Arviat, Nunavut

Appendix F – rnulr ssessent etr ec

APPENDIX F rnulr ssessent etr ec GOVERNMENT OF NUNAVUT COMMUNITYSUB-BASE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT

REPORT

FEBRUARY 2012 ISSUED FOR USE – REVISION 1 EBA FILE: Y14101361 LIMITATIONS OF REPORT This report and its contents are intended for the sole use of Government of Nunavut, Community and Government Services and their agents. EBA, A Tetra Tech Company, does not accept any responsibility for the accuracy of any of the data, the analysis, or the recommendations contained or referenced in the report when the report is used or relied upon by any Party other than Government of Nunavut, Community and Government Services, or for any Project other than the proposed development at the subject site. Any such unauthorized use of this report is at the sole risk of the user. EBA’s General Conditions are provided in Appendix A of this report

EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd. operating as EBA, A Tetra Tech Company PO Box 2244, 201, 4916 - 49 Street Yellowknife, NT X1A 2P7 CANADA p. 867.920.2287 f. 867.873.3324 GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012 | ISSUED FOR USE – REVISION 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents the findings from an evaluation of the granular resource needs and availability for Arviat, Nunavut. The purpose of the project was to identify sources of granular material that could be developed to meet the community’s needs. A community needs analysis was conducted and concluded that

Arviat requires more than 2.4 million cubic metres of granular material3 over the next 10 years. Of this total, 70% is unprocessed pit run, and approximately 700,000 m must be processed to meet engineering specifications. The community’s largest need for granular material is for the hamlet expansion, and the most immediate need is for a new reservoir. Prior to the site investigation EBA identified potential sources of aggregate by reviewing existing documentation pertaining to aggregate resources 20 km north and 10 km south of Arviat. EBA visited the site twice – August 1 to 5 and September 26 to 30, 2011. During these site investigations the current aggregate sources were evaluated and potential new sources were examined. Arviat’s current aggregate source is the Airport Esker3 which lies about 2 km south of the hamlet. As of August3 2011 there was approximately 56,000 m of 20 mm minus crush stockpiled, and about 168,000 m of sand with some gravel remaining in the western edge of this esker. Six aggregate prospects were examined during the site investigations. Prospect #1 is 5 km northwest of the community and can be used for short-term need for pit run fill. Prospect #2 is 3 km northwest of the community on the Maguse Road. This prospect containsapproximately30%oversizematerialthatcould be processed to produce surfacing and sub-base aggregate. Prospects #3 and #4 contain gravel and sand that meets gradation requirements for sub-base. However, these prospects are close to water bodies and should be developed cautiously to avoid mobilization of sediment. Either Prospect #5 – Wolf Esker or Prospect #6 – Maguse Esker should be developed to meet the community’s long-term aggregate needs. Maguse Eskerisaccessiblebyroad,isalreadydisturbed,andis more than twice the size of Wolf Esker. A winter or all-weather road must be built to access the aggregate in Wolf Esker. An ice road would cost about $250,000 per year to construct, and an all-weather road would cost about $18,720,000 to build. However, this prospect is only 10 km from the community, so haulage unit costs are less than half of that for Maguse Esker. Based on the preliminary environmental assessment, Prospect #6 –Maguse Esker may represent the granular source with the least environmental risk due to the existing access road, level of human disturbance in the area, and estimated size of the granular source. Further consultation and assessment work would be required prior to proceeding with the development of either of these long-term prospects. EBA can providefurtherassistancewithdevelopmentuponrequest.

Y14101361 IFU - REVISION 1_13 February 2012 GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012 | ISSUED FOR USE – REVISION 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...... i

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 General ...... 1 1.2 Background...... 1 1.3 Scope of Work ...... 1

2.0 METHODOLOGY ...... 2 2.1 Desktop Terrain Analysis...... 2 2.2 Site Investigation ...... 3 2.3 Aggregate Assessment...... 3 2.4 Laboratory Testing Program ...... 3 2.5 Community Needs Analysis...... 5 2.6 Cost Estimate Analysis ...... 5 2.7 Environmental Assessment ...... 5 2.8 Equipment Recommendation ...... 6

3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION...... 6 3.1 Location ...... 6 3.2 Climate...... 6 3.3 Geology...... 7 3.4 Permafrost ...... 8 3.5 Vegetation and Wildlife ...... 8

4.0 COMMUNITY NEEDS ANALYSIS...... 9 4.1 Hamlet Expansion...... 10 4.2 Reservoir...... 11 4.3 Hamlet Office and RCMP Detachment...... 11 4.4 Solid Waste Facility ...... 11 4.5 Potential All-Weather Road ...... 11

5.0 CURRENT AGGREGATE SOURCES ...... 11

6.0 AGGREGATE PROSPECTS...... 13 6.1 Aggregate Prospect #1: Qamutyuaqtalik...... 14 6.1.1 Location and Accessibility...... 14 6.1.2 Description...... 14 6.1.3 Aggregate Assessment...... 14 6.1.4 Potential Environmental Impacts ...... 14 6.1.5 Potential Community Concerns ...... 15 6.1.6 Aggregate Recommendation...... 15 6.2 Aggregate Prospect # 2 ...... 15 ii

Y14101361 IFU - REVISION 1_13 February 2012 GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012 | ISSUED FOR USE – REVISION 1

6.2.1 Location and Accessibility...... 15 6.2.2 Description...... 15 6.2.3 Aggregate Assessment...... 15 6.2.4 Potential Environmental Impacts ...... 16 6.2.5 Potential Community Concerns ...... 16 6.2.6 Aggregate Recommendation...... 16 6.3 Aggregate Prospect # 3: Angaktaarjuaq (Landing Lake) ...... 16 6.3.1 Location and Accessibility...... 16 6.3.2 Description...... 16 6.3.3 Aggregate Assessment...... 17 6.3.4 Potential Environmental Impacts ...... 17 6.3.5 Potential Community Concerns ...... 17 6.3.6 Aggregate Recommendation...... 17 6.4 Aggregate Prospect # 4: Qingujuaq ...... 18 6.4.1 Location and Accessibility...... 18 6.4.2 Description...... 18 6.4.3 Aggregate Assessment...... 18 6.4.4 Potential Environmental Impacts ...... 18 6.4.5 Potential Community Concerns ...... 19 6.4.6 Aggregate Recommendation...... 19 6.5 Aggregate Prospect # 5: Amaroqtalik (Wolf Esker)...... 19 6.5.1 Location and Accessibility...... 19 6.5.2 Description...... 19 6.5.3 Aggregate Assessment...... 19 6.5.4 Potential Environmental Impacts ...... 20 6.5.5 Potential Community Concerns ...... 20 6.5.6 Aggregate Recommendation...... 20 6.6 Aggregate Prospect # 6: Maguse Esker...... 20 6.6.1 Location and Accessibility...... 20 6.6.2 Description...... 21 6.6.3 Aggregate Assessment...... 21 6.6.4 Potential Environmental Impacts ...... 21 6.6.5 Potential Community Concerns ...... 21 6.6.6 Aggregate Recommendation...... 22

7.0 COST ESTIMATES ...... 22 7.1 Development Costs ...... 22 7.1.1 All-Weather Road Construction ...... 22 7.1.2 Road Upgrading...... 22 7.1.3 Winter Road Construction...... 23 7.2 Production Costs ...... 24 7.3 Operational Costs ...... 25 7.3.1 Hauling...... 25

iii

Y14101361 IFU - REVISION 1_13 February 2012 GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012 | ISSUED FOR USE – REVISION 1

7.3.2 Haul Route Maintenance ...... 26

8.0 SCREENING EQUIPMENT...... 26

9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS...... 27

10.0 CLOSURE...... 29

REFERENCES...... 30

FIGURES Figure 1 Site Plan

PHOTOGRAPHS Photo 1 Airstrip Esker – West looking south Photo 2 Airstrip Esker – West looking west Photo 3 Crest of Prospect #1 looking west Photo 4 North side of Prospect #1 looking west Photo 5 Crest of Prospect #2 looking east Photo 6 North side of Prospect #2 looking west Photo 7 Quarried area north of Prospect #2 looking west Photo 8 Coarse aggregate piled on north side of Prospect #2 looking west Photo 9 Prospect #3 looking west towards Landing Lake Photo 10 Testpit at Prospect #3 looking south Photo 11 Surface-washed gravel on west side of Prospect #4 Photo 12 Testpit at Prospect #4 showing sandy gravel Photo 13 Tidal flats south of Arviat Photo 14 Surface-washed gravel at Prospect #5 Photo 15 West end of Prospect #5 Photo 16 Testpit at Prospect #5 Photo 17 Maguse Road approaching Prospect #5 looking northwest Photo 18 Crest of Prospect #6, eastern extent, looking southeast Photo 19 Test at Prospect #6 Photo 20 Quarry at south eastern end of Prospect #6

Y14101361 IFU - REVISION 1_13 February 2012 GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012 | ISSUED FOR USE – REVISION 1

APPENDICES Appendix A EBA’s General Conditions Appendix B Environmental Assessment Appendix C Laboratory Test Results Appendix D Screener Information Appendix E Air Photos Appendix F Surficial Geology Map

Y14101361 IFU - REVISION 1_13 February 2012 GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012 | ISSUED FOR USE – REVISION 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

This report presents the findings from a geotechnical evaluation of potential granular resources for the Hamlet of Arviat, NU. The primary objective of this study was to identify granular resources capable of meeting the hamlet’s needs for the next 10 years. EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd., operating as EBA, A Tetra Tech Company (EBA) submitted a proposal for a Granular Program Study (RFP No. 10-3013) to the Government of Nunavut, Department of Community and Government Services (CGS) on April 29, 2011.TheprojectwasawardedtoEBAonJune24,2011, 1.2under the Background authorization of Service Contract Number AE 1030131.

The Hamlet of Arviat is located on the western coast of Hudson Bay in the Kivalliq Region of Nunavut. Arviat is the third largest community in Nunavut with a population of 2330. The site was used historically as an Inuit summer camp, and was first settled as a year-round community in 1921. The hamlet is situated on an east-west running esker. Eskers are narrow sinuous ridges, composed of sand and gravel, that are formed from melt water streams at the base of a glacier (Cummings et al. 2011). The Arviat Cemetery is situated on the eastern extent of this esker and the Dionne Road lies on the western extent. Granular resources used to develop Arviat originated from the esker on which it is located and another large esker approximately 2 km south of the hamlet. This esker to the south is bisected by the airstrip, and will be referred to as Airstrip Esker in this report. In 2009, EBA completed a granular source characterization study for CGS to support airside surface rehabilitation at the Arviat Airport (EBA 2009). This project examined the aggregate remaining in the Airstrip Esker. The Hamlet of Arviat is projecting several development projects that will require granular resources. This comprehensive project identifies the hamlet’s granular needs, examines several granular prospects, assesses the potential environmental impact of quarry development in the region, and provides 1.3recommendations Scope of for Work quarry development.

EBA’s understanding of the scope of work is summarized below. 1. Review- documentation pertaining to aggregate resources near Arviat including: granular resources studies by EBA (2009) and GNWT (1993) provided in GN RFP - No. 10-3013; - air photos 1:60,000 (1954) (See Appendix E); Canadian Topographic Maps 1:50,000; 55 E/1 and 55 E/8. (© 1985 and 2005 respectively, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada. Available at http://geogratis.gc.ca/geogratis1 /en/download/raster.html); and

Y14101361 IFU - REVISION 1_13 February 2012 GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012 | ISSUED FOR USE – REVISION 1

surficial geology map (See Appendix F). 2. Travel to Arviat to perform an investigation ofexistingresources,identifynewpotential resources, and evaluate accessibility of the resources. 3. Consult with the community to conduct a Needs Assessment Analysis. This will help determine the nature and quantity of material required. 4. Carry out a site investigation of sources with a high potential for production of material in sufficient quantity and meeting current specifications. 5. Determine the engineering properties of material sampled during the site investigation to gauge their suitability for use as construction material such as road sub-base, base, and surface material, concrete aggregate, etc. 6. Submit a report presenting EBA’s recommendations for resource development to be reviewed! by CGS which includes: ! Class D cost estimates for development of recommended resources ! Assessment of environmental and wildlife impacts resulting from development Quantity of material available at resources which meets specifications for different ! applications Quantity of pit run material (material not requiring processing by screening or crushing) ! available at each site Quantity and classification of material available in previously developed sources, and ! sources which could potentially be developed in the future ! Map showing locations of granular resources, and access routes to sources The availability of gravel screeners and recommendations for equipment selection methodology 2.0 METHODOLOGY

2.1 Desktop Terrain Analysis

The objective of the desktop terrain analysis was to identify potential sources of aggregate that were accessible. Dr. Kumari Karunaratne and Dr. Shirley McCuaig reviewed the existing documentation pertaining to aggregate resources near Arviat including: granular resources studies by EBA (2009) andGNWT(1993)providedinGNRFPNo.10-3013; air photos 1:60,000 (1954) (See Appendix E); Canadian Topographic Maps 1:50,000; 55 E/1 and 55 E/8. (© 1985 and 2005 respectively, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada. Available at http://geogratis.gc.ca/geogratis/en/download/raster.html);2 and

Y14101361 IFU - REVISION 1_13 February 2012 GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012 | ISSUED FOR USE – REVISION 1

surficial geology map (See Appendix F). Prospective aggregate sources were identified within 10 km of the hamlet, and along a 5 km margin of the Maguse Road 20 km north of the hamlet. Existing and potential sources were identified for site investigation2.2 Site based Investigation on the information gathered and site accessibility.

The purpose of the site investigation was to delineate and collect samples from prospective aggregate sources, and evaluate their accessibility. Dr. Karunaratne travelled to Arviat on August 1, 2011 to assess existing and potential granular resource sites within 10 km of the hamlet. Dr. Karunaratne returned to Arviat on September 26, 2011 to assess potential granular resource sites along the Maguse Road, 10 to 20 km from the hamlet. Both trips allowed for three days of field investigation. Six sites were investigated 2.3and sampled. Aggregate These have Assessment been identified as Prospect 1 to 6. Figure 1 shows the location of these sites.

The objective of the aggregate assessment was to determine the quantity and quality of the granular material in the aggregate prospects. The aggregate prospects were delineated in the field using a Garmin- etrex Legend HCx GPS (Global Positioning System). It was assumed that the thickness of an aggregate source would be equal to its elevation above the surrounding terrain. A clinometer was used to estimate the heights of the aggregate sources at several locations around their perimeter, and the average height was used as a rough estimate of the thickness of the aggregate source. The volume of an aggregate source was a product of its thickness and area. During the site investigations, aggregate samples were collected from hand-dug testpits 50 to 100cm in depth. The samples were visually classified in the field in terms of grain size, angularity, sorting, and moisture, and sent to EBA’s Yellowknife material testing lab for analysis. The granular material in the eskers varies considerably, both spatially and with depth, due to surface washing which removes fine- grained material leaving gravel, cobbles, and boulders behind. Therefore, the samples collected may not be representative of the material throughout the esker. However, all of the aggregate prospects examined for 2.4this project Laboratory are glaciofluvial Testing in origin Program and these features are routinely used as aggregate sources.

