as an area of a known Valued Ecosystem summer range as an area of a known Valued Ecosystem Component that should be given particular consideration. Component that should be given particular consideration.

44 

Option 4 was chosen for these areas given the large geographic  Ingirrasiliqta, the Government of Nunavut extent of the areas, and the relatively low impacts that Transportation Strategy identifies the need for land disturbance can have (as compared to calving areas). and marine transportation networks to facilitate the movement of goods and provision of services;  WWF has provided comment that there should be restrictions on denning areas, polar bear summer retreat habitat, and polar bear sea ice habitat. It is Seasonal ranges represent vast areas of Nunavut that are recommended that all uses be permitted but with important for the survival and success of caribou herds. seasonal restrictions based on regional dates informed by Inuit knowledge and research. For Additional considerations for managing caribou winter range: approved projects, it should be recommended that  The Government of Nunavut has identified caribou proponents consider wildlife impacts outside of the winter range for mainland herds based on tracking seasonal restrictions; caribou (collared cows) by telemetry;  Polar bear habitat was identified as a priority and Recommendation for Caribou Winter Range value of residents during community consultations (2012-2014); Option 3 is recommended:  The International Agreement on the Conservation of  Does not restrict access Polar Bears.  Identified area not discussed in NLUP, and boundary of identified area not shown on Schedule A or B Recommendation for Polar Bear Denning Areas Option 3 was chosen for these areas given the large geographic Option 4 is recommended: extent of the areas, and the relatively low impacts that  Does not restrict access disturbance can have (as compared to calving areas).  Identifies areas that are important to particular Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs) or Valued Socio-Economic Components (VSECS).  Identified area to be included on Schedule B of the NLUP

Polar bears are integral to the marine ecosystem and an Information on Valued Components: Identify polar bear important part of Inuit culture and economies. Spending most denning areas as areas of a known Valued Ecosystem of their life on the sea ice, polar bears are considered Component that should be given particular consideration. susceptible to climate change. Option 4 was chosen for these areas given the large geographic Polar bear denning areas are important coastal habitats where extent of polar bear denning areas and the thin and sporadic females give birth and feed their cubs. The majority of dens are use of these areas. located on land within 50km of the coast, although multi-year ice is also used in the winter. Considered Information:  The polar bear is designated under the Species at Risk Act as a species of Special Concern; The Atlantic walrus plays a major role in the ecological function  The Qikiqtaaluk Wildlife Board (2015-06-22) of the marine ecosystem and is an important part of the recommends that denning areas be protected. traditional subsistence economy for the Inuit of Nunavut.  NIRB has advised that consideration should be given Habitat requirements for walrus are very specific requiring sea for polar bear habitat. Further, that attention should ice and shallow water habitat in the winter and congregate in be given to the risk for potential habitat the summer and fall to “haul out” on-low, rocky shores. fragmentation; Considered information:  Nunavut Wildlife Resource and Habitat Values Report  The Nunavut Land Claims Agreement requires a land (2012) identifies denning areas as important polar use plan to take into account environmental bear habitat. Identified denning areas are large; considerations, including wildlife habitat;  The North Baffin Regional Land Use Plan and  The Keewatin Regional Land Use Plan and the North Keewatin Regional Land Use Plan restrict Baffin Regional Land Use Plan state that development activities near polar bear denning areas. “Development activities shall be restricted near polar  Parnautit, the Government of Nunavut Mineral bear denning areas and walrus haul-outs”; Exploration and Mining Strategy identifies the need to  The KWB (2016-03-04) recommends that some create conditions for a strong and sustainable terrestrial activities be prohibited at walrus haul-out minerals industry that contributes to a high and sites, and that there should be marine setbacks from sustainable quality of life for all Nunavummiut; the sites. Draft Nunavut Land Use Plan Options and Recommendations – Draft 2016  45

 The QWB (2015-06-22) recommends that haul-outs  The KWB (2016-03-04) note that the Coral Harbour be protected HTO indicated that calving is a sensitive time for  Parnautit, the Government of Nunavut Mineral beluga whales, and that these areas should be Exploration and Mining Strategy identifies the need to protected from disturbance and habitat destruction create conditions for a strong and sustainable (two locations near the east shore of Southampton minerals industry that contributes to a high and Island). sustainable quality of life for all Nunavummiut; Recommendation for Beluga Calving Grounds:  Ingirrasiliqta, the Government of Nunavut Transportation Strategy identifies the need for land Option 2 is recommended: and marine transportation networks to facilitate the  May restrict access to some uses movement of goods and provision of services;  May include conditions to guide land use.  Walrus habitat was identified as a priority and value  Identified area to be included on Schedule A of residents during community consultations (2012- Condition: Closed to all ship traffic, subject to safe navigation, 2014); during Aujuq. Any project in Nunavut that involves shipping  Information provided by the DFO on the Fox Basin AOI that would violate these conditions is prohibited. marine area as a central aggregation area for walrus;  The Atlantic Walrus is being considered for listing Option 2 was chosen to reflect the importance of these areas under the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA); and during particular times of the year.  The habitat requirements for walrus are very specific, requiring ice or land nearby to ‘haul out’. Recommendation for Walrus Haul-Outs Option 1 is recommended:  Restricts access to uses that are incompatible with environmental and cultural values.  May include conditions to guide land use.  Identified area to be included on Schedule A The following uses are prohibited:  Disposal at Sea;  Mineral exploration and production; The Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) has provided  Oil and gas exploration and production; the Commission with the location of Ecologically and  Quarries; Biologically Significant Areas (EBSA) in the NSA. These areas  Hydro-Electrical and Related Infrastructure; have been identified for their ecological and/or biologic  All weather roads; and importance to the marine environment. Upon suggestion from  Related research except Non-exploitive Scientific the DFO, the Commission has included Ecologically and Research. Biologically Significant Areas (EBSA) in the DNLUP. Condition: No vessel may approach within five (5) km seaward The designated Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas of a walrus haul out, any time during the year. Any project in (EBSA) are a work in progress. In the future, as available Nunavut that involves shipping that would violate these science, traditional knowledge, and an understanding of these conditions is prohibited. areas expand, DFO may be able to provide additional information to NPC to assist with the designation and Option 1 was chosen to reflect feedback received from recommendations for these areas. participants that the habitat requirements for walrus are very specific, requiring ice or land nearby to ‘haul out’. Considered Information:  It is a policy of the Commission’s Goal of Protecting and Sustaining the Environment to respect and consider sites of ecological significance that are not officially protected, such as critical habitat that has been identified but not yet declared; Habitat requirements for beluga whales are seasonal, and they  The Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas frequently return to the same locations each year. In the (EBSA) were identified through a technical process, summer, belugas concentrate in shallow estuaries and combining the best available and traditional coastline environments, and at this time they are sensitive to knowledge. They were evaluated against a specific set disturbance. (Nunavut Wildlife Resource and Habitat Values of criteria, including: uniqueness; aggregation; fitness Report (2012). consequence; resilience and naturalness; Considered information:

46 

 The evaluation considered to create the Ecologically Information on Valued Components: Identify Ecologically and and Biologically Significant Areas (EBSA) considered a Biologically Significant Areas (EBSA) as areas of a known Valued number of published local and traditional ecological Ecosystem Component that should be given particular knowledge (LEK/TEK) reports; consideration.  For most Ecologically and Biologically Significant Option 4 was chosen for these biologically important areas Areas (EBSA) there was a relatively high degree of because of the large geographic area and limited information confidence that the areas contained ecologically is available to formulate specific management options. and/or biologically significant features;  The NWMB’s direction that identifying Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas (EBSA) allows for most of the important marine mammal areas to be noted and contributes to more effective protection of marine wildlife; Polynyas are areas of persistent open water surrounded by sea  As defined by DFO, Ecologically and Biologically ice. They are created where strong upwelling or currents Significant Areas (EBSA) are not meant to be a general prevent freezing. strategy for protecting all habitats and marine Considered Information: communities; rather a tool to call attention to  It is a policy of the Commission’s Goal of Protecting areas that have particularly high ecological or and Sustaining the Environment to respect and biological significance to allow appropriate consider sites of ecological significance that are not management; officially protected, such as polynyas;  DFO does not provide policy guidance on the  Polynyas are widely distributed across the Canadian management of all Ecologically and Biologically Arctic Archipelago and are an important component Significant Areas (only those where a higher degree of the physical and the biological systems in ice-covered risk aversion is needed); seas;  WWF (2014-01-14) recommends site-specific  Polynyas are important areas for wildlife as they assessments for each Ecologically and Biologically provide areas access between the ocean and the Significant Area (EBSA), and notes that in light of the atmosphere for many species and are nutrient rich, information gaps that exist, a precautionary approach biologically productive areas; is required to ensure that future conservation options  Polynyas are highly sensitive and the impact of human are not foreclosed in areas that have been identified activities on these environments should be minimal; as ecologically or biologically significant. It holds out  The location of polynyas may change over time due to the possibility of relaxing restrictions once the area is climate change and other environmental factors. better understood;  Parnautit, the Government of Nunavut Mineral  Parnautit, the Government of Nunavut Mineral Exploration and Mining Strategy identifies the need to Exploration and Mining Strategy identifies the need to create conditions for a strong and sustainable create conditions for a strong and sustainable minerals industry that contributes to a high and minerals industry that contributes to a high and sustainable quality of life for all Nunavummiut; sustainable quality of life for all Nunavummiut;  Ingirrasiliqta, the Government of Nunavut  Ingirrasiliqta, the Government of Nunavut Transportation Strategy; and Transportation Strategy identifies the need for land  Tunngasaiji, the Government of Nunavut’s Tourism and marine transportation networks to facilitate the Strategy supports the development and movement of goods and provision of services; and enhancement of attractions through the investment  Tunngasaiji, the Government of Nunavut’s Tourism in Parks, Conservation Areas, historic places, heritage Strategy supports the development and rivers and other attractions. enhancement of attractions through the investment in Parks, Conservation Areas, historic places, heritage Recommendation for Lancaster Sound, North Water rivers and other attractions. (Pikialaorsuaq) Polynyas Recommendation for Ecologically and Biologically Option 2 is recommended: Significant Areas (EBSA)  May restrict access to some uses.  May include conditions to guide land use. Option 4 is recommended:  Identified area to be included on Schedule A.  Does not restrict access  Identifies areas that are important to particular Condition: Closed to all ship traffic, subject to safe navigation, Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs) or Valued during Ukiaq, Ukiuq, Upingaksaaq, and Upingaaq. Any project Socio-Economic Components (VSECS). in Nunavut that involves shipping that would violate these  Identified area to be included on Schedule B of the conditions is prohibited. NLUP Draft Nunavut Land Use Plan Options and Recommendations – Draft 2016  47

Option 2 was chosen given the well-established and are genetically distinct from marine populations and from each understood ecological importance of these polynyas. other. Note overlapping designation on North Water (Pikialaorsuaq) Considered Information: Polynya (Sec. 2.1.3.29) and Lancaster Sound (Sec. 3.2).  The Nunavut Land Claims Agreement requires a land use plan to take into account environmental Recommendation for Other Polynyas considerations, including wildlife habitat. Option 4 is recommended:  The Government of Canada’s direction that these cod  Does not restrict access. are no longer being considered for listing as a species  Identifies areas that are important to particular of special concern under SARA; Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs) or Valued  Priorities and values of the residents; Socio-Economic Components (VSECS).  it is a policy of the Commission’s Goal of Protecting  Identified area to be included on Schedule B of the and Sustaining the Environment to protect the NLUP. integrity of ecosystems, flora and wildlife habitats, paying special attention to species at risk, and critical Information on Valued Components: Identify polynyas as habitats; areas of a known Valued Ecosystem Component that should be  Two of the three lakes are on Inuit Owned Lands and given particular consideration. it is Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated’s direction that Option 4 was chosen for these biologically active areas given development activity should not be restricted on Inuit that limited information is available to formulate specific Owned Lands; management options.  DFO’s direction that no restrictions are needed on these lakes;  One of the sites is in and another is adjacent to the Western Cumberland Sound Archipelago key bird Floe Edges appear as temporary features during the spring habitat site; and breakup, and tend to recur are similar location ear after year.  As the combined surface area of the lakes is They are important ecologically. approximately 20 km2, they comprise a small and Considered Information: unique habitat.  The North Baffin Regional Land Use Plan includes an Recommendation for Atlantic Cod Lakes Action that “Ship traffic through and around the floe edges in April, May and June shall be minimized” Option 4 is recommended:  The Marine Environmental Handbook (1995)  Does not restrict access. identifies floe edges.  Identifies areas that are important to particular Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs) or Valued Recommendation for Floe Edges Socio-Economic Components (VSECS). Option 4 is recommended:  Identified area to be included on Schedule B of the  Does not restrict access. NLUP.  Identifies areas that are important to particular Information on Valued Components: Identify Atlantic Cod Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs) or Valued lakes as areas of a known Valued Ecosystem Component that Socio-Economic Components (VSECS). should be given particular consideration.  Identified area to be included on Schedule B of the NLUP. Option 4 was chosen to reflect the feedback that no restrictions are needed on these lakes. Information on Valued Components: Identify floe edges as areas of a known Valued Ecosystem Component that should be given particular consideration. Option 4 was chosen for these biologically active areas given that limited information is available to formulate specific management options.