The objective of the laboratory testing program was to determine the suitability of the aggregate identified for use as pit run fill, sub-base aggregate (75 mm minus), surfacing aggregate (20 mm minus), and concrete aggregate. It was assumed that “pit run” was unprocessed granular material. Table 1 presents suggested gradation limits for 75 mmminussub-baseaggregateand20mmminusbase course or surfacing aggregate. These were developed by EBA for this project by considering a number of related gradation specifications. For the 75 mm minus aggregate, this included in-house specifications for 75 mm minus pit run gravel, 63 mm minus crushed gravel and an Alberta Transportation specification for 80 mm minus pit run gravel. For the 20 mm minus aggregate, this included an in-house specification for 20 mm minus crush and Government of the Northwest Territories specifications for 20 mm minus base course and 20 mm minus surfacing aggregate. The gradation ranges in Table 1 are presented for information and form a basis for evaluating the aggregates sampled for3 this project. It wasn’t necessarily expected that CGS Y14101361 IFU - REVISION 1_13 February 2012 GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012 | ISSUED FOR USE – REVISION 1

would carry these forward as specifications. While these gradation ranged may be useful in setting specifications, CGS may wish to substitute their own specifications for the various products.

TableSpecifications 1: Grading from Limits the Canadian for Sub-base Standards (75 mm Associa minus)tion and (CSA Surfacing 2009) (20 for mm coarse minus) and fine concrete aggregate were used (Table 2). Percent Passing Sieve by mass for 75 mm Percent Passing Sieve by mass for 20 mm Sieve Size (mm) minus minus

Min Max Min Max 75 --- 100 ------40 60 100 ------20 40 80 --- 100 10 ------50 85 525603565 1.25 ------15 40 0.63 10 35 ------0.315 ------9 25 0.08 0 10 2 10

Table 2: Grading Limits for Fine and Coarse Concrete Aggregate Percent Passing Sieve by mass for Fine Percent Passing Sieve by mass for Coarse Sieve Size (mm) Aggregate Aggregate

Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum 28 ------100 20 ------85 100 14 ------50 90 10 --- 100 25 60 5951000 10 2.5 80 100 0 5 1.25 50 90 ------0.63 25 65 ------0.315 10 35 ------0.16 2 10 ------0.08 0 3 ------

The following tests were completed to evaluate the sampled granular material for concrete suitability: sieve analysis, lab crush, L.A. abrasion, specific gravity for fine-grained and coarse-grained material, fractured face count, flat and elongated particle analysis, and petrographic analysis.

Y14101361 IFU - REVISION 1_13 February 2012 GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012 | ISSUED FOR USE – REVISION 1

2.5 Community Needs Analysis

The objective of the community needs analysis was to identify anticipated aggregate requirements for Arviat over the next 10 years. While in Arviat, Dr. Karunaratne met with: Mr. Ed Murphy – Senior Administrative Officer with the Hamlet of Arviat; Mr. John Main – Economic Development Officer with the Hamlet of Arviat; Mr. Jerry Panegoniak – Panning and Lands Administrator with the Hamlet of Arviat; Mr. Bob Leonard – Mayor of Arviat; Mike Beauregard – Resident Geologist with the Nunavut Government; Mr. Michael Haddon – Construction Consultant with the Nunavut Housing Corporation; and Mr. Don St. John – owner and operator of Eskimo Point Lumber Supply and Airport Services Ltd. in Arviat since 1978. Topics of discussion included: current status of granular sources; accessibility of known potential granular sources; past and present granular use and source; areas of cultural significance; and 2.6community Cost Estimate development. Analysis

The objective of the cost estimate analysis was to examine the cost of developing a quarry for Arviat. EBA provided cost estimates in 2003 for a granular resource development study in Iqaluit, NU. This study used cost data compiled for the development of a mine sitenearRankinInlet,NU,in1997,withanassumed annual inflation rate of 2.5%. EBA also reviewed construction tender bids for the production and stockpiling of 16 mm base course for the surface rehabilitation at the Arviat Airport, in 2009 and 2010. The information provided in the costs estimates for these previous projects has been used to develop the current cost estimates described in this section. These cost estimates are considered to be preliminary, “Class D” cost estimates, meaning they are rough, 2.7order of magnitude Environmental estimates, Assessment expected to be within +/- 50% of the actual cost.

The objectives of the environment and wildlife impact assessment were to: Through a desktop assessment, identify existing wildlife and sensitive environmental resources occurring or potentially occurring at or near the selected aggregate sources; and

Y14101361 IFU - REVISION 1_13 February 2012 GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012 | ISSUED FOR USE – REVISION 1

Identify and assess potential impacts on wildlife and sensitive environmental resources from the construction and operation of the selected aggregate sources. To meet these objectives, relevant environmental information pertaining to the occurrence and e.g.distribution of wildlife and wildlife habitat occurring in the local area was collected and evaluated. Relevant environmental information and data was solicited through two primary sources: printed material, reports and maps, and personal interviews with people who have relevant experience with or are currently involved with research andmanagementresponsibilitiesforwildlifeandwildlifehabitatinthe region. Additional environmental information was collected through review of site photographs, available airphotos (circa 1954), and National Topographic System (NTS) maps. This environmental information and data gathering focused primarily on the occurrence,distribution,keyhabitats,liferequirements,and population threats, where possible, of a few selected valued ecosystem components (VECs). This information specific to the VECs (including critical life requirements and sensitive time periods) was then drawn upon to assess potential impacts from the construction and operation of the selected aggregate sources. The reclamation of the granular source(s) and/or their access road was not included in this 2.8desktop assessment. Equipment Recommendation

The objective of the equipment recommendation was to provide a starting point for the Government of Nunavut going forward in terms of processing of feedstock and production of aggregate. For the purposes of this report, recommendations for a gravel screeningoperationsuitableforproducing sub-base, base and surfacing aggregates (structural fill) was focused on.Pit-runforgeneralsitefillcouldbeproducedwithout need for a screener. Based on the aforementioned considerations, industry was consulted and requests sent out to relevant companies in order to determine feasible available equipment options and also to obtain a rough cost estimate.

3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

3.1 Location

Arviat is located on the western shore of Hudson Bay at 61° 06’ N and 94° 04’ W on the north side of a point known traditionally as Tikirajualaaq, meaning a little long point. It lies 210 km south of Rankin Inlet, Nunavut and 265 km north of Churchill, Manitoba. The hamlet is situated north of tree line between the Maguse and McConnell Rivers. Though Arviat is currently not accessible by road, an ice road is constructed each year along the coast to Churchill, and an all-season road from northern Manitoba to Rankin Inlet 3.2through Arviat Climate has been proposed.

Environment Canada has reliable records of air temperature at Arviat from August 2008 (Environment Canada 2011). The annual mean air temperature (1 September to 31 August) for 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11 were -9.5 °C, -6.8 °C, and -7.8 °C respectively. Over the period of record, air temperatures were below 0 °C from mid-October to early June, and reached6 minimum daily mean values between -35 and -40 Y14101361 IFU - REVISION 1_13 February 2012 GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012 | ISSUED FOR USE – REVISION 1

°C. The freezing degree-day totals for the three years on record were 4329, 3456, and 3947 C°-d respectively. Maximum daily mean air temperatures during the summer months ranged between 15 and 20 °C, and the thawing degree-day totals for summers 2009, 2010, 2011 were 924, 999, 1129 C°-d respectively. Precipitation data for the last three years were available for Rankin Inlet. Snow depth at the end of winter was between 47 and 55 cm, and rainfall totals were 154, 195, and 207 mm respectively. Total precipitation 3.3for 2008, Geology 2009, and 2010 was 294, 295, and 397 mm respectively.

Arviat lies within the Hearne domain of the Western Churchill Province of the Canadian Shield (Hanmer et al. 2004). The bedrock in the study region is composed of Archean igneous and metamorphic rocks. The igneous rocks include tonalite and granodiorite while the metamorphic rocks comprise various metasedimentary and metavolcanic rock types. There is little bedrock exposure within the study area; however, a cluster of low relief gneissic outcrops lie 2.5 km south of the hamlet. Arviat was covered by thick glacial ice during the last glaciation, which occurred from about 25,000 to 8,000 years ago in this area. The Keewatin sector of the Laurentide Ice Sheet crossed the area containing Arviat. The great weight of the continental ice sheet caused the land to become somewhat depressed, which allowed the ocean to inundate the area during ice retreat, which began 7800 to 7900 years ago (Prest 1969). The late glacial ocean (the Tyrrell Sea) reached a maximum elevation of 550 m above present sea level and extended approximately 150 km inland (Prest et al. 1968). Since then the region has experienced postglacial rebound (uplift), at a rate of approximately 10 mm per year (the highest rate of rebound in Canada). This uplift has resulted in a slow lowering of the shoreline, and stranding of glaciomarine deposits above current sea level.

The surficial geology of the study area is a composite of: (1) recent fluvial deposits associatedet al with modern drainage systems, (2) lacustrine sediments, (3) glaciomarine sediments deposited by the Tyrrell Sea, (4) glaciofluvial deposits, and (5) glacial sediments deposited directly by ice (Arsenault .1980).Inthe study area, fluvial deposits are restricted to channels, floodplains and deltas of the Maguse and Wolf Creeks, and consist of silt, sand and gravel. Several permanently drained postglacial lake basins are found west of Arviat within 10 km. These basins contain organic-rich silty lake sediments. Glaciomarine deposits are predominantly either coastal plain-tidal flat complexes of poorly sorted stony silt, or nearshore sediments of well sorted coarse-grained material (sand-size and larger) deposited as beaches, bars, spits, and ice-push ridges. The coastal plain-tidal flats have a well-developed organic cover, and are poorly- drained with a high density of shallow lakes, while the raised beach features are sparsely vegetated and well-drained. Eskers are the only glaciofluvial sediments in the region and within the study area, there are several of varying sizes. The eskers are composed predominantly of sand and gravel and are therefore excellent sources of aggregate. Glacial deposits in the study area include De Geer moraines (small ridges perpendicular to ice flow direction) and till flutings (elongated ridges parallel to ice flow direction) (Benn and Evans 1998). Till generally comprises a poorly sorted diamicton with a silty matrix and makes good fill but poor aggregate. Flutings are aligned in a west-east direction, indicating the latest ice flow direction in the area. The surficial sediments of the region wereheavilymodifiedbywaveactionassealevelfell, making the origin of many of them difficult to differen7 tiate, especially the fine-grained deposits. Wave

Y14101361 IFU - REVISION 1_13 February 2012 GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012 | ISSUED FOR USE – REVISION 1

activity mobilized fine-grained material and deposited it in flat low-lying areas. It also left thin layers of well-sorted beach gravel on top of the eskers, as well as coarse-grained beach ridges along the sides of these features. Several boulder fields, where all of the fine-grained material has been washed away, are located north of Arviat within 5 km. The boulder fields are an important constraint for road and other 3.4development Permafrost and should be avoided when infrastructure is being built.

Arviat lies in theet al.continuous permafrost zone where permafrost is absent only under large lakes and in recently deposited sediments. Mean annual ground temperatures are expected to be noet less al than -5 °C (Heginbottom 1995) and active-layer thicknesses range from less than 20 cm in poorly-drained terrain with thick organic layers, to over 100 cm in dry coarse-grained material (Arsenault . 1980). Terrain stability can be significantly affected by themeltingofgroundice.Thegroundsurfacesubsidesas ground ice melts, especially where the accumulation of ground ice in frozen soil exceeds the maximum moisture content for that soil when thawed. This condition is known as excess ice, or ice-rich permafrost (French 1996). Ground ice conditions for the study area have not been reported in the literature. However, ground ice prevalence can be related to the origin of the deposits(Dredgeetal.1999).Segregatedice,layersofpure ground ice ranging from 0.01 cm to more than 10 cm thick,canbeexpectedinfine-grainedsedimentssuch as those originating from lacustrine, glaciomarine, andglacialenvironments.Duringthefieldinvestigation EBA observed sorted circles, hummocks, and mud boils. These features are indicative of segregated ice at the base of the active layer. Ground ice can also develop as ice-wedges polygons. These features form as spring snowmelt water flows into thermal contraction cracks that form annually in the ground. This water freezes, persevered in permafrost as ground ice thataccumulatesovermultipleyears.Icewedgescanbe up to 3 m wide at the top and more than 10 m long. Ice-wedge polygons were observed during the field 3.5investigation. Vegetation and Wildlife

Arviat is situated on the coastal plains that are generally described as low in elevation and flat, with a few rounded hills and rock outcrops. Extensive marsh flats occur along the coast and further inland. Arviat lies approximately 120 km north of the treeline within the Maguse River Upland ecoregion of the Southern Arctic ecozone. The Maguse River Upland ecoregion is characterized by shrub tundra vegetation communities. Hummocky bedrockBetula outcrops nana) dominate theSalix interior landscape givingAlnus rise to crispa sloping uplands and lowland ecological units, as well as eskers and beach ridges. The relatively warm dry upland ecological units consist of dwarf birch ( , willow ( species), and alder ( ). The relatively cold wet lowland ecological units, such as lowSphagnum and high-centred polygon fenCarex wetlands, are common across the landscape (consisting of 25-50% of the land area). These poorly drained lowland ecological units are dominated by willow, sphagnum moss ( species), and sedge ( species). Wildlife characteristic of this ecoregion includes barren-ground caribou, arctic fox, weasel, arctic ground squirrel, lemming, willow ptarmigan, snowy owl, rough-legged hawk, sea ducks, snow geese, tundra swans, Canada geese, and shorebirds. (Ecological Stratification Working Group8 1995).

Y14101361 IFU - REVISION 1_13 February 2012 GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012 | ISSUED FOR USE – REVISION 1

Environmental impacts associated with potential development of aggregate sources is described in Appendix B. 4.0 COMMUNITY NEEDS ANALYSIS

Within the next five years aggregate will be required annually by private contractors and the hamlet for road maintenance, and for several large developments in Arviat. These developments are understood to include: 1. Hamlet expansion 2. Reservoir 3. New hamlet office 4. New RCMP detachment 5. Solid waste facility 6. New road to access granular material Table 3 summarizes anticipated aggregate needs for Arviat for the next 10 years.

Y14101361 IFU - REVISION 1_13 February 2012 GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012 | ISSUED FOR USE – REVISION 1

Table 3: Community Needs Analysis 10 Year Material Type Amount Aggregate Requirement Timing Requirem Anticipated (m3) ents (m3) Annual Road Maintenance 20 mm minus 5,000 Annual 50000 Private Contractors 20 mm minus 2,000 Annual 20000 Hamlet Expansion PitRun 1,310,100 2011-2016 1,310,100 75 mm minus 524,040 524,040 20 mm minus 131,010 131,010 Reservoir PitRun 85,000 2012 85,000 75 mm minus 24,000 24,000 20 mm minus 12,000 12,000 Hamlet Office Coarse Concrete Aggregate 50 2011-2013 50 Fine Concrete Aggregate 35 35 RCMP Detachment Coarse Concrete Aggregate 50 2014 50 Fine Concrete Aggregate 35 35 Solid Waste Facility Pit Run 57,500 Initial 2012 57,500 Interim and Pit Run 87,500 Closure 87,500 All-Weather Road PitRun 110,200 2012-2017 110,200 20 mm minus 13,400 2012-2018 13,400

Subtotal Pit Run 1,650,300 75 mm minus 548,040 20 mm minus 226,410 Coarse Concrete Aggregate 100 Fine Concrete Aggregate 70 Total 2,424,920

4.1 Hamlet Expansion

The hamlet is planning to2 expand its footprint to the southeast over the next five years. The expansion is estimated at 655,000 m , and requires at least a 2 m thick ‘land assembly’ to raise the elevation to grade. Pit run or fill sand can be used for the land assembly. A layer of sub-base (0.8 m) and surfacing (0.2 m) aggregate are required over3 the land assembly for3 construction of houses and3 roads. The hamlet expansion will require 1,310,000 m of pit run, 524,000 m of sub-base,10 and 131, 000 m of surfacing aggregate.

Y14101361 IFU - REVISION 1_13 February 2012 GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012 | ISSUED FOR USE – REVISION 1

4.2 Reservoir

The hamlet’s reservoir failed in winter 2011 and a new reservoir is planned for 2012. Jerry Panegoniak estimated that the planned reservoirs outside area will be 180 x 170 m, the inside area will be 126 x 126 m, and that the reservoir will be 5 m deep. Pit run can make3 up about 70% of the3 granular requirements for3 the reservoir. The reservoir will require about 85,000 m of pit run, 24,000 m of sub-base, and 12,000 m 4.3of surfacing Hamlet aggregate. Office and RCMP Detachment

Anewhamletofficeisexpectedtobebuiltinthenexttwoyears,andanewRCMPdetachmentisplanned2 for 2014. It was assumed that these buildings would3 each be 600 m . Based3 on these dimensions, these 4.4buildings Solid would Waste each require Facility approximately 50 m coarse aggregate and 35 m fine aggregate for concrete.

2 The current solid waste facility is approximately 25,000 m ,4mhigh,andaccordingtoJerryPanegoniak,is 50 to 75% of capacity. The community is considering sites for a new facility. Assuming that a new facility would be the same dimensions3 as the current facility,3 it would require granular material3 for a 4 m high perimeter3 berm(45,000 m ), a base layer (12,500 m ), intermediate cover3 (37,500 m ), and final cover

(50,000 m ). The new solid waste3 facility will require a total of 145,000 m of pit run or fill sand over its 4.5entire lifespan, Potential and 57,500 All-Weather m for the Road base layer and berm.

An all-weather road may be built to access granular material needed for hamlet development. It was assumed that an embankment for an all-weather roadwouldbe1.5mthick,8mwideattheroadheight, and have side slopes of 2H:1V. The upper 0.2 m would comprise surface gravel (20 mm minus crushed3 gravel), with pit run material3 below. An all-weather road with these dimensions would require 13,800 m of pit run and 1,700 m of surfacing aggregate per kilometer. If this road is built it would be at least 8 km in length (See Section 7.0 Cost Estimates). 5.0 CURRENT AGGREGATE SOURCES

The hamlet’s aggregate needs have been drawn predominantly from the Airstrip Esker. In 1993, a granular resource investigation for Arviat was conducted and concluded that aggregate in the existing Airstrip Esker was near depletion (GNWT 1993). In 2009, EBA completedanaggregatesourcecharacterizationstudyfor

CGS to support airside3 surface rehabilitation at the Arviat Airport (EBA 2009). This investigation reported more than 500,000 m of gravelly sand with 5 to 40% cobbles and boulders available in the Airstrip Esker.

As recommended by this study, a crusher was brought to site to process3 discarded oversize material from the Airstrip Esker. As of August 2011, there is approximately 56,000 m of processed 20 mm minus crush at the Airstrip Esker. The majority of this material is for airstrip3 maintenance andiscontrolledbyNunavut

Airports/CGS. The hamlet has approximately 4,0003 m of this material to use for maintenance and development, and sells it to local contractors at $120/m .

Y14101361 IFU - REVISION 1_13 February 2012 GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012 | ISSUED FOR USE – REVISION 1

In August 2011 Dr. Karunaratne observed minimal aggregate remaining in the Airstrip Esker. The eastern half of Airstrip Esker East was covered in a thin layerofsand,withatraceofgravel,colonizedbygrasses. Aggregate had been completely removed from the western half of Airstrip Esker East and the majority of Airstrip Esker West, leaving a base of saturated fine-grained, silty material with some residual sand and gravel, and pile of oversized boulders too large to be processed by the crusher (Photo 1). The western end of Airstrip Esker West was2 composed of sand with some gravel (Photo 2). The area of this deposit is approximately 340,000 m , and is a maximum thickness of 1.5 m. However the boundaries of this deposit were poorly defined, with the sides sloping steadily and gradually merging3 with the surrounding terrain. Therefore, the available volume of this deposit is estimated at 168,000 m ,basedonanaveragethicknessof 0.5 m (Table 4). Samples 5548-1 and 5548-2 were collected from Airstrip Esker West (Table 5). Table 4: Summary of Aggregate Prospects

Aggregate Area Thickness Volume 2 3 Samples Aggregate Recommendation Prospect (m ) (m) (m )

5548-1; Blend Material/ Airstrip Esker West 336,000 0.5 168,000 Sand; Gravelly Sand 5548-2 Pit Run

Blend Material/ 1 255,000 3 765,000 5548-9 SandwithsomeGravel Pit Run

30% Boulders in matrix of Process with 2475,00031,425,0005548-10 Gravel and Sand crusher

5548-7; Sandy Gravel; Gravelly 31,070,65011,070,650 Road Maintenance 5548-8 Sand

5548-3; 5548-4; Sandy Gravel; Sand and 4573,0001573,000 Road Maintenance 5548-5; Gravel; Gravelly Sand 5548-6

5590-1; Gravel; Gravel and Sand; 51,235,0001012,350,0005590-2; Quarry - No Road Gravelly Sand 5590-3

5590-5; Gravel; Gravel and Sand; Quarry - 20 km 62,943,0001029,430,0005590-6; Gravel with some Sand away 5590-7

Y14101361 IFU - REVISION 1_13 February 2012 GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012 | ISSUED FOR USE – REVISION 1

Table 5: Summary of Samples Moisture Gravel Sand Fines Sample Aggregate Testpit* Depth(cm) Aggregate USC Content Prospect (%) (%) (%) Number (%) Airstrip Esker SAND, trace gravel, trace West 1A 10-25 fines 2 97 1 SW 6.4 5548-1 Airstrip Esker SAND and GRAVEL, trace West 1A 70-110 fines 47 52 1 SW 2.5 5548-2 SAND, some gravel, trace Prospect #1 8A 0-50 fines 16 83 1 SP 4.1 5548-9 GRAVEL and SAND, trace SP- Prospect #2 7A 40-60 fines 47 45 8 GP 5.7 5548-10 Prospect #3 6A 40-80 GRAVEL, sandy, trace fines 67 32 1 GW 1.4 5548-7 Prospect #3 6A 80-120 SAND, gravelly, trace fines 31 67 2 SP 2.5 5548-8 Prospect #4 East 2A 0-50 GRAVEL, sandy, trace fines 66 33 1 GW 1.6 5548-3 Prospect #4 GRAVEL and SAND, trace East 4A 0-65 fines 58 41 1 GP 2.4 5548-4 Prospect #4 East 5A 0-30 GRAVEL, sandy, trace fines 65 34 1 GP 3.3 5548-5 Prospect #4 East 5A 30-50 SAND, gravelly, some fines 21 62 17 SM 9.7 5548-6 Prospect #4 GRAVEL and SAND, trace West 2B 20-40 fines 54 45 1 GP 1.2 5590-4 Prospect #5 1B 10-30 GRAVEL, very clean 99.6 0.3 0.1 GP 0.1 5590-1 GRAVEL and SAND, trace Prospect #5 1B 30-60 fines 57 41 2 GP 1.9 5590-2 SAND, some gravel, trace Prospect #5 1B 60-110 fines 18 76 6 SP 2.4 5590-3 GRAVEL and SAND, trace Prospect #5 1B 5590-1 & 3 fines 62 35 3 GP 0.3 5590-8 GRAVEL, some sand, trace Prospect #6 3B 20-70 fines 81 18 1 GW 0.5 5590-5 GRAVEL and SAND, trace Prospect #6 4B 20-70 fines 58 41 1 GP 1.4 5590-6 GRAVEL, trace sand, trace Prospect #6 5B 0-30 fines 94 5.5 0.5 GP 0.4 5590-7 5590-5 & 6 & GRAVEL, some sand, trace Prospect #6 3B+4B+5B 7 fines 78 21 1 GW 0.3 5590-9

6.0 AGGREGATE PROSPECTS

Six aggregate prospects within 20 km of Arviat were investigated during the two site investigations. Figure 1 presents the locations, boundaries, and access routes of the aggregate prospects. The aggregate prospects vary in area, volume, accessibility, aggregate quality, and local significance (Table 4). Samples 13

Y14101361 IFU - REVISION 1_13 February 2012 GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012 | ISSUED FOR USE – REVISION 1

were collected from each prospect and are summaries in Table 5. The properties of each aggregate 6.1prospect Aggregateare summarized Prospect below. #1: Qamutyuaqtalik

6.1.1 Location and Accessibility

Prospect #1 lies 7.5 km west of Arviat on the Dionne Road, and is known locally as Qamutyuaqtalik (Photos 3 and 4).There are several trails on this feature, and the site is used to access ATV trails that lead to Dionne Lake about 25 km to the west. The Dionne Road is well-used but unpaved and would require upgrading to 6.1.2allow aggregateDescription to be transported from Prospect #1 to the hamlet.

2 Prospect #1 is approximately 255,000 m in area, 1,250 m long, up to 325 m wide, and rises 3 to 4m above the surrounding terrain. This prospect is a fan-shaped series of glaciofluvial ridges that were reworked by wave processes during emergence. It is part of the esker complex on which the hamlet resides. The surrounding terrain consists of wetlands, small tundra lakes, and disjunct tundra ponds. Prospect #1 has steep slopes to the south, and poorly-defined gentle slopes to the north and west. The esker crest has a few small isolated ponds, and is sparsely vegetated with low-lying mats dominated by bearberry. Side slopes, with moderate soil conditions are colonized by willow, dwarf birch, crowberry, saxifrage species, and fireweed, while side slopes with dry soil conditions are colonized by low heath tundra plant communities dominated by lichen and ericaceous shrubs, such ascranberryandbearberry.Patchesofexposedsand 6.1.3with cobblesAggregate and boulders Assessment are common.

3 Aggregate Prospect #1 contains approximately 765 000 m of granular material. At this site EBA excavated one testpit to 70 cm and examined four existing testpits that were 1 to 1.5 m deep. These testpits contained well-drained and loose sand with some gravel and cobbles, and a trace of boulders. Sample 5548-9 collected from this prospect was a poorly-graded sand with 83% sand, 16% gravel, and 1% silt/clay. The granular material at the surface of Prospect #1 is too fine to fit the specifications for surfacing, or sub-base, but it could be used for blend material or as fill sand. Further exploration of 6.1.4ProspectPotential #1 could reveal Environmental suitable material Impacts at depth.

Y14101361 IFU - REVISION 1_13 February 2012 GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012 | ISSUED FOR USE – REVISION 1

4 Indirect alteration of potential Arctic Char (and other fish) habitat due to sedimentation/erosion and introduction of harmful materials from the development and operation of the aggregate prospect; and 5 Direct loss and alteration of the Key Migratory Bird Habitat Site due to the development and 6.1.5 operationPotential of the Community aggregate pros Concernspect and access road upgrades.

Qamutyuaqtalik is a popular recreation site for Arviat. There are numerousJerry Panegoniak, cabins at this site and the area is used for hunting, berry-picking, and picnicking. In 2008 this site was proposed for a solid waste facility, but this proposal was rejected by the community. According to the Arviat Panning and Lands Administrator, the community rejected development of a landfill at this site because of potential contamination as the site is upstream from the hamlet. Mr. Panegoniak suggested that quarry development 6.1.6at this siteAggregate might not pose Recommendation the same concerns for the community.

Prospect #1 could be used as a source of pit run material.Itisaccessibleandthepotentialenvironmental 6.2impacts associated Aggregate with Prospect its development # 2 are relatively low.

6.2.1 Location and Accessibility

Prospect #2 lies 4.5 km north of the hamlet (Photos 5 to 8). The Maguse Road passes through this prospect, and could be used to transport granular resources to Arviat. However, the section of road used to access Prospect #2 is well-used but unpaved and would require upgrading and annual maintenance to allow aggregate to be transported from Prospect #2 to the hamlet. In 2005-06, aggregate was removed from this deposit on the east side of the road. This extraction exposed an area approximately 500 m by 30 6.2.2malongthenorthsideofthisfeature,andallowsaccesstothisdeposit.Description

2 Prospect #2 is approximately 475 000 m in area, 3500 m long, an average of 100 m wide, and rises about 3 mabovethesurroundingterrain.Thisprospectisan east-west oriented esker. Wave action during emergence removed sand from the surface of this esker leaving it covered boulders and cobbles. The surrounding terrain consists of wetlands, small tundra lakes, and disjunct tundra ponds. The north side of the esker is well-defined with a moderatelyArctanthemum steep arcticum slope, while the south side is poorly defined and merges with a series of perched lakes. The esker is colonized by lichen, ericaceous shrubs, mountain avens, 6.2.3saxifrage,Aggregate fireweed, Arctic Assessment daisy ( ), grasses, willow, and dwarf birch.

3 Aggregate Prospect #2 contains approximately 1 425 000 m of granular material. At this site EBA excavated one testpit to 100 cm and examined the material exposed by the previous extraction. Prospect #2 contains visually estimated 30% boulders and co15bbles with a matrix of sand and gravel with some silt.

Y14101361 IFU - REVISION 1_13 February 2012 GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012 | ISSUED FOR USE – REVISION 1

There is a higher percentage of boulders and cobbles at the surface. Sample 5548-10 collected from the matrix of this prospect is a poorly graded sand and gravel with 45% sand, 47 % gravel, and 8% silt/clay. The granular material in Prospect #2 could be used as pit run or sub-base and the cobbles and boulders 6.2.4could be processedPotential to Environmental create surfacing and Impacts concrete aggregate.