Activities occurring in the NSA may impact areas outside the NSA. Small landlocked populations of Atlantic Cod have been The Great Bear Lake watershed has been identified as an identified in three coastal saltwater lakes on south-eastern important ecological and cultural area in the Sahtu region of Baffin Island. These populations are significant because they

48 

the Northwest Territories, and a portion of the watershed is Davis Strait until a strategic environmental within the NSA. assessment is complete; and  Community of Sanikiluaq expressed concerns Considered Information for the Great Bear Lake Watershed: regarding Hydro-Electrical and Related Infrastructure  The Nunavut Land Claims Agreement requires a land in the James Bay in Quebec. use plan to take into account environmental considerations, and cultural factors and priorities; Recommendation for Managing Land Use Outside the  It is an objective of the Commission’s Goal of NSA Protecting and Sustaining the Environment to encourage the inter-jurisdictional management of Government departments and agencies should request that land, air, and water resources; NIRB either undertake, or be directly involved in the screening  A portion of the Great Bear Lake watershed is within and review of seismic research and oil and gas exploration and the NSA, and it has been identified as an important hydroelectric development in areas adjacent to the NSA. ecological and cultural area in the Northwest Territories. A management plan which has no legal force has been developed to manage the area; Climate change is an important consideration in the NSA.  The approved Sahtu Land Use Plan includes provisions Changing ice conditions may have an impact on residents’ use to manage the area; of the land, and many wildlife populations can be affected by  There are active mineral claims in the portion within changes to the unique habitat that they rely on. Transportation the NSA; and and infrastructure are also susceptible to impacts from  There is Use and Occupancy Mapping activity within changing ice and permafrost conditions. the area. Considered Information: Recommendation for the Great Bear Lake Watershed  it is a policy of the Commission’s Goal of Protecting Option 4 is recommended: and Sustaining the Environment to, where  Does not restrict access. appropriate, provide direction to the Nunavut Impact  Identifies areas that are important to particular Review Board, government regulatory authorities, Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs) or Valued and Inuit land managers to manage climate change issues; Socio-Economic Components (VSECS).  The Keewatin Regional Land Use Plan states: Identified area to be included on Schedule B of the NLUP. “Concerns related to … climate change are valid, but Option 4 was chosen given that a small portion of the … are beyond the scope of a regional land use plan.”; watershed is within the NSA and that limited information is At this time there are no agreed upon terms that available to formulate specific management options. would be appropriate to implement through a land use plan; and  Ingirrasiliqta, the Government of Nunavut Transportation Strategy identifies the need for land Activities occurring outside the NSA may impact areas inside and marine transportation networks to facilitate the the NSA. The Commission is concerned about the potential movement of goods and provision of services. transboundary impacts on the NSA from oil and gas exploration and hydroelectric development in adjacent areas. Recommendation for Climate Change Considered Information: As there are currently no agreed upon terms that would be  The Nunavut Land Claims Agreement requires a land appropriate to implement through a land use plan, it is use plan to take into account environmental recommended that no specific terms be included at this time. considerations, and cultural factors and priorities; Climate change will continue to be considered by the NPC  It is an objective of the Commission’s Goal of when developing and updating the NLUP in the future. Protecting and Sustaining the Environment to

encourage the inter-jurisdictional management of land, air, and water resources;  The Keewatin Regional Land Use Plan requires that “The possible cumulative impacts of additional hydroelectric power development in Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec on the ecosystem of Hudson Bay, James Bay and Hudson Strait must be examined before more hydroelectric development proceeds.”;  Nunavut Marine Council requested that the National Energy Board not proceed with seismic activity related to oil and gas activity in the Baffin Bay and Draft Nunavut Land Use Plan Options and Recommendations – Draft 2016  49

There are a number of National and Territorial Parks in the NSA that are at various stages in their establishment. General considered Information: “The Goal of Encouraging Conservation Planning is described  Section 11.3.1(g) of the NLCA requires a land use plan as: forming an important part of the land and resource to take into account environmental considerations, management regime in Nunavut. Conservation planning including Parks and Conservation Areas; recognizes that Parks and Conservation Areas may be  It is an objective of the Commission’s Goal of established through legislation. The protection of other Areas Encouraging Conservation Planning to provide for the of Interest may also be achieved through the application of establishment and continued protection of the zoning in the land use plan. The purpose of conservation ecological integrity of Parks and Conservation Areas; planning is to protect the natural environment, culturally significant areas and special places for the benefit of  Parks Canada Agency has requested that these areas Nunavummiut and all Canadians. This will be achieved by be protected from development that is incompatible recognizing the general desirability to establish Parks in the with National Parks; Nunavut Settlement Area, supporting Conservation Area  Parks Canada Agency has advised that these areas are initiatives of Government, and by protecting Areas of Interest under land withdrawals; under the authority of the land use plan.”  2 of the Territorial Parks Awaiting Full Establishment are outside municipal boundaries;  Municipal plans manage land use within municipal Encouraging Conservation Planning is one of five planning boundaries; Goals in the Nunavut Planning Commission’s Broad Planning  Parnautit, the Government of Nunavut Mineral Polices, Objectives and Goals. It is the primary aim of this Exploration and Mining Strategy identifies the need to Chapter to provide a practical policy direction that is able to create conditions for a strong and sustainable support this Goal. minerals industry that contributes to a high and Specifically, this Chapter; sustainable quality of life for all Nunavummiut;  Identifies key areas of Nunavut that are known to be  Ingirrasiliqta, the Government of Nunavut critical to encouraging conservation planning; Transportation Strategy identifies the need for land  Provides options for managing these key areas; and marine transportation networks to facilitate the  Recommends a preferred option for the management movement of goods and provision of services; of these areas that is best able to support this Goal;  Tunngasaiji, the Government of Nunavut’s Tourism and Strategy supports the development and  Translates the preferred recommendation into a enhancement of attractions through the investment language that a Land Use Plan can articulate and in Parks, Conservation Areas, historic places, heritage implement. rivers and other attractions;  Territorial Parks Awating Full Establishment (within or outside of municipal boundaries) have been approved Areas and issues of the NSA identified by the Commission as by the Government of Nunavut, are under the land important to encouraging conservation planning are: withdrawal process and/or have not yet been  National Parks Awaiting Full Establishment; designated under the Territorial Parks Act;  Proposed National and Territorial Parks;  Until Territorial Parks are fully established, their  The proposed Lancaster Sound National Marine interim management is the responsibility of Conservation Area (NMCA); Government of Nunavut Department of Environment:  Thelon Wildlife Sanctuary; Parks & Special Places Division, in accordance with the  Migratory Bird Sanctuaries (MBSs); NLCA and IIBA for Territorial Parks in partnership with  National Wildlife Areas (NWAs); the communities and Joint Planning and  Historic Sites; and Management;  Heritage Rivers.  As per the IIBA Section 2.1.2, Park Specific Appendices will be developed and added to the IIBA during the

Territorial Park Establishment Process;  Proposed Territorial Parks have undergone considerable background and feasibility study, have community and Regional Inuit Association support

50 

and have been approved by the Government of Kivalliq Region Nunavut to proceed in accordance to the legal  Iqalugaarjuup Nunanga Territorial Park (Rankin Inlet) obligations and planning processes as outlined under  Inuujaarvik Territorial Park Campground (Baker Lake) the NLCA and IIBA for Territorial Parks; Additional considerations:  Umbrella Inuit Impact and Benefit Agreement for  Territorial Parks Awaiting Full Establishment have Territorial Parks in the Nunavut Settlement Region been approved by the Government of Nunavut, are (2002); and under the land withdrawal process and/or have not yet been designated under the Territorial Parks Act.  Nunavut Parks and Special Places Program  Until they are fully established, their interim management is the responsibility of Government of Nunavut Department of Environment: Parks & Special Places Division, in accordance with the NLCA and IIBA for Territorial Parks in partnership with the Parks Canada Agency has identified Ward Hunt Island as a communities and Joint Planning and Management National Park awaiting full establishment, and an area around  As per the IIBA Section 2.1.2, Park Specific Appendices Sila Lodge as an area for future incorporation into Ukkusiksalik will be developed and added to the IIBA during the National Park. Territorial Park Establishment Process.

Recommendation for National Parks Awaiting Full Recommendation for Territorial Parks Awaiting Full Establishment (Ward Hunt Island and expansion of Establishment Ukkusiksalik National Park) Option 1 is recommended: Option 1 is recommended:  Restricts access to uses that are incompatible with  Restricts access to uses that are incompatible with environmental and cultural values. environmental and cultural values.  May include terms to guide land use.  May include conditions to guide land use.  May include direction to regulatory authorities.  Identified area to be included on Schedule A.  May identify priorities and values that need to be considered in the design, review, and conduct of the The following uses are prohibited: activity.  Mineral exploration and production;  Oil and gas exploration and production; The following uses are prohibited:  Quarries;  Mineral exploration and production;  Hydro-Electrical and Related Infrastructure;  Oil and gas exploration and production;  All weather roads; and  Quarries;  Related research except Non-exploitive Scientific  Hydro-Electrical and Related Infrastructure; Research.  All weather roads; and  Related research except Non-exploitive Scientific Option 1 was chosen given that his area have been identified Research. as future National Parks. Option 1 was chosen given that the lands have been identified as future Territorial Parks.

There are currently no proposed national parks in the NSA. The Government of Nunavut has identified areas awaiting full Considered information: establishment as Territorial Parks:  Parks Canada Agency had previously identified an Baffin Region area in the Kitikmeot Region in the Bluenose Lake  Katannilik Territorial Park (Kimmirut/Iqaluit) Area, contiguous to the existing Tuktut Nogait  Mallikjuaq Territorial Park (Cape Dorset) National Park. However, this area is no longer being  Sylvia Grinnell Territorial Park (Iqaluit) considered as a proposed national park.  Pisuktinu Territorial Park Campground (Pangnirtung)  Tamaarvik Territorial Park Campground (Pond Inlet)  Taqaiqsirvik Territorial Park Campground (Kimmirut)  Tupirvik Territorial Park Campground (Resolute Bay) Kitikmeot Region The Government of Nunavut has identified proposed  Kugluk (Bloody Falls) Territorial Park (Kugluktuk) Territorial Parks in the NSA, including the Aggutinni Study Area  Ovayok Territorial Park (Cambridge Bay) Draft Nunavut Land Use Plan Options and Recommendations – Draft 2016  51

(Clyde River), Nuvuk (Arviat), Kingaluuk-Sitiapiit (Sanikiluaq), highest known oil and gas potential of the and Napartulik/Napaaqtulik (Axel Heiberg Island). sedimentary basins of the Arctic islands;  The area is adjacent to Sirmilik National Park; Additional considerations:  The area contains extensive Use and Occupancy  Proposed Territorial Parks have undergone Mapping activities; considerable background and feasibility study, have  community and Regional Inuit Association support The areas includes numerous key bird habitat areas; and have been approved by the Government of  Parks Canada Agency has advised that there is a Nunavut to proceed in accordance to the legal boundary for the Proposed Lancaster Sound National obligations and planning processes as outlined under Marine Conservation Area; the NLCA and IIBA for Territorial Parks.  Parks Canada Agency has advised that the only outright prohibitions that would apply under the Recommendation for Proposed Territorial Parks Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act are Option 1 is recommended for Proposed Territorial Parks: mineral and petroleum exploration and development, and ocean dumping;  Restricts access to uses that are incompatible with  environmental and cultural values. Parks Canada Agency has advised that there is no agreement with communities that the area should be  May include conditions to guide land use. a National Marine Conservation Area;  Identified area to be included on Schedule A.  Ingirrasiliqta, the Government of Nunavut The following uses are prohibited: Transportation Strategy identifies the need for land  Mineral exploration and production; and marine transportation networks to facilitate the  Oil and gas exploration and production; movement of goods and provision of services; and  Quarries;  Tunngasaiji, the Government of Nunavut’s Tourism  Hydro-Electrical and Related Infrastructure; Strategy supports the development and  All weather roads; and enhancement of attractions through the investment  Related research except Non-exploitive Scientific in Parks, Conservation Areas, historic places, heritage Research. rivers and other attractions. Option 1 was chosen given that these areas have already Recommendation for the Proposed Lancaster Sound undergone considerable study, and are supported by National Marine Conservation Area communities and Regional Inuit Associations. Option 1 is recommended:  Restricts access to uses that are incompatible with environmental and cultural values.  May include conditions to guide land use.  Identified area to be included on Schedule A. The following uses are prohibited:  Mineral exploration and production;  Oil and gas exploration and production (including The Commission recognizes Parks Canada Agency’s initiative to seismic testing); establish a National Marine Conservation Area (NMCA) in  Disposal at Sea; Lancaster Sound.  Hydro-Electrical and Related Infrastructure; and Considered Information:  Related research except Non-exploitive Scientific  Section 11.3.1(g) of the NLCA requires a land use plan Research. to take into account environmental considerations, Option 1 was chosen given that this area is under consideration including Parks and Conservation Areas; to be established as a National Marine Conservation Area.  It is an objective of the Commission’s Goal of Encouraging Conservation Planning to provide for the Note that this polygon overlaps in full or in part with other establishment and continued protection of the polygons relating to polynyas or bird habitat. ecological integrity of Parks and Conservation Areas;  The North Baffin Regional Land Use Plan identifies Lancaster Sound as “essential to the survival of several million seabirds, which occur in concentrations not found elsewhere in the Arctic. The biophysical richness of the central part of the region around Lancaster Sound makes it an ecosystem of The Thelon Wildlife Sanctuary was established in 1927 and international significance.” The North Baffin Land Use supports a wide variety of wildlife. Plan also identifies Lancaster Sound as having the 52 