The potential environmental impacts include: 1. Terrain disturbance may include permafrost degradation leading to draining of small ponds on top of the deposit; 2 Direct and indirect loss of vegetation communities (and wildlife habitat), possible loss of rare plants, and the introduction of invasive plants; 3 Low to negligible levels of disturbance and mortality risk to wildlife, except disturbance levels to waterfowl; 4 Direct loss and alteration of the Key Migratory Bird Habitat Site due to the development and 6.2.5 operationPotential of the Community aggregate pros Concernspect and access road upgrades.

This prospect is a popular recreation site for Arviat. There are several cabins along the length of this ridge 6.2.6and the areaAggregate is used for Recommendation hunting, berry-picking, and picnicking.

It is recommended that a screener and crusher be used at Prospect #2 to process the granular material. This prospect is accessible and the potential environmental impacts associated with its 6.3 Aggregatedevelopment Prospect are relatively # 3: low. Angaktaarjuaq (Landing Lake)

6.3.1 Location and Accessibility

Prospect #3 lies 8.5 km north of the hamlet to the east of Landing Lake, which is known locally as Angaktaarjuaq (Photos 9 and 10). The Maguse Road passes along the length of this prospect, and can be used to transport aggregate to Arviat. Although this road is well-used, it is unpaved and would require 6.3.2upgradingDescription and annual maintenance to support transportation of aggregate to the hamlet from Prospect #3.

2 et al Prospect #3 is approximately 1,070,650 m in area, 2300 m long, at least 200 m wide, and is poorly defined spatially. This prospect is described as glacial deposits modified by nearshore processes (Arsenault . 1980). This prospect is thin (1 m on average), and merges gradually with the surrounding terrain that consists of tidal flats, perched lakes and low-lying wetlands. The surface is characterized by heath tundra communities with varying degrees of exposed gravel andsand,lichen,ericaceousshrubs,andgrasses.Ice 16

Y14101361 IFU - REVISION 1_13 February 2012 GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012 | ISSUED FOR USE – REVISION 1

wedge polygons were observed throughout this prospect. Aggregate was removed from the north end of 6.3.3this prospectAggregate to build the Assessment Maguse Road. approximately 3 Prospect #3 contains 1,070,650 m of granular material. At this site Dr. Karunaratne excavated one testpit to 130 cm and examined the material exposed by the previous extraction. Sample 5548-7 collected from this prospect at 50 cm was 32% sand, 67% gravel, and 1% silt/clay, while sample 5548-8 collected at 110 cm was 67% sand, 31% gravel, and 2% silt/clay. The top 80 cm of this prospect contains well-graded gravel aggregatethatfitswellwithintherequirementsforsub-baseandisslightlytoo coarse for surfacing material. Below 80 cm the material is too sandy for either sub-base or surfacing but 6.3.4could be usedPotential for fill sandEnvironmental or blend material. Impacts

The potential environmental impacts include: 1 Terrain disturbance may include permafrost degradation and shoreline erosion causing sediment mobilization into Landing and surrounding Lakes. The presence of ice wedge polygons at this prospect increases the impact of permafrost degradation. 2 Direct and indirect loss of vegetation communities (and wildlife habitat), possible loss of rare plants, and the introduction of invasive plants; 3 Low to negligible levels of disturbance and mortality risk to wildlife, except disturbance levels to waterfowl particularly near Hudson Bay; 4IndirectalterationofpotentialArcticChar(andother fish) habitat due to sedimentation/erosion and introduction of harmful materials from the development and operation of the aggregate prospect; and 5 Direct loss and alteration of the Key Migratory Bird Habitat Site due to the development and 6.3.5 operationPotential of the Community aggregate pros Concernspect and access road upgrades.

This prospect is a popular recreation site for Arviat. There are several cabins along the length of this ridge 6.3.6and the areaAggregate is used for Recommendation hunting, berry-picking, and picnicking.

Prospect #3 should be considered as an emergency source of aggregate. The granular material in Prospect #3 is accessible and meets the recommended gradation for surfacing and sub-base. However, only limited quantities of aggregate can be removed from this source because the deposit is thin and close to a water source, which would require a 100 m buffer strip.

Y14101361 IFU - REVISION 1_13 February 2012 GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012 | ISSUED FOR USE – REVISION 1

6.4 Aggregate Prospect # 4: Qingujuaq

6.4.1 Location and Accessibility

Prospect #4 lies 11 km north of Arviat, and is locally known as Qingujuaq (Photos 11 and 12). The Maguse Road passes through this prospect, and could be used to transport granular resources to Arviat. However, the section of road used to access Prospect #4 is well-used but unpaved and would require upgrading and annual maintenance to allow aggregate to be transported from this prospect to the hamlet. This upgrading would include replacing a bridge on the Maguse Road at kilometer 10.5. A small stream to the west of the Maguse Road flows south through this esker, and would need to be crossed to access the west side of Prospect6.4.2 Description #4.

2 Prospect #4 is approximately 573,000 m in area, 4,000 m long, between 50 and 200 m wide, and is poorly defined spatially. This prospect is a small esker, oriented perpendicular to the coast, which has been significantly modified by wave action during emergence. The southern side of the esker is well-defined and bounded by unvegetated tidalet flats al to the east and a drained lake basin to the west. The northern side of the esker is poorly-defined and merges with low-lying alluvium and marine sand and silt that contain ice- wedge polygons (Arsenault . 1980). Small tundra lakes and disjunct ponds lie to the north. The vegetation communities along this aggregate prospect are characteristic of tundra heath, and plant cover and assemblage varies with moisture. Common plant species include bearberry, fireweed, crowberry, 6.4.3cranberry,Aggregate willow, dwarf Assessment birch, and mountain avens. approximately 3 Prospect #4 contains 573,000 m of granular material. EBA excavated four testpits between 50 and 70 cm deep. Samples 5548-3 to 5548-6 were collected from this prospect and were between 54 to 66% gravel and 33 to 45% sand. The top 30 to 50 cm of these pits contain high percentages of poorly and well-graded gravel, which meets the specifications for sub-base but is too coarse for surfacing or concrete 6.4.4aggregate.Potential Gravelly sand Environmental with some silt Impacts lies below 50 cm and could be used as fill sand or as blend material.

The potential environmental impacts include: 1 Terrain disturbances may include erosion of ridge and mobilization of fine-grained sediment. Erosion may be worsened by permafrost degradation of ice-rich material to the north; 2 Direct and indirect loss of vegetation communities (and wildlife habitat), possible loss of rare plants, and the introduction of invasive plants; 3 Low to negligible levels of disturbance and mortality risk to wildlife, except moderate levels to waterfowl particularly near Hudson Bay; 4IndirectalterationofpotentialArcticChar(andother fish) habitat due to sedimentation/erosion and the possible introduction of harmful materials from the development and operation of the aggregate prospect and access road upgrades;18 and

Y14101361 IFU - REVISION 1_13 February 2012 GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012 | ISSUED FOR USE – REVISION 1

5 Direct loss and alteration of the Key Migratory Bird Habitat Site due to the development and 6.4.5 operationPotential of the Community aggregate pros Concernspect and access road upgrades.

6.4.6Besides roughAggregate ATV trails Recommendation there is little evidence of community use along this prospect.

The granular material in Prospect #4 to the east of the Maguse Road is accessible and could be used as surfacing and sub-base. This material could be used to upgrade the Maguse Road. This prospect should be 6.5developed Aggregate cautiously to Prospect avoid erosion # 5: of Amaroqtalik the ridge and mobilization (Wolf Esker) of fine-grained material to the north.

6.5.1 Location and Accessibility

Prospect #5 is located 10 km southwest of Arviat, and is known locally as Amaroqtalik or Wolf Esker (Photos 13 to 16). There was only a rough trail leading to Wolf Esker, and across its surface. To access aggregate at Prospect #5 a 12 km all-weather road or ice road must be constructed. Wolf Creek is immediately north of Wolf Esker, and supplies the Arviat’s drinking water. Wolf Esker is downstream from the intake point for the municipal drinking water. The road built to access aggregate in Prospect #5 would have6.5.2 to crossDescription this creek.

2 Prospect #5 is 1,235,000 m in area, 3,000 m long, between 125 to 650 m wide, and rises about 10 m above the surrounding terrain. This prospect is a large, well-defined east-west oriented esker. Raised beaches with exposed gravel were observed along the sides of Wolf Esker, and there were numerous tundra ponds on the crest of the esker. The surrounding terrain consists of intermittent and permanent streams, tidal flats, sedge wetlands, heath tundra (including boulder dominated), and tundra ponds. Vegetation on Wolf Esker varies with moisture. The top of the esker has un-vegetated areas and a moderate cover of low- growing ericaceous shrubs, saxifrage, and grasses. Similarly, the vegetation community types along the esker side slopes vary from exposed areas with low cover of ericaceous shrubs (crowberry, cranberry), and grasses6.5.3 toAggregate a moderate coverAssessment of ericaceous shrubs.

3 Prospect #5 contains approximately 12,350,000 m .Atthissite,EBAexcavatedatestpitto110cmand collected samples 5590-1 to 5590-3 from this pit. The material sampled was poorly-graded. The top 30 cm was gravel (99%), 30 to 60 cm depth was gravel (57%) and sand (41%) with a trace of cobbles, and 60 to 110 cm was sand (76%) with some gravel (18%). Material at the surface is too coarse, and material below 60 cm is too fine for sub-base or surfacing but could be used for blending to produce suitable aggregate. The material between 30 to 60 cm depth met the gradation requirements for sub-base and was slightly too coarse for surfacing. Further exploration of Prospect #5 could reveal suitable material at depth. EBA can provide further exploration of this prospect upon request. 19

Y14101361 IFU - REVISION 1_13 February 2012 GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012 | ISSUED FOR USE – REVISION 1

6.5.4 Potential Environmental Impacts

The potential environmental impacts include: 1 Terrain disturbance may include permafrost degradation leading to draining of small ponds on top of the deposit; 2 Direct and indirect loss of vegetation communities (and wildlife habitat), possible loss of rare plants, and the introduction of invasive plants; 3 Low levels of disturbance and mortality risk to wildlife, except moderate levels to waterfowl; 4IndirectalterationofpotentialArcticChar(andother fish) habitat due to sedimentation/erosion and the possible introduction of harmful materials from the development and operation of the aggregate prospect and new access road; and 5 Direct loss and alteration of the Key Migratory Bird Habitat Site due to the development and 6.5.5 operationPotential of the Community aggregate pros Concernspect and access road upgrades.

This prospect is used for hunting, berry-picking, and picnicking by the community and the school uses this site for sledding in winter. Wolf Esker is also used as a landmark for navigation on land and water because 6.5.6it can be seenAggregate from several Recommendation kilometers away.

Wolf Esker should be considered as a long-term aggregate source for Arviat. An 10? km road must be built to access this source. This could either be an all-season road, or a winter road. Further investigation of this source either by drilling or ground-penetrating radar to confirm the nature of the granular material at depth is recommended prior to advancing with development of this source. EBA can conduct further 6.6exploration Aggregate of this prospect Prospect by drilling # 6:or Maguse ground-penetrating Esker radar upon request.

6.6.1 Location and Accessibility

Prospect #6 lies 24 km north of Arviat, and about 5 km southwest of the Maguse River Delta (Photos 17 to 20). The Maguse Road passes along the length of this prospect, and could be used to transport granular resources to Arviat. However, the section of road used to access Prospect #6 is well-used but unpaved and would require upgrading and annual maintenance to allow aggregate to be transported from this prospect to the hamlet. This upgrading would include replacing bridges on the Maguse Road at kilometers 10.5 and 17.5, and building a bridge at kilometer 17. Of these watercourses, only the permanent stream near aggregate Prospect #6 is known to support fish (Campbell pers. comm. 2011; Pameolik pers. comm. 2011). Community members fish for Arctic Grayling at and near this crossing.

Y14101361 IFU - REVISION 1_13 February 2012 GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012 | ISSUED FOR USE – REVISION 1

6.6.2 Description

2 Prospect #6 is 2,943,000 m in area, 8 km long, between 200 and 1,000 m wide, and rises 10 to 14 m above the surrounding terrain. This prospect is a large, well-defined east-west oriented esker. Raised beaches with exposed gravel were observed along the sides of this esker especially at the east. There were several tundra ponds on the east end of the esker. The surrounding terrain consists of tundra lakes, ponds, and wetlands. Esker complex vegetation communities occur along the length of the esker, with sedge wetlands, sedge association, heathe.g tundra communities, and small tundra ponds in the local area. The crest of the esker is sparsely vegetated with bare sand, boulders, and gravel exposed, with open cover of saxifrage and ericaceous shrubs ( .crowberry,cranberry,andbearberry),andgrasses.Thevegetationcommunities along the side slopes include ericaceous shrubs throughout, with lichens characteristic along the dry 6.6.3windsweptAggregate slopes, and Assessment willows characteristic on the moist slopes.

3 Prospect #6 contains approximately 29,430,000 m of granular material. At this site, EBA excavated two testpits to 90 and 110 cm depth, and collected samples 5590-5 to 5590-6 from these pits. Sample 5590-7 was collected from a disturbed area at the south east end of the esker where material had previously been excavated. Material at the surface of this prospect is slightly too coarse for sub-base but appropriate 6.6.4aggregatePotential could be produced Environmental easily by blend Impactsing with finer material found at depth.

The potential environmental impacts include: 1. Terrain disturbance may include permafrost degradation leading to draining of small ponds on top of the deposit; 2. Direct and indirect loss of vegetation communities (and wildlife habitat), possible loss of rare plants, and the introduction of invasive plants; Low levels of disturbance and mortality risk to wildlife, except moderate levels to waterfowl; 3. Indirect alteration of potential Arctic Char (and other fish) habitat due to sedimentation/erosion and the possible introduction of harmful materials from the development and operation of the aggregate prospect and access road upgrades; and 4. Direct loss and alteration of the Key Migratory Bird Habitat Site due to the development and 6.6.5 operationPotential of the Community aggregate pros Concernspect and access road upgrades.

Prospect #6 is used for hunting, berry-picking, and picnicking by the community. The Maguse Road extends the length of the prospect and is used heavily by ATVs and trucks to access Maguse Lake. This prospect is also used as a landmark for navigation on land and water because it can be seen from several kilometers away.

Y14101361 IFU - REVISION 1_13 February 2012 GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012 | ISSUED FOR USE – REVISION 1

6.6.6 Aggregate Recommendation

Maguse Esker should be considered as a long-term aggregate source for Arviat. This prospect is accessible by road, contains abundant granular material, and is already disturbed by the Maguse Road. However, the long haul-distance is costly. Further investigation of this source either by drilling or ground-penetrating radar to confirm the nature of the granular material at depth is recommended prior to advancing with development of this source. 7.0 COST ESTIMATES

7.1 Development Costs

7.1.1 All-Weather Road Construction

All aggregate prospects currently have road access except for Aggregate Prospect 5 (Wolf Esker). In order to utilize the Wolf Esker prospect, a road would need to be constructed. This road could be an all-weather road, or a winter road. This section provides cost estimates for all-weather road construction. A road from the airport to Wolf Esker would be approximately 10 km long. For the purposes of this estimate, it is assumed thataroadembankmentforanall-weatherwouldbea minimum of about 1.5 m thick, 8 m wide at the road height, and have side slopes of 2H:1V. Conceptually, the embankment structure would comprise 0.2 m of base/surfacing gravel, over about 0.3 m of sub-base gravel, over pit run fill. Assuming this structure, and allowing3 for additional embankment thickness3 through low areas, it is estimated that3 approximately 131,000 m of pit run embankment fill, 22,600 m of sub-base aggregate, and 13,500 m of surface gravel. Based on other similar projects (EBA 2010, for example), EBA estimates that new road construction will cost about $1.2 million per km. This cost should include the associated production and haul of fill material and aggregates, as well as minor drainage structures, such as culverts. The estimated unit cost is not expected to include major drainage structures, such as a bridge. Bridge design and construction costs vary widely. For a simple, single-lane bridge, EBA suggests a unit cost of $50,000 per lineal metre be assumed. The estimated cost to access Wolf Esker with a new all-sesaon road is presented in Table 6. Table 6: Wolf Esker All-Weather Road Construction Cost Estimates Item Quantity Unit Cost Cost ($) Embankment construction 10 km $1,200,000 per km 12,000,000 Bridge (Wolf Creek) 80 m $50,000/m 4,000,000 Engineering Assume 20% 2,720,000 Total 18,720,000

7.1.2 Road Upgrading

Many roads in the community, including Maguse Road, which would provide access to several of the aggregate prospects, are in poor condition, and they will likely require upgrading to accommodate heavy construction traffic. 22

Y14101361 IFU - REVISION 1_13 February 2012 GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012 | ISSUED FOR USE – REVISION 1

The estimated cost to design and construct a road, as described in Section 7.1.1 is about $1.2 million per km (excluding bridge costs). Assuming upgrading costs are about 30% of construction costs, the cost to upgrade existing roads to accommodate heavy trafficisestimatedtobeabout$400,000perkm.The estimated cost to upgrade roads in order to develop each aggregate prospect is presented in Table 7 (excluding bridge construction/replacement). Table 7: Road Upgrade Cost Estimates Aggregate Prospect Approximate Road Upgrade Length (km) Estimated Upgrade Cost ($) 1 5.0 2,000,000 2 3.0 1,200,000 3 9.0 3,600,000 4 12.5 5,000,000 5 2.5 1,000,000 6 23.5 9,400,000 Airport Esker West 2.5 1,000,000 Airport Esker East 2.5 1,000,000

It should be noted that the cost to upgrade existing portion of the road to Aggregate Prospect 5 would be in addition to the cost to construct a road as described in Section 7.1.1. Three water crossings have been identified on Maguse Road which would require bridge replacement or construction to access certain prospects, are described in Table 8. The cost estimates provided assume a bridge construction cost of $50,000 per lineal metre. Table 8: Cost Estimates for Maguse Road Bridges Prospect Made Maguse Road km Replace/Construct Estimated Bridge Estimated Bridge Accessible Reference Length (m) Cost ($) 4 10.5 Replace 20 1,000,000 6 17 Replace 35 1,750,000 6 17.5 Construct 10 500,000

7.1.3 Winter Road Construction

Construction of winter roads should also be considered. In addition to some potential for reduction in capital and maintenance costs associated with all-weather road construction, use of a winter road will reduce the environmental impacts associated with placement of granular fill for an all-weather road. If a winter road were to be used, materials could be produced and stockpiled during the summer months, and hauled to the hamlet along a winter road during the winter. The approximate cost to construct an overland industrial use winter road of compacted snow or bare road on frozen ground is about $25,000 per km. The cost to construct a floating ice road is slightly less at about $21,000 (EBA, 2007). For the purposes of this estimate, the cost to construct a winter road is assumed to 23

Y14101361 IFU - REVISION 1_13 February 2012 GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012 | ISSUED FOR USE – REVISION 1

be about $25,000 per km. ). The estimated costs to construct a winter road to each Aggregate Prospect are presented in Table 9. Table 9: Cost Estimates for Winter Road Construction Aggregate Approximate Road Length Right of way clearing capital Annual Road Construction Cost Prospect (km) cost ($) (2011 $) 1 5.0 75,000 125,000 2 3.0 45,000 75,000 3 9.0 135,000 225,000 4 12.5 187,500 312,500 5 12.0 150,000 300,000 6 23.5 352,500 587,500 Airport Esker 2.5 37,500 62,500 West Airport Esker 2.5 37,500 62,500 East

The cost of hauling is likely to increase if a winter road is used, due to the decreased speeds3 required on winter roads.3 It is estimated that hauling on a winter road will be about $2/m ·km compared to 7.2$0.70/m Production·km (EBA, 2007). Costs

The cost to produce and stockpile aggregates depends primarily on the specified gradation of the aggregate to be produced, and the quality of the source material. The unit prices presented in this section were developed assuming: The borrow source is available with minimal requirement for removal of overburden; Excavation of material for the borrow source will only occur within the thawed active layer; The borrow source is close to the stockpile location; and Large quantities of each material will be produced at a time. Production of small quantities of material will increase costs. The estimated unit costs to produce and stockpile various different types of granular material are presented in Table 10.

Y14101361 IFU - REVISION 1_13 February 2012 GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012 | ISSUED FOR USE – REVISION 1

Table 10: Cost Estimates to Produce and Stockpile Granular Material Material Description Unit Prices ($/m3) 20 mm minus crush 45 75 mm minus crush 25 Pitrunembankmentfill 15 Concretecoarseaggregate 60 Concretefineaggregate 50

Mobilization, demobilization, and quality control will be a large cost for a crusher operation required to produce the materials in Table 10. The mobilization and demobilization costs are estimated at about

$600,000. Quality control costs will vary depending3 on the quantity of materials to be produced, with an estimated cost of about $2,500 per 1,000 m of crushed material produced (EBA, 2009). The estimated unit cost for the production of concrete fine aggregate presented in Table 10 assumes that washing will not be required. As most of the aggregates sampled by EBA did not contain a high proportion of “fines”, silt and clay-sized particles, it should be possible to produce acceptable concrete fine aggregate 7.3without washing. Operational Costs

7.3.1 Hauling

Hauling granular materials may be a significant additional cost, depending on the distance3 from the source to the community. Based on data collected, a unit cost for hauling of $0.70/m .km has been assumed (updated from EBA 1997). The estimated unit costs to haul granular material from each prospect are Tablepresented 11: Haul in Table Cost 11. Estimates 3 Aggregate Prospect Approximate Haul Distance to Hamlet (km) Estimated Haulage Unit Cost ($ per m ) 1 5.0 3.50 2 3.0 2.10 3 9.0 6.30 4 12.5 8.75 5 12.0 7.00 6 23.5 16.50 Airport Esker West 2.5 1.80 Airport Esker East 2.5 1.80

The estimated unit costs for hauling presented in Table 11 are in addition to the unit costs to produce and stockpile granular material presented in Table 10. The haul distance to Prospect 6 is significantly longer than the other aggregate prospects. While the volume of useful material at this prospect is by far the largest, the costs associated with the long haul may make it impractical for some applications. 25

Y14101361 IFU - REVISION 1_13 February 2012 GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012 | ISSUED FOR USE – REVISION 1

7.3.2 Haul Route Maintenance

Road maintenance will be required on all roads which experience heavy haul truck traffic. EBA assumes an annual maintenance cost of about $25,000/km of access road (updated from EBA 2003). This should be Tableapplied 12: to Haul the entire Road haulMaintenance route, even Cost where Estimates roads already exist and do not need to be constructed. Aggregate Prospect Approximate Haul Road Route Length (km) Estimated Maintenance Cost ($ per annum) 1 5.0 125,000 2 3.0 75,000 3 9.0 225,000 4 12.5 312,500 5 12.0 300,000 6 23.5 587,500 Airport Esker West 2.5 62,500 Airport Esker East 2.5 62,500

8.0 SCREENING EQUIPMENT

While the request for proposal requested evaluation of alternatives for screening ofaggregates,crushing will improve aggregate quality and permit oversize particles to be used. Therefore, crushing of aggregates would be recommended to make best use of the resource. However, crushing of aggregates adds a degree of complexity that is beyond the presently requested scope of work. The discussion that follows focuses on screening. Abasicscreeningplantforprocessingaggregates would include the following components: 1. “Grizzly” to remove oversize boulders (optional); 2. Feed hopper and belt onto the screen deck, equipped with heavy gauge wire screen of the appropriate size; 3. Belt to convey oversize to the waste pile; 4. Belt to convey the screened gravel to the product stockpile; 5. Stacker system to put up the product stockpile (optional); and 6. A generator set to power the belts and screen deck. If the feedstock contains a high proportion of boulders, it may be necessary to pre-screen to remove the largest oversize particles from the feedstock. The aggregate can be pre-screened on a ‘grizzly’, typically with a bar spacing of 200 to 300 mm. The exact grizzly size will be influenced by the specifications for the screening plant. While a rudimentary grizzly can be fabricated in the community; a purpose-built unit can be purchased. The cost to purchase a grizzly can be expected to be in the range of $25,000 to $30,000. If there is only the occasional boulder, pushing the aggregate with a dozer will “float” the oversize to the surface, and they can be pushed to the side before loading26 the hopper. Y14101361 IFU - REVISION 1_13 February 2012 GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012 | ISSUED FOR USE – REVISION 1

Most larger screening plants would have some form of stacking system, to prevent product segregation. However, for a low volume operation, such as is anticipated in Arviat, it is likely that a loader would be used to transfer the screening plant output to the final stockpile. 3 For even smaller volumes of processed aggregate, there are slotted buckets, 1 to 1.5 m ,whichcanbe mounted on medium-sized or larger hydraulic excavators. EBA contacted industry representatives in Winnipeg and Edmonton, in order to identify suitable equipment that could be shipped to Arviat via Churchill. To-date, the most promising option is the Sandvik QE440 scalping screen unit, proposed by Chieftain Equipment in Edmonton. This plant is a mobile scalping unit capable of handling aggregate up to approximately600mm,meaningthatagrizzlywouldlikelynotbe required. The unit is fully-tracked and would be easily transported from site to site. New, this unit would cost $315,000, excluding shipping from Edmonton. At the time of writing, Chieftain Equipment also had a second-hand QE440, with 450 hours of use, available for about $280,000. These prices include the services of a qualified service worker who would travel to Arviat for a few days to help to set-up and demonstrate how the machine operates. Some literature on the unit is presented in Appendix D. In the proposal, EBA identified the possibility of using a windrow crusher for production of small volumes of crushed aggregate. One product available in Canada is a BH-1220 Rockbuster hammer mill crusher (See equipment specifications in Appendix D). It is used for crushing oversize subgrade and ditch materials in low volume resource roads. While it may be possible to lay feedstock out in a long windrow, a limitation is that this crusher produces a 75 mm top-sized product. As crushing is most important for the 20 mm sized products, EBA’s assessment is that this type of crusher will likely not serve Arviat’s requirements. Additional information on the equipment, can be obtain from the Yukon Department of Transportation, who have been doing some trials with the crusher. 9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on our analysis of Arviat’s need for, and sources of granular material, EBA provides the following conclusions and recommendations:

1. Arviat requires 2.4 million cubic metres of granular material3 over the next 10 years. Of this total, 70% is unprocessed pit run, and approximately 700,000 m must be processed to meet engineering specifications. 2. The community’s largest need for granular material is for the hamlet expansion, and the most immediate need is for a new reservoir.

3. The current3 source of aggregate is the Airport Esker. As of August 20113 there was approximately 56,000 m of 20 mm minus crush stockpiled, and about 168,000 m of sand with some gravel remaining in the western edge of this esker. This material can be used for pit run fill sand and blending material. 4. The community’s short-term granular needs can be obtained from aggregate prospects within 10 km. Pit run can be obtained from Prospect #1. A crusher and screener should be used to process the granular material in Prospect #2 to produce aggregate for specific engineering purposes. Prospect #3 contains gravel and sand that27 meets the recommended gradation for sub-base. Y14101361 IFU - REVISION 1_13 February 2012 GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012 | ISSUED FOR USE – REVISION 1

However, material from this prospect should be removed cautiously, and only to meet urgent aggregate needs because of the relatively high potential for mobilization of sediment into Landing Lake. 5. Either Prospect #5 – Wolf Esker or Prospect #6 – Maguse Esker should be developed to meet the community’s long-term aggregate needs. Maguse Esker is accessible by road, is already disturbed, and is more than twice the size of Wolf Esker. However this prospect is 23 km north of the community and haulage unit costs are estimated at over $16 per cubic metre. A winter or all- weather road must be built to access the aggregate in Wolf Esker. An ice road would cost about $250,000 per year to construct, and an all-weather road would cost about $16,320,000 to build. However, this prospect is only 10 km from the community, so haulage unit costs are more than half of that for Maguse Esker. 6. Based on this preliminary environmental assessment, Prospect #6 –Maguse Esker may represent the granular source with the least environmental risk due to the existing access road, level of human disturbance in the area, and estimated size of the granular source. 7. Further investigation of either Prospect #5 – Wolf Esker or Prospect #6 – Maguse Esker is recommended prior to advancing with development. Investigation should include either drilling or ground-penetrating radar to confirm the nature of the granular material at depth, site specific environmental assessment and an archaeological assessment to identify areas of cultural significance. Of course, community consultation will be a key element of development of either source. EBA was not made aware of any significant concerns with the development of either deposit, but this should be confirmed before resources are expended in further assessment. A community consultation will take two to four months to complete. EBA can conduct the community consultation upon request.

Y14101361 IFU - REVISION 1_13 February 2012 GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012 | ISSUED FOR USE – REVISION 1

10.0 CLOSURE

We trust this report meets your present requirements. Should you have any questions or comments, please contact the undersigned at your convenience.