Considered Information:  It is an objective of the Commission’s Goal of  The Nunavut Land Claims Agreement requires a land Encouraging Conservation Planning to provide for the use plan to take into account environmental establishment and continued protection of the considerations, including Parks and Conservation ecological integrity of Parks and Conservation Areas; Areas;  Some sites are located within the boundaries of the  It is an objective of the Commission’s Goal of North Baffin Land Use Plan. The North Baffin Land Use Encouraging Conservation Planning to provide for the Plan places an emphasis on protecting wildlife and establishment and continued protection of the wildlife habitat and ensuring impacts on wildlife are ecological integrity of Parks and Conservation Areas; minimized;  The Keewatin Regional Land Use Plan supports the  Some sites are located within the boundaries of the restriction of development activities; KRLUP. The Keewatin Regional Land Use Plan  Government of Canada has advised that the identifies healthy wildlife populations as vital to Inuit. Sanctuary is likely an important movement corridor It places an emphasis on the protection and for many species expanding their ranges northward; preservation of wildlife and wildlife habitat for use by  The lands are withdrawn; future generations.  The area includes identified caribou freshwater  EC-CWS has advised the Commission that there crossings; should be limited access to Migratory Bird  The Thelon River is a Canadian Heritage River; Sanctuariess;  There is an adjacent key bird habitat site; and  Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated (2015-06-22) has  There are adjacent mineral claims. recommended that the NLUP should identify areas that are protected through legislation and indicate Recommendation for the Thelon Wildlife Sanctuary that the existing restrictions as set out in legislation Option 1 is recommended: and regulations apply (not include specific conditions  Restricts access to uses that are incompatible with or prohibitions in the plan). environmental and cultural values.  There is Inuit Owned Lands in some of the MBS;  May include conditions to guide land use.  Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated (NTI) has advised  Identified area to be included on Schedule A. the Commission that activity should not be restricted on Inuit Owned Lands; The following uses are prohibited:  Working Together for Caribou, the Government of  Mineral exploration and production; Nunavut’s Caribou Strategy identifies caribou as a  Oil and gas exploration and production; keystone species with important economic and  Quarries; cultural values; and  Hydro-Electrical and Related Infrastructure;  Tunngasaiji, the Government of Nunavut’s Tourism  All weather roads; and Strategy supports the development and  Related research except Non-exploitive Scientific enhancement of attractions through the investment Research. in Parks, Conservation Areas, historic places, heritage rivers and other attractions. Option 1 was chosen given that this area already has a land withdrawal in place. Recommendation for Migratory Bird Sanctuaries Option 1 is recommended:  Restricts access to uses that are incompatible with environmental and cultural values.  May include conditions to guide land use. Migratory Bird Sanctuaries (MBSs) are important to supporting  Identified area to be included on Schedule A. and protecting migratory birds in the NSA. EC-CWS identifies the following Migratory Bird Sanctuaries: Seymour Island The following uses are prohibited: Migratory Bird Sanctuary, Prince Leopold Island Migratory Bird  Mineral exploration and production; Sanctuary, Bylot Island Migratory Bird Sanctuary, Dewey Soper  Oil and gas exploration and production; Migratory Bird Sanctuary, Queen Maud Gulf Migratory Bird  Quarries; Sanctuary, East Bay Migratory Bird Sanctuary, Harry Gibbons  Hydro-Electrical and Related Infrastructure; Migratory Bird Sanctuary, and McConnell River Migratory Bird  All weather roads; and Sanctuary.  Related research except Non-exploitive Scientific Considered Information: Research.  Section 11.3.1(g) of the NLCA requires a land use plan Condition: Project Proposals/Projects must comply with the to take into account environmental considerations, setbacks in Table 2 for the bird populations identified below. including Parks and Conservation Areas. The land use plan applies to established Conservation Areas. Draft Nunavut Land Use Plan Options and Recommendations – Draft 2016  53

Option 1 was chosen given that these areas are considered to shellfish, impacts, potential economic development, be highly risk intolerant and that access to uses that are no oil and gas, and protection; and incompatible with the protection of environmental values  The site surrounds a Migratory Bird Sanctuary; should be restricted.  The site has prospecting permits; and  The site contains some Inuit Owned Lands.

Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) noted the following: Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) noted the following:  Category: o  Category: Highly risk intolerant o Highly risk intolerant  Qualifying criterion: o  Qualifying criterion: Legislated protected area under the Migratory o Legislated protected area under the Migratory Birds Convention Act o Birds Convention Act Hosts more than 10% of a national population of o Supports a percentage of a national species one or more migratory bird species (Lesser Snow population equal to or greater than the percentage Goose) of ‘sustainable loss’ that the population can  Feature bird group: tolerate (Common Eider) o Inland waterfowl (Lesser Snow Goose)  Feature bird group: o Also important at site: Shorebird (e.g. Red o Seaduck (Common Eider) Phalarope) o Also important at site: Waterfowl (Lesser Snow  Site details: Goose), Seabird (Black Guillemot), shorebird (e.g. o Species at risk: Polar Bear (Special Concern) Red Phalarope) o Non-binding designations: International Biological  Site details: Programme Site; Important Bird Area o Species at risk: Polar Bear (Special Concern)  Current human activities at site: o Non-binding designation: Important Bird Area o Harvesting and ancillary activities by Nunavut Land  Current human activities at site: Claims Agreement beneficiaries o Biological research; harvesting and ancillary  Anticipated human activities at site: activities by Nunavut Land Claims Agreement o Harvesting and ancillary activities by Nunavut Land beneficiaries Claims Agreement beneficiaries  Anticipated human activities at site:  Threats to birds from current/future activities at o Research; cruise ship tourism; harvesting and site: ancillary activities by Nunavut Land Claims o None Agreement beneficiaries  Potential consequences for bird populations:  Threats to birds from current/future activities at o None site:  Recommended setbacks: o Increased human disturbance related to permitted o EC-CWS Aerial Setbacks (Coastal Waterfowl and activities; increasing human disturbance related to Seaducks); EC-CWS Marine Setbacks (Coastal cruise ship tourism Waterfowl and Seaducks); EC-CWS Terrestrial  Potential consequences for bird populations: Setbacks (Coastal Waterfowl and Seaducks) o Disruption of feeding and nesting birds resulting in Additional considerations: loss of eggs and/or young  Priorities and values of residents include caribou,  Recommended setbacks: polar bear, walrus, birds, fish, marine mammals, o EC-CWS Aerial Setbacks (Coastal Waterfowl and shellfish, cultural values, potential economic Seaducks); EC-CWS Marine Setbacks (Coastal development, no oil and gas, and protection. Waterfowl and Seaducks); EC-CWS Terrestrial Setbacks (Coastal Waterfowl and Seaducks) Additional considerations:  The site has Use and Occupancy Mapping activity, a possible sacred site, burial sites and possible caribou Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) noted the following: calving and post-calving areas;  Category:  Priorities and values of residents include caribou, o Highly risk intolerant polar bear, walrus, birds, fish, marine mammals,  Qualifying criterion:

54 

o Legislated protected area under the Migratory 2005 (American Golden Plover, Dunlin, Birds Convention Act Semipalmated Sandpiper) o Contains 5 – 10% of the national population of a o Hosts more than 10% of a national population of species NOT exhibiting declines as of 2005 (Ross’ one or more migratory bird species (Ross’s Goose, Goose) Snow Goose, American Golden Plover, Dunlin,  Feature bird group: Pectoral Sandpiper, Semipalmated Sandpiper) o Waterfowl  Feature bird group:  Site details: o Shorebird o Species at risk: Polar Bear (Special Concern), Short- o Also important at site: Inland Seaduck (e.g. King eared Owl (Special Concern) Eider), Waterfowl (e.g. Greater White-fronted o Non-binding designations: Ramsar Wetland of Goose) International Importance; International Biological  Site details: Programme Site; Important Bird Area o Most extensive wetland in mid-Arctic  Current human activities at site: o Species at risk: Wolverine (Special Concern), Grizzly o None Bear (Special Concern)  Anticipated human activities at site: o Non-binding designations: Ramsar Wetland of o Cruise ship tourism; harvesting and ancillary International Importance; International Biological activities by Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Programme Site; Important Bird Area beneficiaries  Current human activities at site:  Threats to birds from current/future activities at o Shipping; biological research; harvesting and site: ancillary activities by Nunavut Land Claims o Marine traffic/shipping disturbance as the area Agreement beneficiaries experiences increasing ship traffic; increasing  Anticipated human activities at site: human disturbance related to cruise ship tourism; o Shipping; cruise ship tourism; biological research; risk for oil spills and operational releases originating harvesting and ancillary activities by Nunavut Land from shipping Claims Agreement beneficiaries  Potential consequences for bird populations:  Threats to birds from current/future activities at o Marine traffic/shipping disturbance as the area site: experiences increasing ship traffic; increasing o Marine traffic/shipping disturbance as the area human disturbance related to cruise ship tourism; experiences increasing ship traffic; increasing risk for oil spills and operational releases originating human disturbance related to cruise ship tourism; from shipping risk for oil spills and operational releases originating  Recommended setbacks: from shipping; human, aerial and terrestrial traffic o EC-CWS Aerial Setbacks (Coastal Waterfowl and disturbance related to research activities; air traffic Seaducks); EC-CWS Marine Setbacks (Coastal disturbance related to potential research activities Waterfowl and Seaducks); EC-CWS Terrestrial  Recommended setbacks: Setbacks (Coastal Waterfowl and Seaducks) o EC-CWS Aerial Setbacks (All Migratory Birds) Additional considerations: (Coastal Waterfowl and Seaducks); EC-CWS Marine Setbacks (All Migratory Birds) (Coastal Waterfowl  Priorities and values of residents include caribou, and Seaducks); EC-CWS Terrestrial Setbacks polar bear, birds, fish, marine mammals, fishing river (Coastal Waterfowl and Seaducks) or lake, land mammals, drinking water, cultural values, impacts, and protection. Additional considerations:  The site has Use and Occupancy Mapping activity;  The area includes caribou calving areas, post-calving areas, and key access corridors.  Priorities and values of residents include caribou, birds, fish, land mammals, wildlife, drinking water, cultural values, contaminated sites, existing economic development, and protection; Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) noted the following:  Category: o Highly risk intolerant  Qualifying Criterion: o Legislated protected area under the Migratory Birds Convention Act o Hosts more than 5% of a national population of one or more species exhibiting population declines as of Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) noted the following: Draft Nunavut Land Use Plan Options and Recommendations – Draft 2016  55

 Category: existing economic development, transportation and o Highly risk intolerant infrastructure, no oil and gas, no shipping, and  Qualifying Criterion: protection. o Legislated protected area under the Migratory Birds Convention Act o Supports a percentage of a national population equal to or greater than the percentage of 'sustainable loss' that the population can tolerate Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) noted the following: (Thick-billed Murre)  Category: o Highly risk intolerant  Feature bird group:  Qualifying Criterion: o Seabird (including Black-legged Kittiwake) o Legislated protected area under the Migratory o Waterfowl (Greater Snow Goose) Birds Convention Act o Shorebird (e.g. Ringed Plover) o Contains habitat likely to be identified as Critical  Site details: Habitat for a migratory bird listed as 'endangered' o Species at risk: Red Knot spp. islandica (Special or 'threatened' under the Species at Risk Act (Red Concern), Peregrine Falcon (Special Concern), Polar Knot) Bear (Special Concern) o Hosts more than 10% of a national population of o Part of Migratory Bird Sanctuary is contained within one or more migratory bird species (Black-bellied Sirmilik National Park Plover, Dunlin, Red Phalarope, Red Knot, Ruddy o Non-binding designations: International Biological Turnstone, White-rumped Sandpiper, Lesser Snow Programme Site, Important Bird Area Goose)  Current human activities at site: o Hosts more than 5% of a national population of one o Land-based tourism; shipping; cruise ship tourism; or more species exhibiting population decline as of biological research; harvesting and ancillary 2005 (American Golden-Plover, Black-bellied activities by Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Plover, Dunlin, Red Phalarope, Red Knot, Ruddy beneficiaries Turnstone)  Anticipated human activities at site: o Land-based tourism; shipping; cruise ship tourism;  Feature bird group: biological research; harvesting and ancillary o Shorebird activities by Nunavut Land Claims Agreement o Also important at site: Waterfowl (Lesser Snow beneficiaries Goose, Atlantic Brant)  Threats to birds from current/future activities at  Site details: site: o Species at risk: Red Knot spp. rufa (Endangered) o Human and terrestrial traffic disturbance related to o Non-binding designations: Ramsar Wetland of land-based tourism activities; marine International Importance; International Biological traffic/shipping disturbance as the area Programme Site; Important Bird Area experiences increasing ship traffic; increasing  Current human activities at site: human disturbance related to cruise ship tourism; o None direct loss of birds due to contaminants and  Anticipated human activities at site: pollution o None  Potential consequences for bird populations:  Threats to birds from current/future activities at o Disruption of feeding and nesting birds resulting in site: loss of eggs and/or young; higher potential for bird- o None ship collisions originating from all shipping  Potential consequences for bird populations: activities; direct loss of birds due to contaminants o None and pollution  Recommended setbacks:  Recommended setbacks: o EC-CWS Aerial Setbacks (All Migratory Birds); EC- o EC-CWS Aerial Setbacks (All Seabirds); EC-CWS CWS Marine Setbacks (Coastal Waterfowl and Marine Setbacks (All Seabirds); EC-CWS Terrestrial Seaducks); EC-CWS Terrestrial Setbacks (Coastal Setbacks (All Seabirds); Waterfowl and Seaducks) o Note that the Nunavut Land Use Plan does not apply within Sirmilik National Park. Additional considerations:  Priorities and values of residents include caribou, polar bear, walrus, birds, fish, marine mammals, Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) noted the following: wildlife, cultural values, impacts, contaminated sites,  Category:

56 

o Highly risk intolerant or 'threatened' under the Species at Risk Act (Ivory  Qualifying Criterion: Gull) o Legislated protected area under the Migratory  Feature bird group: Birds Convention Act o Seabird o Hosts more than 10% of a national population of  Site details: one or more migratory bird species (Black-legged o Largest known Ivory Gull colony in Canada Kittiwake, Northern Fulmar). o Species at risk: Ivory Gull (endangered)  Feature bird group: o Non-binding designations: International Biological o Seabird Programme Site; Important Bird Area  Site details:  Current human activities at site: o Species at risk: Polar Bear (Special Concern) o None o Non-binding designations: Important Bird Area;  Anticipated human activities at site: International Biological Programme Site, UNESCO o Shipping World Heritage Site  Threats to birds from current/future activities at  Current human activities at site: site: o Shipping; cruise ship tourism; biological research o Marine traffic/shipping disturbance as the area  Anticipated human activities at site: experiences increasing ship traffic; risk of oil spills o Shipping; cruise ship tourism; biological research; and operational releases originating from ships commercial fishing  Potential consequences for bird populations:  Threats to birds from current/future activities at o Higher potential for bird-ship collisions originating site: from all shipping activities; direct loss of birds due o Marine traffic/shipping disturbance as the area to contaminants and pollution experiences increasing ship traffic; increasing  Recommended setbacks: human disturbance related to cruise ship tourism; o EC-CWS Aerial Setbacks (All Seabirds); EC-CWS risk for oil spills and operational releases originating Marine Setbacks (All Seabirds); EC-CWS Terrestrial from shipping; risk of bycatch from commercial Setbacks (Ivory Gull) fishing activities anticipated  Potential consequences for bird populations: o Higher potential for bird-ship collisions originating from all shipping activities; disruption of feeding and nesting birds resulting in loss of eggs and/or National Wildlife Areas (NWAs) have been identified and young; direct loss of birds due to contaminants; provided to the Commission by the Government of Canada. potential for direct loss of seabirds from fishing These areas are: Polar Bear Pass National Wildlife Area, bycatch Nirjutiqarvik National Wildlife Area, Niginganiq National  Recommended setbacks: Wildlife Area, Qaqulluit National Wildlife Area, and Akpait o EC-CWS Marine Setbacks (Seabirds); EC-CWS Aerial National Wildlife Area. Setbacks (All Seabirds); EC-CWS Terrestrial Considered Information: Setbacks (All Seabirds)  Section 11.3.1(g) of the NLCA requires a land use plan Additional considerations: to take into account environmental considerations,  Priorities and values of residents include polar bear, including Parks and Conservation Areas. birds, fish, marine mammals, land mammals, wildlife,  It is an objective of the Commission’s Goal of impacts, existing economic development, no oil and Encouraging Conservation Planning to provide for the gas, no shipping, and protection. establishment and continued protection of the ecological integrity of Parks and Conservation Areas;  Some sites are located within the boundaries of the North Baffin Land Use Plan. The North Baffin Land Use Plan places an emphasis on protecting wildlife and Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) noted the following: wildlife habitat and ensuring impacts on wildlife are  Category: minimized; o Highly risk intolerant  Government of Canada has advised the Commission  Qualifying Criterion: that NWAs require special management and limited o Legislated protected area under the Migratory access; Birds Convention Act  Sululiit Area Co-Management Committee (2015-05- o Contains habitat likely to be identified as Critical 28) supports the recommendations of Canadian Habitat for a migratory bird listed as 'endangered' Wildlife Service (CWS) for the Akpait & Qaqulluit National Wildlife Areas, and recommends that a 32

Draft Nunavut Land Use Plan Options and Recommendations – Draft 2016  57

km buffer be applied around the National Wildlife Areas where the dumping of waste and seismic testing be prohibited;  The Nirjutiqarvik Area Co-Management Committee Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) noted the following: (2015-06-03) recommends the area be designated in  Category: the NLUP, including prohibitions; o Highly risk intolerant  Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated (2015-06-22) has  Qualifying Criterion: recommended that the NLUP should identify areas o Legislated protected area under the Canada that are protected through legislation and indicate Wildlife Act that the existing restrictions as set out in legislation o Hosts more than 10% of a national population of and regulations apply (not include specific conditions one or more migratory bird species (Thick-billed or prohibitions in the plan); Murre, Northern Fulmar)  Tunngasaiji, the Government of Nunavut’s Tourism o Supports a percentage of a national species Strategy supports the development and population equal to or greater than the percentage enhancement of attractions through the investment of ‘sustainable loss’ that the population can in Parks, Conservation Areas, historic places, heritage tolerate (Thick-billed Murre) rivers and other attractions;  Feature bird group:  Parnautit, the Government of Nunavut Mineral Exploration and Mining Strategy identifies the need to o Seabird create conditions for a strong and sustainable  Site details: minerals industry that contributes to a high and o Species at risk: Polar Bear (special concern), sustainable quality of life for all Nunavummiut; Peregrine Falcon (special concern)  Working Together for Caribou, the Government of o Non-binding designations: Important Bird Area; Nunavut’s Caribou Strategy identifies caribou as a International Biological Program Site keystone species with important economic and  Current human activities at site: cultural values; and o Shipping; cruise ship tourism  Ingirrasiliqta, the Government of Nunavut  Anticipated human activities at site: Transportation Strategy identifies the need for land o Shipping; cruise ship tourism and marine transportation networks to facilitate the  Threats to birds from current/future activity: movement of goods and provision of services. o Marine traffic/shipping disturbance as the area Recommendation for NWAs experiences increasing ship traffic; increasing human disturbance related to cruise ship tourism; Option 1 is recommended: risk of oil spills and operational releases originating  Restricts access to uses that are incompatible with from ships environmental and cultural values.  Potential consequences for bird populations:  May include conditions to guide land use. o Higher potential for bird-ship collisions originating  Identified area to be included on Schedule A. from all shipping activities; disruption of feeding The following uses are prohibited: and nesting birds resulting in loss of eggs and/or  Mineral exploration and production; young; direct loss of birds due to contaminants and pollution  Oil and gas exploration and production;  Recommended setbacks:  Quarries; o EC-CWS Aerial Setbacks (All Seabirds); EC-CWS  Hydro-Electrical and Related Infrastructure; Marine Setbacks (Seabirds); EC-CWS Terrestrial  All weather roads; and Setbacks (All Seabirds)  Related research except Non-exploitive Scientific Additional considerations: Research.  Priorities and values of residents include caribou, Condition: Project Proposals/Projects/Projects must comply birds, cultural values, and impacts. with the setbacks in Table 2 for the bird populations identified below. Option 1 was chosen given that these areas are considered to be highly risk intolerant and that access to uses that are Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) noted the following: incompatible with the protection of environmental values  Category: should be restricted. o Highly risk intolerant  Qualifying Criterion:

58 

o Legislated protected area under the Canada of ‘sustainable loss’ that the population can Wildlife Act tolerate (Thick-billed Murre)  Feature bird group:  Feature bird group: o Seabird (Northern Fulmar, Dovekie) o Seabird  Site details:  Site details: o National Wildlife Area established to protect o Species at risk: Polar Bear (Special Concern) Bowhead Whale habitat; largest known o Non-binding designations: Important Bird Area; concentration of Bowhead Whales International Biological Programme Site o Species at risk: Peregrine Falcon (Special Concern),  Current human activities at site: Polar Bear (Special Concern) o Shipping; cruise ship tourism; o Non-binding designations: None  Anticipated human activities at site:  Current human activities at site: o Shipping; cruise ship tourism; commercial fishing o Shipping; cruise ship tourism; harvesting and  Threats to birds from current/future activities at ancillary activities by Nunavut Land Claims site: Agreement beneficiaries o Marine traffic/shipping disturbance as the area  Anticipated human activities at site: experiences increasing ship traffic; increasing o Shipping; cruise ship tourism; harvesting and human disturbance related to cruise ship tourism; ancillary activities by Nunavut Land Claims risk for oil spills and operational releases originating Agreement beneficiaries from shipping; risk of bycatch from commercial  Threats to whales and birds from current/future fishing activities anticipated activity:  Potential consequences for bird populations: o Marine traffic/shipping disturbance as the area o Higher potential for bird-ship collisions originating experiences increasing ship traffic; increasing from all shipping activities; disruption of feeding human disturbance related to cruise ship tourism; and nesting birds resulting in loss of eggs and/or risk for oil spills and operational releases originating young; direct loss of birds due to contaminants and from shipping pollution; potential for direct loss of seabirds from  Potential consequences for whale and bird fishing bycatch populations:  Recommended setbacks: o Higher potential for animal-ship collisions o EC-CWS Aerial Setbacks (All Seabirds); EC-CWS originating from all shipping activities; disruption of Marine Setbacks (All Seabirds); EC-CWS Terrestrial feeding animals resulting in energetic losses; direct Setbacks (All Seabirds) loss of animals due to contaminants and pollution Additional considerations:  Recommended setbacks:  Priorities and values of residents include polar bear, o EC-CWS Aerial Setbacks (All Migratory Birds); EC- birds, marine mammals, cultural values, existing CWS Marine Setbacks (All Migratory Birds); EC-CWS economic development, and protection. Terrestrial Setbacks (All Migratory Birds); Additional considerations:  Priorities and values of residents include polar bear, walrus, bird, fish, marine mammals, drinking water, cultural values, existing economic development, Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) noted the following: transportation and infrastructure, and protection.  Category: o Highly risk intolerant  Qualifying Criterion: o Legislated protected area under the Canada Wildlife Act Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) noted the following:  Feature bird group:  Category: o Shorebird (e.g. red phalarope, white-rumped o Highly risk intolerant sandpiper), Seaduck (e.g. King Eider), Waterfowl  Qualifying Criterion: (e.g. Greater Snow Goose) o Legislated protected area under the Canada  Site details: Wildlife Act o High arctic wetland of exceptional biological o Hosts more than 10% of a national population of one or more migratory bird species (Thick-billed diversity o Species at risk: Peary Caribou (Endangered), Red Murre, Black-legged Kittiwake) o Supports a percentage of a national species Knot spp. islandica (Special Concern) population equal to or greater than the percentage

Draft Nunavut Land Use Plan Options and Recommendations – Draft 2016  59

o Non-binding designations: Ramsar Wetland of o Shipping; cruise ship tourism; commercial fishing; International Importance; International Biological harvesting and ancillary activities by Nunavut Land Programme Site Claims Agreement beneficiaries  Current human activities at site:  Threats to birds from current/future activities at o Biological research; harvesting and ancillary site: activities by Nunavut Land Claims Agreement o Marine traffic/shipping disturbance as the area beneficiaries experiences increasing ship traffic; increasing  Anticipated human activities at site: human disturbance related to cruise ship tourism; o Biological research; shipping; harvesting and risk for oil spills and operational releases originating ancillary activities by Nunavut Land Claims from ships; risk of bycatch from commercial fishing Agreement beneficiaries activities anticipated  Threats to birds from current/future activities at  Potential consequences for bird populations: site: o Higher potential for bird-ship collisions originating o Human disturbance related to biological research; from all shipping activities; disruption of feeding marine traffic/shipping disturbance as the area and nesting birds resulting in loss of eggs and/or experiences increasing ship traffic; risk for oil spills young; direct loss of birds due to contaminants and and operational releases originating from shipping pollution; potential for direct loss of seabirds from  Potential consequences for bird populations: fishing bycatch o Disruption of feeding and nesting birds resulting in  Recommended setbacks: loss of eggs and/or young; direct loss of birds due o EC-CWS Aerial Setbacks (All Seabirds); EC-CWS to contaminants and pollution Marine Setbacks (Seabirds); EC-CWS Terrestrial  Recommended setbacks: Setbacks (All Seabirds) o EC-CWS Aerial Setbacks (Coastal Waterfowl and Additional considerations: Seaducks); EC-CWS Marine Setbacks (Coastal  Priorities and values of residents include birds, Waterfowl and Seaducks); EC-CWS Terrestrial cultural values, transportation and infrastructure, and Setbacks (Coastal Waterfowl and Seaducks) protection. Additional considerations:  Priorities and values of residents include caribou, walrus, marine mammals, polynyas, cultural values, contaminated sites, existing economic development, and protection. The National Historic Sites have been identified and provided to the Commission by the Government of Canada. These sites are: Kodlunarn Island, Inuksuk, Bloody Falls, Igloolik Island Archaeological Sites, Port Refuge, Blacklead Island Whaling Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) noted the following: Station, Kekerten Island Whaling Station, Wreck of the HMS  Category: Breadalbane, Beechey Island Sites, Erebus and Terror, Fall o Highly risk intolerant Caribou Crossing, and Arvia’juaq and Qikiqtaarjuk.  Qualifying Criterion: The Territorial Historic Sites have been identified by the o Legislated protected area under the Canada Commission from the Historical Resources Act. These sites are: Wildlife Act Dealy Island, Beechey Island, Fort Conger, and Marble Island. o Hosts more than 10% of a national population of Options were not considered for Fort Conger as it is in one or more migratory bird species (Northern Quttinirpaaq National Park. Fulmar)  Feature bird group: Considered Information: o Seabird  Section 11.3.1(g) of the NLCA requires a land use plan  Site details: to take into account cultural factors and priorities; o Largest Northern Fulmar colony in Canada  It is an objective of the Commission’s Goal of o Species at risk: Peregrine Falcon (Special Concern); Encouraging Conservation Planning to provide for the Polar Bear (Special Concern) establishment and continued protection of the o Non-binding designations: International Biological ecological integrity of Parks and Conservation Areas; Programme Site, Important Bird Area  The North Baffin Regional Land Use Plan identifies  Current human activities at site: historic sites having significant cultural value; o Shipping; cruise ship tourism; harvesting and  The Keewatin Regional Land Use Plan recognizes the ancillary activities by Nunavut Land Claims importance of protecting historic sites; Agreement beneficiaries  Some of the sites occur on Inuit Owned Lands;  Anticipated human activities at site: 60 