EBA, A Tetra Tech Company Prepared by: Prepared by:

Kumari Karunaratne, Ph.D. Karla Langlois, BSc., P.Biol. Terrain Scientist Biologist/Environmental Scientist Direct Line: 867.766.3728 x254 Environment Practice [email protected] Direct Line: 867.766.3728 x223 [email protected]

Reviewed by:

Ed Hoeve, M.Eng., P. Eng. Project Director, NT/NU Region Direct Line: 867.766.3728 x222 [email protected]

Y14101361 IFU - REVISION 1_13 February 2012 GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012 | ISSUED FOR USE – REVISION 1

REFERENCES

Arsenault, L., Aylsworth, J.M., Cunningham, C.M., Kettles, I.M., and Shilts, W.W. 1980. Surficial Geology, Eskimo Point, District of Keewatin. Geological Survey of Canada Map 8-1980. Bailey, E.P. 1992. Red Foxes, Vulpes vulpes, as Biological Control Agents for Introduced Arctic Foxes, Alopex lagopus, on Alaska Islands. Canadian Field Naturalist, 106:200-205. Banfield, A.W. 1977. The mammals of Canada. University of Toronto Press, Canada. 438 pp. Benn, D.I. and Evans, D.J.A. 1998. Glaciers and Glaciation. Edward Arnold, London.734 pp. Beverly and Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board (BQCMB). 2011. Overview Report: Challenges Facing the Beverly and Qamanirjuaq Caribou Herds and Some Possible Solutions. In: BQCMB Caribou Workshop, February 2010. Stonewall, Manitoba. 26 pp. Billington, N., M.G. Boileau, and P.D.N. Herbert. 1989. Range extension of the fairy shrimp Polyartemiella hazeni (Murdoch, 1884) (Crustacea : Anostraca) to the eastern Canadian Arctic, with notes on the distribution of other eastern arctic Anostraca. Canadian Field Naturalist. 103(3): 404 – 405. Campbell, M. 2011. Department of Environment, Regional Biologist, Kivalliq. Personal communications [telephone]. December 6, 2011. Rangifer tarandus groenlandicus Campbell, M. 2005. The Monitoring of Qamanirjuaq Caribou ( )Using Satellite Telemetry. Government of Nunavut, Department of Environment. Status report No. 13. Iqaluit. 20 pp. Rangifer tarandus groenlandicus Campbell, M., J. Nishi, and J. Boulanger. 2010. A Calving Ground Photo Survey of the Qamanirjuaq Migratory Barren-Ground Caribou ( )Population,June2008. Nunavut Wildlife Service. Technical Report Series 2010 – No. 1-10.129 pp. Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council (CESCC). 2011. Wild Species 2010: The General Status of Species in Canada. National General Status Working Group: 302 pp. Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). 2008. Invasive Alien Plants in Canada: Summary Report. Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Ottawa. 22 pp. Canadian Standards Association (CSA). 2009. Concrete materials and methods of concrete construction/Test methods and standard practices for concrete A23.1-09/A23.2-09. 573 pp. CASLYS Consulting Ltd 2011. Journey of the Caribou. Web access: http://www.arctic- caribou.com/journey/ Cornell Lab of Ornithology and the American Ornithologists’ Union. 2011. Birds of North America Online. Web access: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna. Cummings, D.I., Kjarsgaard, B.A., Russell, H.A.J., and Sharpe, D.R. 2011. Eskers as mineral exploration tools. Earth-Science Reviews, 109: 32-43. Department of Environment, Nunavut Government.2007.StatusofthePolarBear.Governmentof Nunavut, Department of Environment. Status30 Report, No. 37. 28 pp.

Y14101361 IFU - REVISION 1_13 February 2012 GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012 | ISSUED FOR USE – REVISION 1

Department of Environment, Nunavut Government. 2011. Wildlife Fact Sheets. Web access: http://env.gov.nu.ca/programareas/wildlife/publications Dowsley, M and M. Taylor. 2006. Management Consultations for the Western Hudson Bay (WH) Polar Bear Population (01-02-December 2005). Final Wildlife Report, No. 3. Nunavut Government. 57 pp. Dredge, L.A., Daniel, E.K., and Wolfe, S.A. 1999. Surficial materials and related ground ice conditions, Slave Province, N.W.T., Canada. Canadian Journal of Earth Science, 36: 1227-1238. EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd., 1997. Geotechnical Considerations for Site Development, Meliadine Project, Rankin Inlet, NT. Report submitted to WMC International Ltd., Nepean, ON, December 1997. EBA File: 0701-97-13056 EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd., 2003. Iqaluit Granular Resource Study, Iqaluit, NU. Report submitted to the City of Iqaluit, Iqaluit, NU. August 2003. EBA File: 1700059 EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd., 2007. An Overview of Strategic Options to Supplement the Tibbit to Contwoyto Winter Road, Yellowkinife, NT. Report submitted to the Tibbitt to Contwoyto Winter Road Joint Venture, February 2007. EBA File: 0114875.037 EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd., 2009. Airside Surface Rehabilitation, Arviat, NU. Report submitted to the Government of Nunavut – Department of Community and Government Services, September 2009. EBA File: C31101148 EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd., 2009. Airside Surface Rehabilitation Granular Source Characterization, Arviat, Nunavut. Report submitted to Government of Nunavut, Community and Government Services, September 2009. EBA File: C31101148.002 EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd., 2010. Kiggavik Project, Northern & Southern All-Season Roads Report. Report submitted to Areva Resources Canada Ltd., October 2010. EBA File: V33101016 Ecological Stratification Working Group. 1995. A National Ecological Framework of Canada. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Research Branch, Centre for Land and Biological Resources Research and Environment Canada, State of the Environment Directorate, Ecozone Analysis Branch, Ottawa/Hull. Report and national map at 1:7,500,000 scale. Environment Canada 2010. National Climate Data and Information Archive, Climate Normals and Averages. http://climat.meteo.gc.ca/climate_normals/index_e.html. [accessed November 2011]. Fast, E.D. 1980. Polar Bear Denning Survey Eskimo Point, 1978. Manuscript Report, No. 3. 12 pp. Ferguson, S.H., L.L Loseto, M.L. Mallory. 2010. A Little Less Arctic: Top Predators in the World's Largest Northern Inland Sea, Hudson Bay. International Polar Year (2007 – 2008). Springer, New York. Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2010. NunavutIn-WaterConstructionTimingWindowsforthe Protection of Fish and Fish Habitat. Nunavut Operational Statements. Version 3.0. Web access: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/regions/central/habitat/os-eo/provinces-territories-territoires/nu/os- eo21-eng.htm 31

Y14101361 IFU - REVISION 1_13 February 2012 GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012 | ISSUED FOR USE – REVISION 1

The Periglacial Environment nd French, H.M. 1996. .2 Edition. Longman, Harlow. GNWT. 1993. Geotechnical Evaluation, Proposed Community Granular Source – Arviat. Community Granular Revolving Fund Program (CGRFP) Government of Northwest Territories (GNWT). September 1993. Government of Nunavut. 2011. News Release: Western Hudson Bay Polar Bear Quota Increased. Web access: http://www.gov.nu.ca/news/2011/October/oct28.pdf Government of Nunavut. 2005. Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit of Climate Change in Nunavut: A Sample of Inuit Experiences of Climate Change in Nunavut Baker Lake and Arviat, Nunavut. Department of Environment, Environmental Protection Division. 52 pp. Hanmer, S., Sanderman, H.A., Davis, W.J., Aspler, L.B., Rainbird, R.H., Ryan, J.J., Relf, C., Peterson, T.D. 2004. Geology and Neoarchean tectonic setting of the Central Hearne supracrustal belt, Western Churchill Province, Nunavut, Canada. Precambrian Research 134: 63-83. Heginbottom, J.A., Dubreuil, M.A., and Harker, P.A. 1995. Canada-Permafrost. In National Atlas of th Canada 5 Edition, National Atlas Information Service, Natural Resources Canada, Ottawa, Plate 2.1, MCR 4177. Important Bird Areas (IBA) Canada. 2011. McConnell River West Hudson Bay, Nunavut. Web access: http://www.ibacanada.ca/site.jsp?siteID=NU020&lang=EN Latour, P.B., J. Leger, J.E. Hines, M.L. Mallory, D.L. Mulders, H.G. Gilchrist, P.A. Smith, and D.L. Dickson. 2008. Key Migratory Bird Terrestrial Habitat Sites in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, third edition. Canadian Wildlife Service, Occasional Paper No. 114. 120 pp. Matthews, S., H. Epp, and G. Smith. 2001. Vegetation Classification for the West Kitikmeot / Slave Study Region. Final Report to the West Kitikmeot / Slave Study Society. Yellowknife. 49 pp. McJannet, C.L. G.W. Argus, and W.J. Cody. 1995. RareVascularPlantsintheNorthwestTerritories. Canadian Museum of Nature, Ottawa. 104 pp. Ursus maritimus McLoughlin, P.D., M. Taylor, and M. Dowsley. 2007. Update, COSEWIC status report on the polar bear ( )preparedfortheCommitteeontheStatusofEndangeredWildlifeinCanada. Government of Nunavut, Department of Environment. Status Report, No. 32. 59 pp. National Wetlands Working Group. 1997. The Canadian Wetland Classification System, second edition. Wetlands Research Institute, University of Waterloo, Ontario. 76 pp.Eskimo Point, District of Keewatin, Northwest Territories Natural Resources Canada. 1985. Centre for Topographic Information. . [map]. Edition 1. 1:50,000. Canada 1:50,000, 55 E/1. Ottawa, Ontario: Natural Resources Canada, © 1985 Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada.No Title, Nunavut Natural Resources Canada. 2005. Centre for Topographic Information. . [map]. Edition 2. 1:50,000. Canada 1:50,000, 55 E/8. Ottawa, Ontario: Natural Resources Canada, © 2005 Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada.

Y14101361 IFU - REVISION 1_13 February 2012 GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012 | ISSUED FOR USE – REVISION 1

Nunami Jacques Whitford Limited (Nunami). 2008. Nunavut Wildlife Resource and Habitat Values. Prepared for the Nunavut Planning Commission. Yellowknife. 186 + Figures. Nunavut Planning Commission. 2011. Interactive Maps. Web access: http://www.nunavut.ca/en/map. Pameolik, J. 2011. Department of Environment, Wildlife Technician, Kivalliq. Personal communications [telephone]. December 6, 2011. Polunin, N. 1948. Botany of the Canadian Eastern Arctic, Part III Vegetation and Ecology. Canada Department of Mines and Resources and National Museum of Canada. Bulletin No. 104, Biological Series No. 32. Ottawa. 304 pp. Porsild, A.E. and W.J. Cody. 1980. Vascular Plants of Continental Northwest Territories, Canada. National Museums of Canada. Canada. Prest, V.K. 1969. Retreat of Wisconsin and Recent ice in North America. Geological Survey of Canada Map, 1257A. Prest, V.K., Grant, D.R., Rampton, V. 1968. Glacial Map of Canada. Geological Survey of Canada Map, 1253A. Scott, W.B. and E.J. Crossman. 1979. Freshwater Fishes of Canada. Bulletin 184. Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Ottawa. 966 pp.Sale, R. 2006. A complete guide to arctic wildlife. Firefly Books Ltd, Ontario. 464 pp. Scott, P.A., I. Stirling. 2002. Chronology of terrestrial den use by polar bears in Western Hudson Bay as indicated by tree growth anomalies. Arctic, 55(2): 151-166. Traynor, S. 2001. Esker Habitat Characteristics and Traditional Use Study in The Slave Geological Province. Final Report to the West Kitikmeot/Slave Study. Yellowknife, NT. 74 pp. Wakelyn, L. 2011. Member, Beverly and Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board. Personal communications [telephone]. November 18, 2011.

Wiggins,Wakelyn, D.A., L. 1999. D.W. Holt, The and Qamanirjuaq S.M. Leasure. Caribou 2006. Herd: Short-eared An Arctic Owl Enigma. (Asio flammeus Prepared), The for Birds the Wild of North Caribou of AmericaNorth Online America (A. Poole, project. Ed.). Ithaca:Web access: Cornell http://www.arctic-caribou.com/PDF/qcs.pdf Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/062doi:10.2173/bna.62

Wildlife Research Section. 2007. Statutory report on wildlife to the Nunavut Legislative Assembly, Section 176 of the Wildlife Act. Government of Nunavut, Department of Environment, Final Wildlife Report No. 17. Iqaluit, 125 pp.

Y14101361 IFU - REVISION 1_13 February 2012 GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012 | ISSUED FOR USE – REVISION 1

FIGURES

Figure 1 Site Plan

Y14101361 IFU - REVISION 1_13 February 2012 \\eba.local\corp\Edmonton\Drafting\DIVISIONS2007\Other Offices\Y141\Y14101361\acad\Y14101361 Figure 1.dwg [FIGURE 1] January 31, 2012 - 3:54:17 pm (BY: MARSH, MAUREEN )

AGGREGATE PROSPECT #6

MAGUSE ROAD

AGGREGATE PROSPECT #4

AGGREGATE PROSPECT #3

AGGREGATE PROSPECT #1 AGGREGATE PROSPECT #2

HAMLET OF ARVIAT DIONNE ROAD

AIRSTRIP ESKER WEST

PROPOSED WOLF ESKER ROAD AIRSTRIP ESKER EAST

AGGREGATE PROSPECT #5

CLIENT GRANULAR PROGRAM STUDY ARVIAT, NU

SITE PLAN

PROJECT NO. DWN CKD REV 0 2.5 km Y14101361 MM KK 0

OFFICE DATE Figure 1 Approximate Scale 1: 75 000 EDM January 31, 2012 GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012 | ISSUED FOR USE – REVISION 1

PHOTOGRAPHS

Photo1 AirstripEsker–Westlookingsouth Photo2 AirstripEsker–Westlookingwest Photo 3 Crest of Prospect #1 looking west Photo4 NorthsideofProspect#1lookingwest Photo5 CrestofProspect#2lookingeast Photo6 NorthsideofProspect#2lookingwest Photo 7 Quarried area north of Prospect #2 looking west Photo8 Coarseaggregatepiledon north sideofProspect #2 lookingwest Photo 9 Prospect #3 looking west towards Landing Lake Photo 10 Testpit at Prospect #3 looking south Photo 11 Surface-washed gravel on west side of Prospect #4 Photo12 Testpit at Prospect #4 showingsandy gravel Photo13 TidalflatssouthofArviat Photo14 Surface-washed gravel atProspect#5 Photo 15 West end of Prospect #5 Photo 16 Testpit at Prospect #5 Photo 17 Maguse Road approaching Prospect #5 looking northwest Photo 18 Crest of Prospect #6, eastern extent, looking southeast Photo 19 Test at Prospect #6 Photo20 QuarryatsoutheasternendofProspect#6

Y14101361 IFU - REVISION 1_13 February 2012 GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012 | ISSUED FOR USE

Photo 1: Airstrip Esker – West looking south. Note aggregate depleted except oversize boulders too large to be processed by crusher, and saturated fine- grained material (silt) remains. (August 2, 2011)

Photo 2: Airstrip Esker – West looking west. Unconsolidated and loose gravelly sand. (August 2, 2011)

Y14101361 Photos IFU FEBRUARY 2012 GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012| ISSUED FOR USE

Photo 3: Crest of Prospect #1 looking west. Note predominance of sand at the surface. (August 4, 2011)

Photo 4: North side of Prospect #1 looking west. (August 4, 2011)

Y14101361 Photos IFU FEBRUARY 2012 GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012 | ISSUED FOR USE

Photo 5: Crest of Prospect #2 looking east. Note the predominance of boulders at the surface (August 2, 2011)

Photo 6: North side of Prospect #2 looking west. Aggregate removed from north side in 2005-06. (August 2, 2011)