 The Government of Canada has advised the Commission that they would like all activities in the NSA to take into consideration impacts to commemorative integrity and cultural resources of National Historic Sites; The Canadian Heritage Rivers System (CHRS) is Canada’s  National historic sites can be found in almost any national river conservation program. It promotes, protects and setting, from urban or industrial locales to wilderness enhances Canada's river heritage, and ensures that Canada’s environments, requiring the need for flexibility in leading rivers are managed in a sustainable manner. There are incorporating National Historic Sites (NHS) in all zones currently three designated Canadian Heritage Rivers within the and allowing for the preservation of their heritage NSA: the Thelon, Kazan, and Soper. Management plans are in value; place to manage the unique heritage values of the three  The Government of Nunavut has advised the designated Canadian Heritage Rivers. The Coppermine River Commission that they place importance on the has been nominated as a Heritage River. protection of areas of historic and cultural value; Considered Information:  Tunngasaiji, the Government of Nunavut’s Tourism Strategy supports the development and  Section 11.3.1(g) of the NLCA requires a land use plan enhancement of attractions through the investment to take into account cultural factors and priorities; in Parks, Conservation Areas, historic places, heritage  Tunngasaiji, the Government of Nunavut’s Tourism rivers and other attractions; Strategy supports the development and  Parnautit, the Government of Nunavut Mineral enhancement of attractions through the investment Exploration and Mining Strategy identifies the need to in Parks, Conservation Areas, historic places, heritage create conditions for a strong and sustainable rivers and other attractions; minerals industry that contributes to a high and  Parnautit, the Government of Nunavut Mineral sustainable quality of life for all Nunavummiut; Exploration and Mining Strategy identifies the need to  Working Together for Caribou, the Government of create conditions for a strong and sustainable Nunavut’s Caribou Strategy identifies caribou as a minerals industry that contributes to a high and keystone species with important economic and sustainable quality of life for all Nunavummiut; cultural values; and  Working Together for Caribou, the Government of  Ingirrasiliqta, the Government of Nunavut Nunavut’s Caribou Strategy identifies caribou as a Transportation Strategy identifies the need for land keystone species with important economic and and marine transportation networks to facilitate the cultural values; movement of goods and provision of services.  Ingirrasiliqta, the Government of Nunavut Transportation Strategy identifies the need for land Recommendation for the Historic Sites and marine transportation networks to facilitate the Option 1 is recommended: movement of goods and provision of services;  It is an objective of the Commission’s Goal of  Restricts access to uses that are incompatible with Encouraging Conservation Planning to provide for the environmental and cultural values. establishment and continued protection of the  May include conditions to guide land use. ecological integrity of Parks and Conservation Areas;  Identified area to be included on Schedule A.  The Keewatin Regional Land Use Plan recognizes the The following uses are prohibited: importance of the heritage resources;  Management plans have been developed by the  Mineral exploration and production; Government of Canada and the Government of  Oil and gas exploration and production; Nunavut in consultation with communities;  Quarries;  The Government of Canada’s comments that the  Hydro-Electrical and Related Infrastructure; management plans contain policies and practices that  All weather roads; and ensure that the rivers’ development, management  Related research except Non-exploitive Scientific and use are consistent with the Canadian Heritage Research. Rivers System (CHRS) objectives and guidelines; Option 1 was chosen given that these areas are of historic  The management plans for the Thelon and Kazan significance and have been designated through legislation. heritage rivers identify a 1km buffer along the river;  The management plan for the Soper River applies to the watershed of the river;  The Government of Nunavut Parks and Special Places manages the the Canadian Heritage Rivers System (CHRS) in Nunavut;

Draft Nunavut Land Use Plan Options and Recommendations – Draft 2016  61

 The Thelon Heritage River is Baker Lake’s community drinking water supply and is considered in the Community Drinking Water Supplies section of this document; For particular, very small sites identified as being of high  The Heritage River Management Plan for the Soper importance along the Kazan and Thelon Rivers, by their River applies to the watershed of the River;  The Heritage River Management Plans for the Kazan respective heritage river management plans: and Thelon Rivers apply to a narrow corridor along the rivers. The plans identify specific sites of high Options 1 is recommended: importance;  Restricts access to uses that are incompatible with  The Heritage River Management Plans for the Kazan environmental and cultural values. and Thelon, and Coppermine Rivers; and  May include conditions to guide land use.  The Coppermine Heritage River Management Plan  Identified area to be included on Schedule A. does not provide appropriate information to make The following uses are prohibited: any recommendations for this river as a whole, or for  Mineral exploration and production; locations along the river.  Oil and gas exploration and production; NOTE:  Quarries;  A significant portion of the Soper River is within  Hydro-Electrical and Related Infrastructure; Katannilik Territorial Park;  All weather roads; and  A portion of the Thelon River is within the Thelon  Related research except Non-exploitive Scientific Wildlife Sanctuary, which is assigned a Protected Area Research. designation above; and Option 1 was chosen given that these areas are identified as  A portion of the Kazan River is within the Fall Caribou being of particular importance in the management plans. Crossing National Historic Site, which is assigned a Protected Area designation above. For the corridors identified along the rivers in the management plans for the Kazan River and Thelon River:  Option 4 is recommended: Does not restrict access.  Identifies areas that are important to particular Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs) or Valued The Commission believes that the direction provided in the Socio-Economic Components (VSECS). management plan for the particular river should be the guiding  Identified area to be included on Schedule B of the principle when recommending an Option for management. NLUP. The management plans are the result of extensive consultation. Information on Valued Components: Identify corridors along the Thelon and Kazan Rivers as areas of a known Valued Socio- Option 1 is recommended for the Soper River watershed Economic Component that should be given particular outside of Katannilik Territorial Park: consideration (see Table 4).  Restricts access to uses that are incompatible with Option 4 was chosen to ensure that the integrity of the water environmental and cultural values.  May include conditions to guide land use. system is maintained. Identified area to be included on Schedule A. The following uses are prohibited:  Mineral exploration and production;  Oil and gas exploration and production; Option 3 is recommended:  Quarries;  Does not restrict access.  Hydro-Electrical and Related Infrastructure;  Identified area not discussed in NLUP, and boundary  All weather roads; and of identified area not shown on Schedule A or B.  Related research except Non-exploitive Scientific Option 3 was chosen given that the Coppermine River has not Research. been designated and the management plan does not provide Option 1 was chosen given that it supports the management appropriate information to make any recommendations for of Katannilik Territorial Park and reflects the uses anticipated this river as a whole, or for locations along the river. and direction provided in the Soper River management plan.

62 

The management of areas of particular significance for “The promotion and strengthening of Inuit culture and ecological, cultural, social, archaeological, historic, research, heritage is integral to the goal of building healthy restoration of environment integrity or other similar purposes communities in Nunavut. It is also one of the are a key aspect of building healthier communities. In the fundamental objectives of the Nunavut Land Claims absence of legislation, the Commission supports the Agreement (NLCA). Protection and promotion of the identification and management of these areas through land well-being of Nunavut’s residents and communities is use planning. In many instances, important areas identified by the primary purpose of land use planning under Article communities are included in other key areas identified 11 of the NLCA, is implicit in other NLCA provisions, and throughout this plan. The following areas have been identified is an inherent goal in land use related territorial and by communities as important areas that do not have significant federal statutes and policies.” overlap with other areas discussed in the plan:  Hiukitak River (Bathurst Inlet and Umingmaktok  Duke of York Bay (Coral Harbour and Repulse Bay) Building Healthy Communities is one of five planning Goals in  Foxe Basin Marine Area of Interest (Igloolik) the Nunavut Planning Commission’s Broad Planning Polices,  Moffatt Inlet (Arctic Bay) Objectives and Goals. It is the primary aim of this Chapter to  Nettiling Lake (Cape Dorset, Pangnirtung) provide a practical policy direction that is able to support this  Walrus Island (Coral Harbour) Goal.  Corbett Inlet (Rankin Inlet) Specifically, this Chapter;  Diana River (Rankin Inlet)  identifies key areas of Nunavut that are critical to  Char Fishing Rivers (Coral Harbour) building healthier communities;  Naujaat Areas (Naujaat)  provides options for managing these key areas; Considered Information:  recommends a preferred option for the management of these areas that is best able to support this Goal;  Section 11.3.1(h) of the NLCA requires a land use plan and to take into account cultural factors and priorities;  translates the preferred recommendation into a  It is a policy of the Commission’s Goal of Building language that a Land Use Plan can articulate and Healthy Communities to support Inuit social and implement. cultural needs and aspirations by providing special management to areas of cultural importance;  It is an objective NPCs broad planning policies, objectives and goals that any proposed restrictions on The following areas and issues have been identified for their land use are achieved with the least possible impact significance to building healthy communities and the well- on undiscovered mineral resources, while taking into being of Nunavut’s residents: account environmental and social objectives;  Community Areas of Interest;  Tunngasaiji, the Government of Nunavut’s Tourism  Community Land Use Areas; Strategy supports the development and  Transportation infrastructure; enhancement of attractions through the investment  Unincorporated communities; in Parks, Conservation Areas, historic places, heritage  Alternative energy sources; rivers and other attractions;  Community drinking water supplies;  Parnautit, the Government of Nunavut Mineral  Land remediation; Exploration and Mining Strategy identifies the need to  Contaminated Sites; create conditions for a strong and sustainable  Aerodromes; minerals industry that contributes to a high and sustainable quality of life for all Nunavummiut;  DND Establishments; and  Working Together for Caribou, the Government of  North Warning System sites. Nunavut’s Caribou Strategy identifies caribou as a keystone species with important economic and cultural values; and

Draft Nunavut Land Use Plan Options and Recommendations – Draft 2016  63

 Ingirrasiliqta, the Government of Nunavut  The area has Use and Occupancy Mapping activity Transportation Strategy identifies the need for land including sacred sites, overnight sites, and and marine transportation networks to facilitate the harvesting/hunting areas; movement of goods and provision of services.  Priorities and values of residents include caribou, polar bear, walrus, birds, fish, marine mammals, shellfish, drinking water, cultural values, potential economic development, existing economic Additional Considerations: development, no oil and gas, and protection;  The Frozen Strait bird area abuts the entry to Duke of  The KIA’s efforts to protect the area from mining York Bay; activity to preserve the cultural significance of the  This area is adjacent to a large polynya as identified area; by the WWF; and  The Government of Canada’s comments that the  This area contained polar bear summer retreat Hiukitak River belongs under the heading Community habitat as identified by Government of Nunavut. This Areas of Interest in the Plan; area is adjacent to polar bear winter concentration  The site contains Inuit Owned Land and crown land; habitat as identified by Government of Nunavut.  The area contains historic caribou calving and post- calving areas; Option 1 is recommended:  A portion of the area is contained within the Queen  Restricts access to uses that are incompatible with Maud Bird Sanctuary; and environmental and cultural values.  The NWT & Nunavut Chamber of Mines, TMAC  May include conditions to guide land use. Resources, the Nunavut Impact Review Board and the  Identified area to be included on Schedule A. Nunavut Water Board expressed support for The following uses are prohibited: protecting the area.  Mineral exploration and production; Option 1 is recommended:  Oil and gas exploration and production;  Restricts access to uses that are incompatible with  Hydro-Electrical and Related Infrastructure; and environmental and cultural values.  Related research except Non-exploitive Scientific  May include conditions to guide land use. Research.  Identified area to be included on Schedule A. Option 1 was chosen given the importance of the area to The following uses are prohibited: residents.  Mineral exploration and production;  Oil and gas exploration and production;  Quarries;  Hydro-Electrical and Related Infrastructure;  All weather roads; and Additional considerations:  Related research except Non-exploitive Scientific  DFO community consultation data and reports Research. identified the Foxe Basin area as important for Option 1 was chosen given the importance of the area to biodiversity including birds, seals, polar bear, and residents and that it recognizes the support from a number of walrus. The area includes general habitat, migration, other planning partners to protect this area. and birthing grounds for much wildlife;  This area has Use and Occupancy Mapping activity including birth sites, overnight sites, and hunting and harvesting activity;  Priorities and values of residents include caribou, polar bears, walrus, birds, fish, marine mammals, Additional Considerations: wildlife, cultural values, impacts, potential economic  Duke of York Bay was identified as an area of interest development, no transportation and infrastructure, by the communities of Coral Harbour and Repulse no shipping, and protection; and Bay. An interest in tourism was also identified in the  This area is crossed by a large polynya as identified by area; the WWF.  DFO community consultation data and reports identified this area as important for biodiversity, Option 1 is recommended: fishing, and general habitat. The area includes habitat  Restricts access to uses that are incompatible with for seals, beluga, char, polar bear, bearded seal, environmental and cultural values. ringed seal, shellfish, walrus, narwhal, killer whale,  May include conditions to guide land use. bowhead whale, and walrus;  Identified area to be included on Schedule A. 64 

The following uses are prohibited:  DFO community consultation data and reports identified this area as important for fish and seals  Mineral exploration and production; including general habitat and migration corridors;  Oil and gas exploration and production;  The area has Use and Occupancy Mapping activity  Commercial shipping; including overnight sites, and harvesting/hunting  Cruise Ships areas;  Hydro-Electrical and Related Infrastructure; and  Priorities and values of residents include caribou,  Related research except Non-exploitive Scientific birds, fish, marine mammals, shellfish, river or lake of Research. interest, wildlife, drinking water, cultural values, Option 1 was chosen given the importance of the area to contaminated sites, potential economic residents. development, existing economic development, and protection; and  The Great Plain of Koukdjuak bird habitat borders the lake. Dewey Soper Migratory Bird Sanctuary is Additional considerations: approximately 65 km to the southwest of the Lake.  Community residents are concerned about the Portions of the Western Cumberland Sound impacts of helicopter activity, cruise ships, and ice Archipelago bird habitat are approximately 20 and 50 breaking in Admiralty Inlet; km east of the Lake.  DFO community consultation data and reports Option 1 is recommended: identified Moffatt Inlet as a source of arctic char, and  Restricts access to uses that are incompatible with habitat for Greenland shark, narwhal, bowhead environmental and cultural values. whales, bearded seals, harp seals, ring seals. Killer  May include conditions to guide land use. whales and beluga whales also use this area;  Identified area to be included on Schedule A.  The area has Use and Occupancy Mapping activity including sacred sites and hunting and harvesting The following uses are prohibited: activity;  Mineral exploration and production;  Priorities and values of residents include caribou,  Oil and gas exploration and production; polar bear, birds, fish, marine mammals, river or lake  Quarries; of interest, land mammals, wildlife, cultural values,  Hydro-Electrical and Related Infrastructure; and impacts, contaminated sites, potential economic  Related research except Non-exploitive Scientific development, existing economic development, no oil Research. and gas, no shipping, and protection; and  This area is adjacent to polar bear summer retreat Option 1 was chosen given the importance of the area to habitat. residents. Option 1 is recommended:  Restricts access to uses that are incompatible with environmental and cultural values. Additional considerations:  May include conditions to guide land use.  DFO community consultation data and reports  Identified area to be included on Schedule A. identified this area as important for arctic cod and walrus including walrus haul-outs and aggregations; The following uses are prohibited:  The area has Use and Occupancy Mapping activity  Mineral exploration and production; including a sacred area and hunting/harvesting;  Oil and gas exploration and production;  Priorities and values of residents include walrus,  Commercial shipping; marine mammals, cultural values, existing economic  Cruise ships; development, no oil and gas, and protection; and  Hydro-Electrical and Related Infrastructure; and  This area contained polar bear summer retreat  Related research except Non-exploitive Scientific habitat as identified by Government of Nunavut. This Research. area is adjacent to polar bear winter concentration Option 1 was chosen given the importance of the area to habitat as identified by Government of Nunavut. residents. Option 1 is recommended:  Restricts access to uses that are incompatible with environmental and cultural values.  May include conditions to guide land use. Additional considerations:  Identified area to be included on Schedule A. The following uses are prohibited:

Draft Nunavut Land Use Plan Options and Recommendations – Draft 2016  65

 Mineral exploration and production;  Related research except Non-exploitive Scientific  Oil and gas exploration and production; Research.  Quarries; Option 1 was chosen given the importance of the area to  All-weather roads; residents.  Hydro-Electrical and Related Infrastructure; and  Related research except Non-exploitive Scientific Research. Option 1 was chosen given the importance of the area to residents. Note that this PA overlaps with a Walrus Haul-Out PA Additional considerations: designation on the same location.  These rivers include the Sutton River, Sixteen Mile Brook, Unhealing Brook, and the Thompson River.  The area should be protected because of its fishing value. Additional considerations:  Area is essential for Inuit traditional land use; Option 1 is recommended:  Corbett Inlet and the surrounding lakes is an  Restricts access to uses that are incompatible with important site for both subsistence and commercial environmental and cultural values. fishing (char and trout); and  May include conditions to guide land use.  There are historical Inuit camping sites in the area, as  Identified area to be included on Schedule A. well as heritage sites important to some families. The following uses are prohibited: Option 4 is recommended:  Mineral exploration and production;  Does not restrict access.  Oil and gas exploration and production;  Identifies areas that are important to particular  Quarries; Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs) or Valued  Hydro-Electrical and Related Infrastructure; and Socio-Economic Components (VSECS).  Related research except Non-exploitive Scientific  Identified area to be included on Schedule B of the Research. NLUP. Option 1 was chosen given the importance of the area to Option 4 was chosen given the importance of the area to residents. residents.

Additional considerations: Additional considerations:  It is one of the most popular fishing areas for the  The area contains caribou calving and post-calving community of Rankin Inlet, as it contains char and areas; mineral exploration, i.e. low-flying helicopters, trout, and is a spawning area for both; disrupt and scare caribou;  The area is important for caribou hunting;  The entirety of the area is used by hunters in Naujaat  There are historical areas of significance along the for caribou. Subsistence hunting is economically Diana River, as well as heritage sites for some important to the community, and for consumption; families; and  The area is considered sacred and is used for  It is an essential area for Inuit traditional land use. hunting/harvesting caribou and fish, including land locked char, lake trout, and whitefish; Option 1 is recommended:  The community hopes to develop a local commercial  Restricts access to uses that are incompatible with fishery in the future; environmental and cultural values.  Priorities and values of residents include caribou, fish  May include conditions to guide land use. (char, land locked char, lake trout, and whitefish),  Identified area to be included on Schedule A. marine mammals (seals, walrus, narwhal, beluga The following uses are prohibited: whale, bowhead whale), shellfish, cultural values, sacred sites, potential economic development, and  Mineral exploration and production; protection; and  Oil and gas exploration and production;  Marine mammals have habitats in different parts of  Quarries; the area throughout the year.  Hydro-Electrical and Related Infrastructure; and Option 3 is recommended:

66 

 Does not restrict access.  Some of the areas are within the boundaries of the  Identified area not to be included in the NLUP. Keewatin Regional Land Use Plan, which recognizes the important of community use areas; Option 3 was chosen given the large size of the areas, and lack  Many of the areas include Inuit Owned Land (Inuit of suggested policy direction. Owned Land);  At this time, the Use and Occupancy Mapping information identifies areas that are used by community members, but does not include the During consultations, communities identified numerous communities’ views on the relative importance of the areas and management direction that may be priorities and values that have been taken into account throughout this document. appropriate. Considered information: Recommendation for Community Land Use Areas  NLCA requires land use plans to reflect the priorities Option 4 is recommended: and values of residents.  Does not restrict access. Recommendation for Community Priorities and Values  Identifies areas that are important to particular Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs) or Valued Option 4 is recommended: Socio-Economic Components (VSECS).  Does not restrict access. Identified area to be included on Schedule B of the  Identifies areas that are important to particular NLUP. Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs) or Valued Information on Valued Components: Identify community land Socio-Economic Components (VSECS). use areas as areas of a known Valued Socio-Economic  Identified area to be included on Schedule B of the Component that should be given particular consideration (see NLUP. Table 5). Information on Valued Components: Identify community Option 4 was chosen based on feedback received during the priorities and values as areas of a known Valued Socio- 2012-2014 Community Consultation Tour and Planning Economic Component that should be given particular Partner Consultations. consideration (see Tables 2 and 3). Option 4 was chosen based on feedback received during the 2012-2014 Community Consultation Tour and Planning Partner Consultations. Areas of Equal Use and Occupancy are areas within the NSA where certain lands are jointly owned and managed by the Inuit of Northern Quebec (Nunavik) as represented by Makivik and the Inuit of Nunavut represented by Nunavut Tunngavik Nunavummiut rely on migrating species for subsistence, and Incorporated as illustrated under Article 40 of the Nunavut as a result, have a long established history of land use across Land Claims Agreement. These areas are generally located much of the NSA. The Commission has been working to map around the Salisbury and Nottingham Islands in the Hudson this history by hosting Use and Occupancy Mapping interviews Strait; and the Bakers Dozen, King George and Sleeper Islands with hunters and trappers throughout the territory. in the Hudson Bay. Considered Information: Considered Information:  The Nunavut Land Claims Agreement requires a land  Section 11.3.1(h) of the NLCA requires a land use plan use plan to take into account cultural factors and to take into account cultural factors and priorities; priorities.  It is a policy of the Commission’s Goal of Building  It is an objective of the Commission’s Goal of Building Healthy Communities to support Inuit social and Healthy Communities to ensure the social, cultural, cultural needs and aspirations by providing special economic, and environmental endeavours of the management to areas of cultural importance; human community are central to land use planning  The areas were identified by residents of multiple and implementation; communities in Nunavut and Nunavik as important  Some of the areas are within the boundaries of the for a variety of environmental and cultural reasons; North Baffin Regional Land Use Plan, which  Makivik Corporation (2016-05-10) and Nunavut recognizes the important link between people of the Tunngavik Incorporated (2016-05-16) have region and the land; recommended that additional consultations occur before a designation for the areas can be included in the NLUP;

Draft Nunavut Land Use Plan Options and Recommendations – Draft 2016  67

 It is an objective NPCs broad planning policies,  Does not restrict access. objectives and goals that any proposed restrictions on  Identified area not discussed in NLUP, and boundary land use are achieved with the least possible impact of identified area not shown on Schedule A or B. on undiscovered mineral resources, while taking into Option 3 was chosen to avoid any bias on the ongoing out-of- account environmental and social objectives; court settlement discussions regarding both Denesuline Areas.  Tunngasaiji, the Government of Nunavut’s Tourism Strategy supports the development and enhancement of attractions through the investment in Parks, Conservation Areas, historic places, heritage rivers and other attractions; and  Parnautit, the Government of Nunavut Mineral Exploration and Mining Strategy identifies the need to create conditions for a strong and sustainable Bathurst Inlet and Umingmaktok are unique unincorporated minerals industry that contributes to a high and communities that are not recognized by the Government as sustainable quality of life for all Nunavummiut. municipalities. They are considered to contain significant historical and cultural value. Recommendation for Areas of Equal Use and Occupancy Considered Information: Option 1 is recommended:  Section 11.3.1(h) of the NLCA requires a land use plan  Restricts access to uses that are incompatible with to take into account cultural factors and priorities, environmental and cultural values. including the protection and preservation of outpost  May include conditions to guide land use. camps;  Identified area to be included on Schedule A.  Tunngasaiji, the Government of Nunavut’s Tourism The following uses are prohibited: Strategy supports the development and enhancement of attractions through the investment  Mineral exploration and production; in Parks, Conservation Areas, historic places, heritage  Oil and gas exploration and production; rivers and other attractions;  Quarries;  Parnautit, the Government of Nunavut Mineral  Hydro-Electrical and Related Infrastructure; and Exploration and Mining Strategy identifies the need to  Related research except Non-exploitive Scientific create conditions for a strong and sustainable Research. minerals industry that contributes to a high and Option 1 was chosen given the importance of the area to sustainable quality of life for all Nunavummiut; residents.  Ingirrasiliqta, the Government of Nunavut Transportation Strategy identifies the need for land and marine transportation networks to facilitate the movement of goods and provision of services;  The Commission’s Goal of Building Healthy Denesuline living in northern Manitoba and northern Communities requires land use planning policies take Saskatchewan have interests in lands in the southern Kivalliq into account current and future community region that they have traditionally used and continue to use. infrastructural requirements including land areas for outpost camps; and Considered information:  The NLCA identifies a 2 km radius from the centre of  There are two areas of asserted title claim currently the residential base as a general boundary for outpost under negotiation: the Athabasca Denesuline Area of camps. However, these areas are not considered to Asserted Title Claim under the Benoanie Litigation, be outpost camps. and the Manitoba Denesuline Area of Asserted Title Claim under Samuel/Thorassie Litigation; Recommendation for Unincorporated Communities  The negotiations are confidential and without prejudice; Option 1 is recommended:  Denesuline land use in these areas has been  Restricts access to uses that are incompatible with provided to the Commission; and environmental and cultural values.  The Northlands and Sayisi Dene First Nations have  May include conditions to guide land use. advised that the withdrawn lands should be  Identified area to be included on Schedule A. designated Mixed Use to facilitate ongoing land claim The following uses are prohibited: negotiations.  Mineral exploration and production; Recommendation for Denesuline Lands Withdrawals  Oil and gas exploration and production;  Hydro-Electrical and Related Infrastructure; and Option 3 is recommended:

68 

 Related research except Non-exploitive Scientific normally used for prohibited land uses, this prohibition is not Research. ecological in nature, so option 2 was considered appropriate. Option 1 was chosen given that it prohibits uses which, at this The Kazan River site is within the Fall Caribou Crossing National time, are considered incompatible with the continued Historic Site; it was recommended earlier in this document operation and cultural and historic significance of these that this site is a protected area that prohibits Hydro-Electrical communities. and Related Infrastructure. In the Commission’s view the location of the hydro-electrical generation opportunity appears to be located within the boundaries of the protected National Historic Site. With this in mind the protected area designation will prevail. Nunavut has potential for alternative energy sources. The Qulliq Energy Corporation (QEC) has completed a study (“Identification and Evaluation of Hydro-electric Generation Opportunities” (2008)) for the Kivalliq Region which identifies three sites where high potential for hydro-electrical generation exists; these are located along the Thelon, Kazan, and Quoich Rivers. QEC also completed a study of “Iqaluit Maintaining the quality of community drinking water supplies Hydro-electric Generation Sites: Identification and Ranking” is essential to the overall wellbeing of NSA communities, and a (2006) which identified Jaynes Inlet (Qikiqgijavik) as having key component to building healthy communities. NSA high potential for hydro-electrical generation. Community Plans provide direction for the management of land use activities in and around community drinking water Considered Information: supplies inside municipal boundaries.  The Nunavut Land Claims Agreement requires a land use plan to take into account energy requirements, Community Plans vary throughout the NSA. Notwithstanding sources and availability; this, all Community Plans recognize the importance of  it is a policy of the Commission’s Goal of Building prohibiting activities that can potentially harm the quality of the community’s drinking water. Healthy Communities to take into account the need and potential for development of alternative energy Considered Information: sources;  Section 11.3.1(f) of the NLCA requires a land use plan  Tunngasaiji, the Government of Nunavut’s Tourism to take into account community infrastructural Strategy supports the development and requirements including health; enhancement of attractions through the investment  A policy of the Commission’s Goal of Building Healthy in Parks, Conservation Areas, historic places, heritage Communities is to take into account current and rivers and other attractions; projected municipal infrastructure needs for  Parnautit, the Government of Nunavut Mineral resources such as clean water; Exploration and Mining Strategy identifies the need to  The Government of Nunavut (2016-05-16) create conditions for a strong and sustainable recommends that any industrial project taking place minerals industry that contributes to a high and within a community drinking water supply watershed sustainable quality of life for all Nunavummiut; identify the following information:  The importance placed on promoting alternative o The location of the community drinking water energy sources by the Government of Nunavut and source in relation to the proposed project Government of Canada; and activities;  The direction provided in QEC reports. o Any potential impacts of project activity on that water source; and Recommendation for Alternative Energy Sources o Mitigation measures to avoid impacts to the Option 2 is recommended: community drinking water source;  May restrict access to some uses.  Some sites are located in the North Baffin Regional  May include conditions to guide land use. Land Use Plan. The North Baffin Land Use Plan  Identified area to be included on Schedule A. requires water quality be preserved, and no substances that will impair water quality; The following uses are prohibited:  Some sites are located in the boundaries of the  All uses are prohibited within 100m of the three high Keewatin Regional Land Use Plan. The KRLUP potential alternative energy sites, except activities identifies water quality as a concern of residents; associated with hydro-electrical generation.  Community water supply watersheds vary in size and Option 2 was chosen given that it protects the unique basically there are three general distinct sizes of geographic features of the river system. While Option 1 is watershed: small (less than 20 km in length), medium