Y14101361 Photos IFU FEBRUARY 2012 GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012| ISSUED FOR USE

Photo 7: Quarried area north of Prospect #2 looking west. Aggregate removed from this area in 2005-06. (August 2, 2011)

Photo 8: Coarse aggregate piled on north side of Prospect #2 looking west. (August 2, 2011)

Y14101361 Photos IFU FEBRUARY 2012 GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012 | ISSUED FOR USE

Photo 9: Prospect #3 looking west towards Landing Lake. (September 27, 2011)

Photo 10: Testpit at Prospect #3 looking south. (August 4, 2011)

Y14101361 Photos IFU FEBRUARY 2012 GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012| ISSUED FOR USE

Photo 11: Surface-washed gravel on west side of Prospect #4 looking southwest. (September 27, 2011)

Photo 12: Testpit at Prospect #4 showing sandy gravel with layer of gravel at the surface. (August 4, 2011)

Y14101361 Photos IFU FEBRUARY 2012 GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012 | ISSUED FOR USE

Photo 13: Tidal flats south of Arviat looking south towards Wolf Esker. (September 27, 2011)

Photo 14: Surface-washed gravel at Prospect #5, Wolf Esker, looking west. (September 27, 2011)

Y14101361 Photos IFU FEBRUARY 2012 GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012| ISSUED FOR USE

Photo 15: West end of Prospect #5, Wolf Esker, looking east. Note Wolf Creek in the top righthand corner of the photo. (September 27, 2011)

Photo 16: Testpit at Prospect #5. Note layer of surface-washed gravel at top of pit. (September 27, 2011)

Y14101361 Photos IFU FEBRUARY 2012 GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012 | ISSUED FOR USE

Photo 17: Maguse Road approaching Prospect #6 looking northwest. (September 28, 2011)

Photo 18: Crest of Prospect #6, eastern extent, looking southeast. Note ATV trail at base of slope. (September 28, 2011)

Y14101361 Photos IFU FEBRUARY 2012 GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012| ISSUED FOR USE

Photo 19: Testpit at Prosepct #6. Note predominance of coarse gravel. (September 29, 2011)

Photo 20: Quarry at south eastern end of Prospect #6. (September 29, 2011)

Y14101361 Photos IFU FEBRUARY 2012 GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012 | ISSUED FOR USE – REVISION 1

APPENDIX A EBA’S GENERAL CONDITIONS

Y14101361 IFU - REVISION 1_13 February 2012 GENERAL CONDITIONS

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT This report incorporates and is subject to these “General Conditions”.

1.0 USE OF REPORT AND OWNERSHIP 4.0 NATURE AND EXACTNESS OF SOIL AND ROCK DESCRIPTIONS This geotechnical report pertains to a specific site, a specific development and a specific scope of work. It is not applicable to Classification and identification of soils and rocks are based upon any other sites nor should it be relied upon for types of development commonly accepted systems and methods employed in other than that to which it refers. Any variation from the site or professional geotechnical practice. This report contains development would necessitate a supplementary geotechnical descriptions of the systems and methods used. Where deviations assessment. from the system or method prevail, they are specifically mentioned. This report and the recommendations contained in it are intended Classification and identification of geological units are judgmental in for the sole use of EBA’s Client. EBA does not accept any nature as to both type and condition. EBA does not warrant responsibility for the accuracy of any of the data, the analyses or conditions represented herein as exact, but infers accuracy only to the recommendations contained or referenced in the report when the extent that is common in practice. the report is used or relied upon by any party other than EBA’s Where subsurface conditions encountered during development are Client unless otherwise authorized in writing by EBA. Any different from those described in this report, qualified geotechnical unauthorized use of the report is at the sole risk of the user. personnel should revisit the site and review recommendations in This report is subject to copyright and shall not be reproduced either light of the actual conditions encountered. wholly or in part without the prior, written permission of EBA. Additional copies of the report, if required, may be obtained upon 5.0 LOGS OF TESTHOLES request. The testhole logs are a compilation of conditions and classification of soils and rocks as obtained from field observations and 2.0 ALTERNATE REPORT FORMAT laboratory testing of selected samples. Soil and rock zones have Where EBA submits both electronic file and hard copy versions of been interpreted. Change from one geological zone to the other, reports, drawings and other project-related documents and indicated on the logs as a distinct line, can be, in fact, transitional. deliverables (collectively termed EBA’s instruments of professional The extent of transition is interpretive. Any circumstance which service), only the signed and/or sealed versions shall be considered requires precise definition of soil or rock zone transition elevations final and legally binding. The original signed and/or sealed version may require further investigation and review. archived by EBA shall be deemed to be the original for the Project. 6.0 STRATIGRAPHIC AND GEOLOGICAL INFORMATION Both electronic file and hard copy versions of EBA’s instruments of The stratigraphic and geological information indicated on drawings professional service shall not, under any circumstances, no matter contained in this report are inferred from logs of test holes and/or who owns or uses them, be altered by any party except EBA. soil/rock exposures. Stratigraphy is known only at the locations of EBA’s instruments of professional service will be used only and the test hole or exposure. Actual geology and stratigraphy between exactly as submitted by EBA. test holes and/or exposures may vary from that shown on these Electronic files submitted by EBA have been prepared and drawings. Natural variations in geological conditions are inherent submitted using specific software and hardware systems. EBA and are a function of the historic environment. EBA does not makes no representation about the compatibility of these files with represent the conditions illustrated as exact but recognizes that the Client’s current or future software and hardware systems. variations will exist. Where knowledge of more precise locations of geological units is necessary, additional investigation and review 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND REGULATORY ISSUES may be necessary. Unless stipulated in the report, EBA has not been retained to investigate, address or consider and has not investigated, addressed or considered any environmental or regulatory issues associated with development on the subject site.

General Conditions - Geotechnical.doc GENERAL CONDITIONS GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

7.0 PROTECTION OF EXPOSED GROUND 11.0 DRAINAGE SYSTEMS Excavation and construction operations expose geological materials Where temporary or permanent drainage systems are installed to climatic elements (freeze/thaw, wet/dry) and/or mechanical within or around a structure, the systems which will be installed disturbance which can cause severe deterioration. Unless must protect the structure from loss of ground due to internal otherwise specifically indicated in this report, the walls and floors of erosion and must be designed so as to assure continued excavations must be protected from the elements, particularly performance of the drains. Specific design detail of such systems moisture, desiccation, frost action and construction traffic. should be developed or reviewed by the geotechnical engineer. Unless otherwise specified, it is a condition of this report that 8.0 SUPPORT OF ADJACENT GROUND AND effective temporary and permanent drainage systems are required STRUCTURES and that they must be considered in relation to project purpose and Unless otherwise specifically advised, support of ground and function. structures adjacent to the anticipated construction and preservation of adjacent ground and structures from the adverse impact of 12.0 BEARING CAPACITY construction activity is required. Design bearing capacities, loads and allowable stresses quoted in this report relate to a specific soil or rock type and condition. 9.0 INFLUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY Construction activity and environmental circumstances can There is a direct correlation between construction activity and materially change the condition of soil or rock. The elevation at structural performance of adjacent buildings and other installations. which a soil or rock type occurs is variable. It is a requirement of The influence of all anticipated construction activities should be this report that structural elements be founded in and/or upon considered by the contractor, owner, architect and prime engineer geological materials of the type and in the condition assumed. in consultation with a geotechnical engineer when the final design Sufficient observations should be made by qualified geotechnical and construction techniques are known. personnel during construction to assure that the soil and/or rock conditions assumed in this report in fact exist at the site. 10.0 OBSERVATIONS DURING CONSTRUCTION 13.0 SAMPLES Because of the nature of geological deposits, the judgmental nature of geotechnical engineering, as well as the potential of adverse EBA will retain all soil and rock samples for 30 days after this report circumstances arising from construction activity, observations is issued. Further storage or transfer of samples can be made at during site preparation, excavation and construction should be the Client’s expense upon written request, otherwise samples will carried out by a geotechnical engineer. These observations may be discarded. then serve as the basis for confirmation and/or alteration of geotechnical recommendations or design guidelines presented 14.0 INFORMATION PROVIDED TO EBA BY OTHERS herein. During the performance of the work and the preparation of the report, EBA may rely on information provided by persons other than the Client. While EBA endeavours to verify the accuracy of such information when instructed to do so by the Client, EBA accepts no responsibility for the accuracy or the reliability of such information which may affect the report.

General Conditions - Geotechnical.doc GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012 | ISSUED FOR USE – REVISION 1

APPENDIX B ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Y14101361 IFU - REVISION 1_13 February 2012 GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012 | ISSUED FOR USE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

The objectives of the environment and wildlife impact assessment were to identify existing wildlife and sensitive environmental resources potentially occurring in the local area and assess potential impacts on these resources from the construction and operation of the aggregate prospects. To meet these objectives, relevant environmental information pertaining to the occurrence and distribution of wildlife and wildlife habitat occurring in the local area was collected and evaluated through a desktop assessment. This environmental information and data gathering focused primarily on the occurrence, distribution, key habitats, life requirements, and population threats, where possible, of a few selected ecosystem components (ECs). This information specific to the ECs (including critical life requirements and sensitive time periods) was then drawn upon to assess potential impacts from the construction and operation of the selected aggregate sources prospects. The reclamation of the aggregate prospect(s) and/or their access road was not included in this desktop assessment. ECs have been selected for this preliminary environmental assessment to represent ECs that possess inherently high conservation values for local stakeholders, have been previously identified as being important in other northern studies, are important harvestable species, a representative species to local habitats, or species with special conservation status known to occur near Arviat. However, not all ECs that fall into these criteria are assessed. An additional assessment of ECs may be required upon final aggregate source selection. For the purposes of this report, the following ECs are described in further detail and were used as the foundation in the preliminary environmental impact assessment: Vegetation communities and rare plants – representative habitats common in the local area and species with special conservation status. Barren-ground Caribou - important harvestable species, culturally significant, and a representative species common in the local area. Polar Bear – important harvestable species, a representative species common in the local area, and a species with special conservation status. Red and Arctic Fox – important harvestable species, a representative species common in the local area, and a species which actively selects esker type materials for denning.

Waterfowl – importantet al. harvestable species, wildlife group common in the local area, and representative of the designated McConnell River Key Migratory Bird TerrestrialHabitatSite(Nunavut site No. 42) (Latour 2008). Arctic Char - important harvestable species and a representative species common in the local area. This preliminary assessment provides further details of the ECs ecology and biology, including important habitat types and times most sensitive to human disturbances. This baseline knowledge was then used as

Y14101361 Environmental Assessment IFU FEBUARY 2012 GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012 | ISSUED FOR USE

the foundation for evaluating the preliminary impact assessment from the development and operation of 1.1granular sourcesVegetation and access Cover roads. and Rare Plants

1.1.1 Vegetation Cover

Arviat lies within the Maguse River Upland ecoregion of the Southern Arctic ecozone. The Maguse River Upland ecoregion is characterized by shrub tundracommunitytypes.Vegetationmappingbymeansof digital Landsat data has begun acrosset the al. Kivalliq region; however, to date, data representing Arviat and the surrounding region is unpublished. Based on vegetation mapping available across the Kivalliq, land cover classes described by Matthews (2001) in the West Kitikmeot/Slave Study, Polunin (1948), and photographs taken during the geotechnical investigation the following general vegetation communities may occur in and around the select aggregate prospects (not including shallow ponds and lakes):

Heath Tundra - Heath tundra is an open or closed mat plant communityBetula glandulosa that grows in upland areas withRhododendron moderate subarcticumto well drained soils. Heath plants (plants in the Ericaceae family)Vaccinium dominate vitis- the idaeavegetation cover, alongEmpetrum with lownigrum shrubs such as dwarfAstragalus birch ( alpinus )andLabradorteaLoiseleuria procumbens( Epilobium). Other common plant species may include cranberry ( ), crowberry ( ), alpine milkvetch ( ), alpine azalea ( ), fireweed ( spp.), and lichens. The moss and herb layers are generally poorly developed. As a closed mat community, vegetation covers at least 70 percent of the ground surface. However, where boulders or bedrock outcrops are exposed at the surface, vegetation cover thins to an open mat heath tundra. Esker complex –Esker crests are generally dry and wind-swept and accumulate very little snow during the winter. Vegetation percent cover and species diversity on the crests ofSaxifraga the eskers are generally significantlyilene lower acaulis than on the sides of the esker (Traynor 2001).Arctostaphylos Vegetation is alpina sparse at the crests and tendsCassiope to grow tetragona in low-forming mats. PlantsDryas such integrifolia as saxifrage species ( species), moss campionFestuca brachyphylla (S ), crowberry, cranberry, bearberry ( ), Arctic white heather ( ), mountain avens ( ), alpine azalea, short-leaved fescue ( ), and others may occur at the crest. The sides of the eskers may include a higher plant cover (Traynor 2001). Esker slopes support several different plant communitiesVaccinium depending uliginosum on their aspect and exposure to wind and snow. LeewardEpilobium slopes or slopes that accumulate snow have moderateCarex soil moisture and support dwarf birch,Poa as arcticawell as willow, blueberry ( ), Labrador tea, cranberry, crowberry, grasses, fireweed ( spp.), Arctic white heather, sedge species ( species), and Arctic bluegrass ( ). Esker slopes exposed to the prevailing winds develop heath tundra communities with some dwarf birch (see health tundra above). Lichen veneers – lichen veneers develop on flat, dry, and windswept areas. In general, this community type includes a continuous mat of lichen species, with infrequent occurrence of saxifrage and heath plants. Carex Sedge wetland – sedge wetlands develop on low lying sites that maintain standing water for much of the growing season. Sedge ( species) and cottongrass species are the dominant vegetation adjacent to the water’s edge. GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012 | ISSUED FOR USE

SedgeAndromeda association polifolia – A poorly drainedRubus site chamaemorus that is drier than the sedge wetlands. Cotton grasses and sedges are common. Tussocks of grasses and sedges produce hummocks that support bog rosemary ( ), cloudberry ( ), Labrador tea, blueberry, and cranberry. In between the hummocks, sphagnum moss typically occurs. Dwarf birch and willow establish on the older hummocks. String bog –Precipitation, snowmelt, and runoff are the primary water sources, and the water table lies atSphagnum or slightly below the surface terrain. Narrowe.g. ridges of peat andKalmia pools polifolia are orientated at right anglese.g. to the direction of surface drainage. The plant community is dominated by Sphagnum moss species ( species), with ericaceous shrubs ( bog laurel ( )), dwarf shrubs ( willow species), and sedges occupying the peat ridges (National Wetlands Working Group 1997). In drier peat bogs, lichen may be present. Riparian low shrub – Associated with watercourses, these areas are moist and well drained. Plant cover is generally continuous, consisting predominantly of low shrubs such as dwarf birch and willow species. The herb layer may be well developed. Plant species may vary with the amount and duration 1.1.2of water.Rare Plants

et al. A rare plant is defined as a species that occurs in low numbers or has restricted distribution because of its biological characteristics or it occurs at the edge of its range (McJannet 1995). Plants may also be considered rare simply because they have been under collected to date, particularly for inconspicuous species. A total of seven plants species, potentially occurring in or near Arviat, are ranked by the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council (CESCC) as “May Be At Risk” (Table 1). By definition, these species may be at risk of extirpation or extinction and, therefore, are candidates for a detailed risk assessment by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada COSEWIC. An additional four species are ranked by CESCC as Sensitive (Table 1), not believed to be at risk of immediate extirpation or extinction but may require special attention or protection to prevent them from becoming at risk. A single species is listed as Undetermined. Table 1 Plant Species of Special Conservation Status that Potentially Occur near Arviat Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Nunavut Conservation Status1 Mackenzie's Sedge Carex mackenziei Brackish marshes May Be At Risk Reddish Sedge Carex rufina Pond and snowbed edges May Be At Risk Three-seeded Sedge Carex trisperma Bogs May Be At Risk Northern Mudwort Limosella aquatica Wet, muddy, or sandy pond May Be At Risk margins Muskeg Lousewort Pedicularis macrodonta Bogs and marshes May Be At Risk Fowler's Knotweed Polygonum fowleri Gravelly pond margins and May Be At Risk lakeshores Neumann's Cinquefoil Potentilla neumanniana Tundra May Be At Risk Inflated Locoweed Oxytropis podocarpa Gravel and sandy beach Sensitive ridges and tundra

Y14101361 Environmental Assessment IFU FEBUARY 2012 GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012 | ISSUED FOR USE

Robbins' Pondweed Potamogeton robbinsii Still waters Sensitive Dwarf Alkali Grass Puccinellia pumila Sanddunesandbeaches Sensitive Common Eelgrass Zostera marina Shelteredtidalflats Sensitive Norwegian Whitlow-grass Draba norvegica Tundraandrockyslopes Undetermined 1. Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council (CESCC) (2011).