Draft Nunavut Land Use Plan Options and Recommendations – Draft 2016  69

(over 20 km and under 100 km in length) and large  Does not restrict access. (over 100 km in length);  Identifies areas that are important to particular  Some community water supply watersheds are Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs) or Valued contained solely within the municipal boundary while Socio-Economic Components (VSECS). others are contained partially inside the municipal  Identified area to be included on Schedule B of the boundary; NLUP.  Comments received from the Government of Information on Valued Components: Identify drinking water Nunavut state that “the NLUP must promote human supply watersheds as areas of a known Valued Socio-Economic and environmental health, paying particular attention Component that should be given particular consideration. to protecting community water sources”;  Comments received from the Government of Canada Option 4 was chosen given the large size of the drinking water state that “Certain kinds of exploration can be done supply watersheds for these communities. with minimal effect (on community watersheds) and prohibiting such activity may not be justifiable”;  Parnautit, the Government of Nunavut Mineral Exploration and Mining Strategy identifies the need to create conditions for a strong and sustainable minerals industry that contributes to a high and sustainable quality of life for all Nunavummiut;  Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated does not want Pangnirtung has a small community water supply watershed, development activity restricted on Inuit Owned which is located partially inside the municipal boundary. There Lands; is an existing prospecting permit inside the watershed. There  Community Plans for each municipality provide is no Inuit Owned Land (IOL). The Pangnirtung Community Plan considers all forms of development acceptable inside the direction for managing community watersheds; watershed, provided it does not negatively impact the  Many communities in the NSA draw drinking water community water supply (Pangnirtung Community Plan and from small lakes and catchment areas where the Zoning By-law (March 2007)). entire watershed is within the municipal boundary. In these instances, the municipal land use plans are able to provide direction on how land should be used to maintain the quality and quantity of drinking water; Grise Fiord’s community water supply watershed is small and and located partially inside the municipal boundary. The Grise  Drinking water may also come from watersheds that Fiord Community Plan considers all forms of development extend outside the municipal boundaries. In these acceptable inside the watershed, provided it does not impact instances, this Plan can support municipal efforts to the community water supply (Grise Fiord Community Plan – manage land use within community drinking water 2008-2028 (February 2009)). There is no INUIT OWNED LAND . supply watersheds. Recommendation for Community Drinking Water Supplies Rankin Inlet’s community water supply watershed is small and Option 1 is recommended for all community drinking water located completely inside the municipal boundary. The Rankin supply watersheds, except those for Baker Lake and Kugluktuk: Inlet Community Plan considers some forms of development  Restricts access to uses that are incompatible with acceptable inside the watershed, provided it does not impact environmental and cultural values. the community water supply (Rankin Inlet Community Plan  May include conditions to guide land use. (2007)). There is no INUIT OWNED LAND .  Identified area to be included on Schedule A. The following uses are prohibited:  Mineral exploration and production; Taloyoak’s community water supply watershed is small and  Oil and gas exploration and production; located completely in the municipal boundary. The Taloyoak  Hydro-Electrical and Related Infrastructure; and Community Plan considers all forms of development inside the  Related research except Non-exploitive Scientific watershed acceptable, provided they do not impact Research. community water supply (Taloyoak Community Plan & Zoning Option 1 was chosen given the importance of the areas to the By-law 2010-2030 (Draft 2009)). There is no INUIT OWNED health of communities. LAND . Option 4 is recommended for the community drinking water supply watersheds for Baker Lake and Kugluktuk:

70 

watershed. There are active mineral claims inside the Repulse Bay watershed. Cambridge Bay’s community water supply watershed is small and located completely inside the municipal boundary. The direction from the Cambridge Bay Zoning By-law indicates that no development shall take place within 500 m of the watershed (Hamlet of Cambridge Bay By-laws, No. 222 Chesterfield Inlet’s community water supply watershed is (approved June 22, 2009)). The Zoning By-law does not map small and almost completely inside the municipal boundary. the watershed. Recreation activities are anticipated in the The Chesterfield Inlet Community Plan does not preclude setback and a future recreation centre and future Arctic development in the watershed. There is no Inuit Owned Land . College campus are also shown within the setback. There is an active mineral claim inside the watershed (Ikaluktutiak – Cambridge Bay Community Plan 2007-2027 & (anniversary date is March 12, 2011). Zoning By-law (2008 approved)) There is no Inuit Owned Lands.

The Gjoa Haven community water supply watershed is small and located in the municipal boundary. The Gjoa Haven Coral Harbour’s community water supply watershed is Community Plan does not preclude development in the medium in size and a portion is located in the municipal watershed. There is no Inuit Owned Land . boundary. The Coral Harbour Community Plan considers only uses accessory to the supply of water and quarries / gravel pits acceptable in the watershed (Coral Harbour Community Plan & Zoning By-law (2006 draft)). Within the Coral Harbour The Resolute community water supply watershed is small and community water supply watershed, there is also a possible completely in the municipal boundary. The Resolute caribou calving and post-calving area as well as active Community Plan does not preclude development in the prospecting permits. There is no Inuit Owned Lands. watershed (draft June 2005).

Iqaluit’s existing and proposed community water supply Clyde River’s community water supply watershed is small and watersheds are small and located completely in the municipal located completely inside municipal boundary. It is policy of boundary. The Iqaluit General Plan By-law allows no the Clyde River Community Plan that under no condition shall development in the proposed and existing city water supply an activity which can potentially pollute the community’s (Iqaluit General Plan By-law (June 2010 draft)). There is an water source be allowed (Clyde River Community Plan & active mineral claim in the proposed water supply (anniversary Zoning Bylaw (approved January 2007)). The watershed is date of claim is 2010). There is no Inuit Owned Land . presumed to be designated Hinterland. There is no Inuit Owned Land .

The Sanikiluaq community water supply watershed is small and located completely in the municipal boundary. The The Kimmirut community water supply watershed is small and Sanikiluaq Community Plan does not preclude development in completely inside the municipal boundary. The Kimmirut the watershed (1998 approved). Community Plan does not permit development which can potentially pollute the community’s water source (Hamlet of Kimmirut, By-Law No. 92-2006 (June 2007 approved)). There is no Inuit Owned Land. Whale Cove’s community water supply watershed is small and located completely in the municipal boundary. The Whale Cove Community Plan has no direction for watershed management; however it does provide for management of The Qikiqtarjuaq community water supply watershed is small Fish Lake, which is located in the watershed (Tikirarjuaq Whale and completely inside the municipal boundary. The Cove Land Use Plan (August 2002 approved)). Qikiqtarjuaq Community Plan considers all uses inside the watershed provided it does not pollute the community’s water source (Qikiqtarjuaq Community Plan & Zoning By-Law (2005 draft)). There is no. Repulse Bay’s community water supply watershed is small and almost completely in the municipal boundary. The Repulse Bay Community Plan does not preclude development in the Draft Nunavut Land Use Plan Options and Recommendations – Draft 2016  71

The Igloolik community water supply watershed is small and The Pond Inlet community water supply watershed is small and completely inside the municipal boundary. The Igloolik partially outside the municipal boundary. The Pond Inlet Community Plan designates the watershed Hinterland, which Community Plan contains a general policy that under no promotes local economic development (Igloolik Community condition shall an activity which can potentially pollute the Plan & Zoning By-Law (2010 draft)). community’s water source be allowed. The watershed is located in an area of the municipality presumed to be designated Hinterland in the Community Plan.

The Hall Beach community water supply watershed is small and completely inside the municipal boundary. The Hall Beach Community Plan designates the watershed Hinterland, which The Kugluktuk community water supply watershed is large and promotes local economic development (Hall Beach mostly outside the municipal boundary. The watershed Community Plan & Zoning By-Law (2010 draft)). extends into the Northwest Territories. The Kugluktuk Community Plan and Zoning By-law contains policy that there is to be no development within the watershed of the water source (Kugluktuk Community Plan By-law No. 205-2007 (2007 The Cape Dorset community water supply watershed is small approved); Kugluktuk Zoning By-law No. 206-2007 (2007 and completely inside the municipal boundary (Cape Dorset approved)). Community Plan & Zoning By-Law (1996 approved)). There is no Inuit Owned Land. The Coppermine draft heritage river management plan suggests the need for balance between protection and economic development. The Kugluktuk community watershed contains some Inuit Owned Land. There is no mineral activity within the municipal boundary; however, there are active mineral interests in watershed.

Arviat’s community water supply watershed is medium in size and a small portion is located in the municipal boundary. The The Baker Lake community water supply watershed is large Arviat Community Plan does not preclude development in the and is mostly outside the municipal boundary. The watershed watershed (Hamlet of Arviat Community Plan and Zoning By- extends into the Northwest Territories. The Baker Lake law (August 2010)). Within the Arviat community water supply Community Plan and Zoning By-law offer no direction for watershed there are Inuit Owned Lands, possible caribou watershed management (Baker Lake Community Plan and calving and post-calving areas, active mineral claims, a key bird Zoning By-law (2007 draft)). Water intake is in the Baker Lake. habitat site and proposed transportation and utility corridor. There is some Inuit Owned Land. There are also active mineral Arviat is actively seeking a new community water supply. interests in the watershed, but no mineral activity in the municipal boundary. The drinking water supply is a Canadian Heritage River.

The Kugaaruk community water supply watershed is medium and mostly located outside the municipal boundary. The Kugaaruk Community Plan does not preclude development in the watershed (approved April 2008). There is no Inuit Owned Land Remediation considers Distant Early Warning (DEW) Line Land. There are some existing mineral claims inside the sites administered by the Department of National Defence watershed. (DND) and AANDC. These sites are at different stages of remediation. Considered Information:  The Nunavut Land Claims Agreement requires a land The Arctic Bay community water supply watershed is small and use plan to identify and prioritize the requirement to almost completely outside municipal boundary. The Arctic Bay clean up waste sites; Community Plan does not preclude development in the  A policy of the Commission’s Goal of Building Healthy watershed. There is an air strip and some Inuit Owned Land Communities is to identify contaminated sites that within the watershed. should be avoided by residents;

72 

 Government of Canada provided the Commission minerals industry that contributes to a high and with a list of sites that have been remediated and sustainable quality of life for all Nunavummiut; those that have not been remediated;  The National Contaminated Sites Program and that  Parnautit, the Government of Nunavut Mineral the Government of Canada is responsible for the Exploration and Mining Strategy identifies the need to properties identified through the National create conditions for a strong and sustainable Contaminated Sites Program ; minerals industry that contributes to a high and  AANDC has provided the Commission with a list of sustainable quality of life for all Nunavummiut; National Contaminated Sites Program’s sites that  DND recognizes that development in DEW Line sites they administer that are of concern for public health that have not been remediated should be restricted; and safety. and Recommendation for Sites Identified in the National  Previous land use. Contaminated Sites Program Recommendation for Land Remediation Option 2 is recommended: Options 2 is recommended:  May restrict access to some uses.  May restrict access to some uses.  Includes terms to guide land use.  Includes terms to guide land use.  May include direction to regulatory authorities.  May include direction to regulatory authorities.  May identify priorities and values that need to be  May identify priorities and values that need to be considered in the design, review, and conduct of the considered in the design, review, and conduct of the activity. activity. All uses are prohibited except remediation and monitoring of All uses are prohibited except Government of Canada activities the sites. and activities associated with the remediation and monitoring Option 2 was chosen to reflect feedback received from of the sites. government agencies and to provide management of these Option 2 was chosen to reflect feedback received from National Contaminated Sites Program’s sites that are of government agencies and to provide management of public concern for public health and safety. infrastructure.

AANDC is the custodian of most federal lands in the North and is committed to managing a number of contaminated sites. It The Commission recognizes the contributions of Department is responsible for properties identified through its Northern of National Defence sites in the NSA to national security, and Contaminated Sites Program (NCSP). These sites are located on supports the management of these facilities to ensure their reserve lands, on federal lands north of the 60th parallel and on continued utility. The DND Establishments of CFS Alert, Eureka any other lands under AANDC’s custodial responsibility. In and Nanisivik have been established to promote a military 2002, INAC developed a Contaminated Sites Management presence in the NSA and are used to control and defend Plan. Canada’s sovereignty. The High Arctic Data Communication System is a chain of six microwave repeaters sites link used for Considered Information: communication purposes  Section 11.9.1 of the NLCA requires a land use plan to identify and prioritise the requirement to clean up Considered Information: waste sites;  The Commission’s Objective to respect and provide  A policy of the Commission’s Goal of Building Healthy for Canada’s sovereignty over Canadian Arctic Communities is to identify contaminated sites that Waters; and should be avoided by residents;  Comments received from DND that access should be  The Keewatin Regional Land Use Plan recognizes the restricted to other uses. importance of managing waste sites; Recommendation for DND establishments  The North Baffin Regional Land Use Plan recognizes the importance of managing waste sites; Option 2 is recommended:  The Commission’s Goal of Building Healthy  May restrict access to some uses. Communities;  Includes terms to guide land use.  Parnautit, the Government of Nunavut Mineral  May include direction to regulatory authorities. Exploration and Mining Strategy identifies the need to create conditions for a strong and sustainable Draft Nunavut Land Use Plan Options and Recommendations – Draft 2016  73

 May identify priorities and values that need to be activities are not detrimental to the health, well-being considered in the design, review, and conduct of the and safety of Nunavut residents; and activity.  Land use activities within the municipal aerodromes certified Nunavut aerodromes (i.e. airports) (4 km All uses are prohibited except Government of Canada radius measured from the midpoint of the runway) activities. are required to comply with existing Airport Zoning Option 2 was chosen to reflect feedback received from Regulations created under the Aeronautics Act; under government agencies and to provide management of the these regulations, building heights are restricted and public infrastructure. additional hazardous uses are often identified, including bird attractants, which can pose a significant threat to aircraft operations. Recommendation for Aerodromes North Warning System (NWS) sites provide surveillance of Option 3 is recommended: North America airspace. In Nunavut, there are 6 Long Range  Does not restrict access. Radar Sites (LRRS) and 28 Short Range Radar Sites (SRRS).  Identified area not discussed in NLUP, and boundary These sites are vulnerable to activities that generate of identified area not shown on Schedule A or B. electromagnetic interference (EMI). Option 3 was chosen given that regulations are now in place Considered Information: for certified Nunavut aerodromes (airports).  The Commission’s Objective to respect and provide

for Canada’s sovereignty over Canadian Arctic Waters; and  The comments received from DND, with regards to the management of North Warning System sites. The DND have provided a range of setbacks that should be provided in the Plan. Recommendation for North Warning System Sites Options 2 is recommended:  May restrict access to some uses.  Includes terms to guide land use.  May include direction to regulatory authorities.  May identify priorities and values that need to be considered in the design, review, and conduct of the activity. All uses are prohibited except Government of Canada activities and activities associated with the remediation and monitoring of the sites. Option 2 was chosen to reflect feedback received from government agencies and to provide management of public infrastructure.

Each municipality in Nunavut maintains an aerodrome. Considered Information:  Section 11.3.1(f) of the NLCA requires a land use plan to take into account community infrastructural requirements including health;  Ingirrasiliqta, the Government of Nunavut Transportation Strategy identifies the need for land and marine transportation networks to facilitate the movement of goods and provision of services;  An objective of the Commission’s Goal of Building Healthy Communities is to ensure that land use 74 

Commission recognizes the importance of this industry to Nunavut’s economy.

Considered Information:  Section 11.3.1(c) of the NLCA requires a land use plan to take into account economic opportunities and needs;  An objective of the Commission’s Goal of Encouraging Sustainable Economic Development is to encourage diversified economic development that increases employment, business opportunities, training and “The Goal of achieving the economic well-being of other benefits; communities underlies many of the articles and  Terriplan’s Socio-Demographic and Economic Sector provisions of the Nunavut Land Claims (NLCA). It is Analysis identifies mining as “one of the most inherent in the NLCA’s objective of encouraging self- lucrative industries in Nunavut ”; reliance and diverse economic opportunities for  The 2010 Nunavut Economic Outlook identifies Nunavummiut and all Canadians which will arise from a mining as still being strong despite the world long-term, healthy, sustainable renewable and non- recession, Mining presents its self as one of the most renewable resource economy.” attractive and viable economic activities in the NSA. It identifies 8 mines with a high potential to develop in the next several years. These mines are Meadowbank Gold Mine, which is now in production, Hope Bay Encouraging Sustainable Economic Development is one of five Gold Mine, Meliadine Gold Mine, Kiggavik Uranium planning Goals in the Nunavut Planning Commission’s Broad Mine, Izok Lake, High Lake, Hackett River and Mary Planning Polices, Objectives and Goals. It is the primary aim of River; this Chapter to provide a practical policy direction that is able  Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated has advised that to support this Goal. mineral exploration should not be restricted on Inuit Specifically, this Chapter; Owned Land;  identifies key areas of Nunavut that are critical to the  It is an objective NPCs broad planning policies, encouraging sustainable economic development; objectives and goals that any proposed restrictions on  provides options for managing these Key areas; land use are achieved with the least possible impact  recommends a preferred option for the management on undiscovered mineral resources, while taking into of these areas that is best able to support this Goal; account environmental and social objectives; and  Parnautit, the Government of Nunavut Mineral  translates the preferred recommendation into a Exploration and Mining Strategy identifies the need to language that a Land Use Plan can articulate and create conditions for a strong and sustainable implement. minerals industry that contributes to a high and sustainable quality of life for all Nunavummiut;  Working Together for Caribou, the Government of Nunavut’s Caribou Strategy identifies caribou as a keystone species with important economic and cultural values;  Ingirrasiliqta, the Government of Nunavut Areas of the NSA identified by the Commission as important to Transportation Strategy identifies the need for land encouraging sustainable economic development are; and marine transportation networks to facilitate the movement of goods and provision of services;  Mineral Exploration and Production;  Some sites are located in the Boundaries of the North  Oil and Gas exploration and production; and Baffin Planning Region. The North Baffin Land Use  Commercial Fisheries Plan identifies mining as influencing the regional  Mineral Potential mixed economy;  Some sites are located in the boundaries of the Keewatin Regional Land Use Planning Region. The KRLUP identifies mining as important to the economic well being of the region; and  AANDC (2014-04-11) provided the Commission with a list of sites for high mineral potential. Mineral exploration and production is one of the most attractive and viable economic activities in the NSA. The Recommendation for Areas of High Mineral Potential Draft Nunavut Land Use Plan Options and Recommendations – Draft 2016  75

Options 4 is recommended: Options 4 is recommended:  Does not restrict access.  Does not restrict access.  Identifies areas that are important to particular  Identifies areas that are important to particular Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs) or Valued Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs) or Valued Socio-Economic Components (VSECS). Socio-Economic Components (VSECS).  Identified area to be included on Schedule B of the  Identified area to be included on Schedule B of the NLUP. NLUP. Information on Valued Components: Identify areas of high Information on Valued Components: Identify areas of high oil mineral potential as areas of a known Valued Socio-Economic and gas potential as areas of a known Valued Socio-Economic Component that should be given particular consideration. Component that should be given particular consideration. Option 4 was chosen to reflect that these areas may be Option 4 was chosen to reflect that these areas have been important for non-renewable development in the future, and prioritized for oil and gas exploration and production. if possible activities that would reduce their future economic value should be avoided.

Nunavut has proven oil and gas potential, notably in the The commission recognizes the commercial fishing industry as Sverdrup basin, where there are several existing Significant important to a diversified and sustainable economy. Discovery Licenses. Baffin Bay also has excellent potential, but Commercial fisheries are an emerging sector in Nunavut’s the area remains relatively unexplored. The oil and gas economy, with turbot, shrimp, and char currently being sector has the potential to be one of the most lucrative harvested. Activity in Nunavut’s commercial fishing industry is economic activities in Nunavut. predicted to grow. Considered Information: Considered Information:  Section 11.3.1(c) of the NLCA requires a land use plan  Section 11.3.1(c) of the NLCA requires a land use plan to take into account economic opportunities and to take into account economic opportunities and needs; needs;  An objective of the Commission’s Goal of Encouraging  An objective of the Commission’s Goal of Encouraging Sustainable Economic Development is to encourage Sustainable Economic Development is to encourage diversified economic development that increases diversified economic development that increases employment, business opportunities, training and employment, business opportunities, training and other benefits; other benefits;  Terriplan’s Socio-Demographic and Economic Sector  Some sites are located in the Boundaries of the North Analysis identifies oil and gas with the potential to be Baffin Planning Region. The North Baffin Land Use a main economic activity in the NSA; Plan identifies fisheries as influencing the regional  It is an objective NPCs broad planning policies, mixed economy; objectives and goals that any proposed restrictions on  Some sites are located in the boundaries of the land use are achieved with the least possible impact Keewatin Regional Land Use Planning Region. The on undiscovered mineral resources, while taking into KRLUP identifies fisheries as important to the account environmental and social objectives; economic well-being of the region;  Nunavut’s Economic Outlook identifies oil and gas as  Ingirrasiliqta, the Government of Nunavut key industry important to sustaining Nunavut’s Transportation Strategy identifies the need for land economy; and marine transportation networks to facilitate the  Some sites are located in the Boundaries of the North movement of goods and provision of services; Baffin Planning Region. The North Baffin Land Use  DFO has provided data on fish areas of abundance; Plan identifies oil and gas as influencing the regional and mixed economy;  Cumberland Sound has been identified as a  AANDC provided the Commission with a list of sites particularly important turbot fishing area for the containing Significant Discovery Licenses (SDL) which community of Pangnirtung. The Cumberland Sound is the only type of license present within Nunavut at Turbot Management Area was recently extended to this time; the mouth of Cumberland Sound. Recommendation for Areas of High Oil and Gas Recommendation for Areas with the Potential for Potential Commercial Fisheries

76 

Option 2 is recommended for the Cumberland Sound: and marine transportation networks to facilitate the  May restrict access to some uses. movement of goods and provision of services;  May include conditions to guide land use.  Results of the technical sessions with planning  Identified area to be included on Schedule A. partners in 2015 and 2016;  The Government of Nunavut’s comments that land The following uses are prohibited: and marine transportation is a core component of the  Oil and gas exploration and production; and Plan; and  Related research except Non-exploitive Scientific  Information on existing known transportation routes. Research. Option 2 was chosen to reflect comments received from government agencies and the community and to provide While some areas of Nunavut are considered inappropriate to management direction to maintain the integrity of the fish all-season linear infrastructure at the present time, in most of habitat. the territory no restrictions are established. NPC has taken the Option 4 is recommended for char and turbot areas of approach of identifying what essential informational abundance: requirements are needed to ensure that linear infrastructure  Does not restrict access. proposals meet territorial goals and objectives. These  Identifies areas that are important to particular requirements will benefit: Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs) or Valued 1. Proponents, by ensuring that proposed projects Socio-Economic Components (VSECS). consider all factors in a consistently holistic manner; Identified area to be included on Schedule B of the 2. Communities, by ensuring that projects meet the NLUP. particular needs of different communities; Information on Valued Components: Identify char and turbot 3. Impact assessment professionals, by ensuring that areas of abundance as areas of a known Valued Socio- proposals are complete and comprehensive at the Economic Component that should be given particular time of their submission, as well as being consistent consideration. in content to previous proposals; and finally Option 4 was chosen to reflect comments received from 4. The NPC, since by ensuring that linear infrastructure government agencies and the community and given that they proposals are complete and comprehensive at the are broad areas of abundance with limited information start, the chance of future plan amendments as available to formulate specific management options. project concepts are revised is reduced. Recommendation for Areas Where Proposals for Transportation Corridors have been made Option 4 is recommended:  Does not restrict access.  Identifies areas that are important to particular Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs) or Valued Socio-Economic Components (VSECS).  Identified area to be included on Schedule B of the An ordered and strategic approach to developing NLUP. transportation and communication in Nunavut is essential to future prosperity and avoidance of unnecessary capital work Information on Valued Components: Identify proposed and/or safety concerns. transportation corridors as areas of a known Valued Socio- Economic Component that should be given particular Considered Information (for both terrestrial and marine): consideration.  Section 11.3.1(d) of the NLCA requires a land use plan Option 4 was selected as expenditure has been made on to take into account transportation corridors; transportation feasibility studies along certain routes in  It is an objective of the Commission’s Goal of Building Nunavut. Works or activities that would disrupt these Healthy Communities to take into account the proposed linear infrastructure routes should be evaluated in development and maintenance of territorial and terms of opportunity costs. community infrastructure outside municipal boundaries, including transportation infrastructure;  The Keewatin Regional Land Use Plan recognizes the importance of the development of transportation Considered Information: infrastructure for the Region;  Article 11 of the NLCA requires NPC to contribute to  Ingirrasiliqta, the Government of Nunavut the development and review of Arctic marine policy; Transportation Strategy identifies the need for land  The Marine Environmental Handbook;

Draft Nunavut Land Use Plan Options and Recommendations – Draft 2016  77

 Documents published by Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) relating to the Northern Marine Transportation Corridors Initiative (NMTCI); ad At the present time, no regulations on potential undersea  Numerous Submissions and papers by DFO. utility corridors is considered warranted. Construction ships will need to adhere to marine shipping restrictions if applicable.

No land use designations applied.

Different types of restrictions have been recommended for Caribou Sea-Ice Crossings, Beluga Calving Grounds, Marine On- Ice corridors, and Community Areas of Interest. Please see those sections for details.

Numerous Marine on-ice corridors are presented in the Marine Environmental Handbook, which has been published by DFO for at least 17 years. The primary routes change little year to year, are essential for the traditional economy, and pre-exist an icebreaking routes that may be established. They are used primarily used in the Spring. Additional considerations for marine on ice transportation:  The NBRUP identifies community concerns regarding the impacts of ice-breaking on community use; and

 The following participants identified concerns regarding the impacts of ice-breaking on community use: o Arviat HTO (2015-10-20) o Arviq HTO (2015-10-20) o Aqigiq HTO (2015-09-18) Recommendation for Marine On-Ice Transportation Corridors Options 2 is recommended:  May restrict access to some uses.  May include conditions to guide land use.  Identified area to be included on Schedule A. Condition: Subject to safe navigation, no shipping may occur that crosses any on-ice transportation corridor when the sea is frozen during Upingaksaaq and Upingaaq, without first presenting a robust ice-bridging plan as defined in Annex B of the NLUP. Option 2 was chosen to reflect feedback received from the public regarding the need to protect traditional routes to harvesting grounds.

78 

Table 1: Land Use Designations

Table 2: Migratory Bird Setbacks

Table 3: Community Priorities and Values for Water Management Areas

Table 4: Community Priorities and Values for Marine Areas

Table 5: Community Land Use for Water Management Areas

Table 6: Data Sources for Nunavut Land Use Plan – Draft 2016

Draft Nunavut Land Use Plan Options and Recommendations – Draft 2016  79

Map 1 – Map 200

80 