Atotalof13invasiveplantspeciesareknowntooccurintheSouthernArcticecozone(CanadianFood Inspection Agency (CFIA) 2008). Invasive or introduced plant species may occur on or adjacent to the selected aggregate prospects due to the existing level of human activities along the roads, cabins, and 1.2within the TerrestrialMammals community of Arviat.

The distribution and abundance of wildlife tend to vary with season, life history stage, habitat availability, prey abundance, and hunting and trapping pressures. ThevarietyofhabitattypesintheArviatlocalarea supports an assemblage of terrestrial mammals. Eskers, in particular are used by wildlife for movement corridors, denning, foraging, resting, and avoiding insects. Eskers provide critical habitat for denning terrestrial wildlife including grizzly bears, wolves, and red and Arctic foxes. However, due to the existing level of human activities at and near the selected granular sources, the presence of grizzly bear and or wolf dens on the selected aggregate prospects are unlikely and, therefore, these species are not considered in further detail in this preliminary assessment. No carnivore dens were observed at the time of the geotechnical evaluation conducted in early September, 2011. A total of 17 terrestrial mammal species occur or potentially occur in the areas of the selected aggregate prospects, including polar bearsUrsus (technically maritimus) considered a marineUrsus mammal, arctos) which for the purposesGulo gulo) of this assessment are included herein) (Table 2). Of these mammal species, three have special conservation status (Table 2). Polar bear ( ,grizzlybear( , and wolverine ( have been assessed by the COSEWIC as Special Concern. Of these species, only the polar bear is listed by the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA). Polar bears are listed by SARA as Special Concern; by definition this species may become threatened or endangered because of a combination of its biological characteristics and identified threats. Table 2. Terrestrial Mammal Species Occurring or Potentially Occurring near Arviat SpeciesCommonName ScientificName COSEWICStatus NunavutConservation Status1 Mammals Barren-ground Shrew Sorex ugyunak NotAssessed Undetermined Grey Wolf Canis lupus arctos Data Deficient Secure Arctic Fox Alopex lagopus Not Assessed Secure Red Fox Vulpes vulpes Not Assessed Secure Grizzly Bear Ursus arctos Special Concern Sensitive Polar Bear Ursus maritimus Special Concern Sensitive Short-tailed Weasel Mustela erminea Not Assessed Secure Least Weasel Mustela nivalis Not Assessed Secure GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012 | ISSUED FOR USE

Table 2. Terrestrial Mammal Species Occurring or Potentially Occurring near Arviat SpeciesCommonName ScientificName COSEWICStatus NunavutConservation Status1 Wolverine Gulo gulo Special Concern Secure Barren-ground Caribou Rangifer tarandus Not Assessed Secure groenlandicus Arctic Ground Squirrel Spermophilus parryii Not Assessed Secure Meadow Vole Microtus pennsylvanicus Not Assessed Secure Northern Red-backed Vole Myodes rutilus Not Assessed Secure Nearctic Collared Lemming Dicrostonyx groenlandicus Not Assessed Secure Richardson’s Collared Dicrostonyx richardsoni Not Assessed Secure Lemming Nearctic Brown Lemming Lemmus trimucronatus Not Assessed Secure Arctic Hare Lepus arcticus Not Assessed Secure 1. Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council (CESCC) (2011).

(Banfield 1977; Department of Environment 2011; Nunami 2008; Nunavut Planning Commission 2011; and Sale 2006)

Due to the existing level of human activities at and near the selectedi.e. aggregate prospects, grizzly bears and wolverines were not considered in further detail. Grizzly bears and wolverines may occur in the local area wherever suitable prey species exist; however, critical habitat ( denning) for these species is considered 1.2.1limited inBarren-ground the local area. Caribou Rangifer tarandus groenlandicus Arviat and the selected aggregate prospects lie within the Qamanirjuaq barren-ground caribou ( )herds’range.Fromacalvinggroundphotographicsurveyin2008,thetotalherdet al. size was estimated at approximately 348,000 caribou,possiblydownbyapproximatelyone-thirdfromits 1994 population estimate of 496,000 (Campbell 2010; Beverly and Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board (BQCMB) 2011). The status of barren-groundcaribouisrankedbyCESCCasSecureinNunavut (CESCC 2011). From the BQCMB workshop in 2010, workshop participants agreed the caribou herds are decreasing in size due to five main factors: climate change, habitat loss due to forest fires on the winter range, land use disturbances, hunting, and predation (BQCMB 2011). Current and future land use developments across the Qamanirjuaq caribou herds’ range includes mining exploration and development, all season and winter road development, transmission lines, hydro-electric development, tourism, and community development.

The Qamanirjuaq caribou herd range extends more thanet al.1,000 km north to south (from Chesterfield Inlet and Baker Lake south to northern Manitoba2 and Saskatchewan) and approximately 500 km east to west; an area covering an estimated 310,000 km (Campbell 2010; Wakelyn 1999). Annually, the herds’ distribution across their range varies with available forage, weather conditions, biting insects, and other biotic and abiotic factors; however, caribou commonlyet al. occur near Arviat. Annually2 from 1993 to 2008, high to very high cumulative densities (between 0.076 – 0.184 collared cows per km )ofcollaredQamanirjuaq caribou cows occurred near Arviat (Campbell 2010).

Y14101361 Environmental Assessment IFU FEBUARY 2012 GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012 | ISSUED FOR USE

Within their annual range, the Qamanirjuaq herd generally occurs in a variety of habitat types around Arviat during post-calving, late summer, and spring and fall migrations; however, caribou may occupy all habitats around Arviat any time of the year including calving, rutting, and over-wintering (BQCMB 2011; CASLYS Consulting Ltd. ND). Seasonally, caribou may favour a variety of habitat types including eskers, wetlands and lake shorelines, sedge wetlands, boulder fields, and heath tundra. During the BQCMB 2010 workshop, participants indicated the calving grounds are critical habitat for caribou and should be protected, but also indicated post-calving areas, migration routes, and water crossings are importantet al. and should also be safeguarded (BQCMB 2011). The Qamanirjuaq caribou herd displays a high level of fidelity towards their traditional calving area in the Qamanirjuaq and Banks lakeset al. areas (Campbell 2010), the most southerly limit of the calving area being approximately north of Maguse Lake, approximately 100 km north of Arviat and the selected aggregate prospectse.g. (Campbell 2010; BQCMB 2011). However, satellite collaring data has indicatedet calving al. also occurs outside of the traditional calving area to an undetermined extent, particularly when weather conditions ( higher snow accumulations and/or icing events) delays spring migration (Campbell 2010; Campbell 2005). During these unpredictable years, caribou cows may calve near Arviat. During the spring migration to the traditional calving ground (generally beginning in mid-May), caribou pass west of Arviat, with the majority of breeding cows arriving on the calving grounds between late May to early June, and non-breeding cows, yearlings, and males following (BQCMB 2011). The nearest documented water and ice crossing used by the Qamanirjuaq herd is located along the Maguse River, approximately 17 km north of aggregate Prospect #6 (BQCMB 2011). The nearest aggregate prospect is situated at a sufficient distance to the crossing and is outside the potential zone of influence. After calving from mid-June to October, the Qamanirjuaq herd disperses across their post-calving and late summer ranges, which includes the area around Arviat, and begin to arrive at the treeline by September and October (CASLYS Consulting Ltd. undated). The majority of caribou from this herd overwinter in the forested zone of northern Manitoba as well as the tundra in Nunavut and Manitoba, particularly in coastal regions of Hudson Bay (Wakelyn 1999). However, a fewcariboumayover-winternearArviateachyear (Wakelyn pers. comm. 2011). From their wintering grounds, collared Qamanirjuaq cows generally begin migrating in a northerly direction towards their calving ground by late March (CASLYS Consulting Ltd. undated). Depending on their over-wintering location, collared caribou may follow along or near the 1.2.2Hudson BayPolar coast Bear on their spring migration route. Ursus maritimus

Polar bears ( )occurringnearArviatbelongtotheWesternHudsonBaypopulation.Polar bears have recently been listed by SARA as Special Concern, but are ranked by the CESCC as Sensitive in Nunavut (CESCC 2011). The most current population estimate (circa 2004) of the Western Hudson Bay population reported 935 bears (± 2 S.E), a reduction of approximately 22% from the 1987 population estimate (Departmentet al. of Environment 2007). The current and future threats to the Western Hudson Bay Polar Bear population is availability of and access to food resources, human-caused mortality, and pollution (McLoughlin 2007). In 2004, scientific evidence suggested the Western Hudson Bay population was in decline due to overharvesting and sea-ice reductions. However, extensive consultation with Inuit hunters from the local GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012 | ISSUED FOR USE

Hunters and Trappers Associations inet the al. Western Hudson Bay area report an increase in polar bear numbers and health. In particular, hunters from Arviat have reported seeing an increase in polar bears in all seasons, except winter (McLoughlin 2007). In light of local knowledge, the Nunavut Government has increased the total allowable harvest of this population of polar bears as of October 2011 (Government of Nunavut 2011). Polar bears disperse across the sea ice up to approximately 200 km from the coast. During this time, polar bear density and distribution is dependent on the sea ice and seals (particularly Ringed Seals), their preferred prey. Polar bears are sensitive to disturbance during the open water season. During the open water season, polar bears from the Western Hudson Bay population return to land and must rely on fat reserves for a minimum of four months, with pregnant females relying on fat reserves for 8 months. The annual ice–free period begins between late June and mid-July when many of the bears from the Western Hudson Bay population follow the retreating sea ice south into Manitoba or return to land (some polar bears being reported during open water season as far north as Chesterfield Inlet (Wildlife Research Section 2007; Government of Nunavut 2005). Followingice-out,adultmalestendtocongregatealongthe coast until freeze up. To avoid adult males, pregnant females and family groups travel inland. During the summer, polaret bears al. may rely almost exclusively on fat reserves, or, some polar bears are known to feed on blueberries, crowberries, waterfowl eggs/young,whalecarcasses,caribou,andhumangarbage (McLoughlin 2007). Polar bears may occupy all habitat types in and around the selected granular sources at any time of the year. Once the sea ice forms in the late fall (approximately early to mid-November), polar bears (all but the pregnant females) redistribute across the ice and pregnant females excavate maternity dens. Maternal denning occurs from late October to late February orearlyMarchinthepermafrostundertreesorin snowbanks along the banks of creekset and al. lakes or along slopes of hills and valleys. Females from the Western Hudson Bay population may den up to 120 km inland; however, most generally den in close proximity to the coast (McLoughlin 2007). Pregnant females from the Western Hudson Bay population show high fidelity to denning sites or areas,andareknowntotraditionallydeninnorth-eastern Manitoba (Scott and Stirling 2002). During denning, females are sensitive to disturbance. The Northwest Territories Wildlife Service conducted polar bear denning surveys south of Arviat in 1975 and 1978 (Fast 1980). Both of these ground surveys reportedet al. seeing nopolarbeardensinthisarea,and indicated denning would be minimal to non-existent in this area (Fast 1980). More recently, few scattered polar bear dens were reported west of Arviat (Ferguson 2010). However, no polar bear are known to den at or near the selected aggregate prospects (Campbell pers. comm. 2011; Pameolik pers. comm. 2011). i.e. Due to the proximity of the selected granular sources to the community of Arviat and community activities ( cabins) future polar bear denning at or near these proposed sites are unlikely; however, polar bears 1.2.3may occupyRed these and aggregate Arctic Fox prospects on a year-round basis in search of food, resting, and traveling. Vulpes vulpes Vulpes lagopus

The red fox ( )andtheArcticfox( )arenotassessedbyCOSEWIC,butCESCC ranks both species as Secure in Nunavut (CESCC 2011). Population estimates for both fox species in the Nunavut are generally unknown. However, fox populations cycle every 3 to 4 years in response to changes

Y14101361 Environmental Assessment IFU FEBUARY 2012 GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012 | ISSUED FOR USE

e.g. in small mammal densities ( lemmings). The current and future threats to red and Arctic fox populations are availability of food resources, human-caused mortality, and natural predation and disease. Both species of fox occur near Arviat; however, Arcticfoxabundancelikelydiminisheswithanincreasein red fox densities. Red foxes, which are larger, may displace Arctic foxes by usurping their dens and competition for available food resources (Bailey 1992; Department of Environment 2011). Fox diets include a variety of small mammals and birds including mice, voles, lemmings, Arctic ground squirrels, snowshoe hares, ptarmigan, and waterfowl, eggs, carrion, and plant materials. Foxes are expected to occur throughout the region, wherever appropriate food resources exist. Foxes require suitable substrate to establish their dens, and commonly reuse den sites in subsequent years. Fox dens are commonly found on eskers, riverbanks, and other areas with sandy or gravelly soils free of permafrost; including areas suitable for aggregate sources. Arctic fox pups are born in the den between mid-April and June; whereas, red fox pups are born between April and May (Department of Environment 2011). Family groups focus much of their activity around dens until midsummer, until juvenile Red foxes disperse in the fall and juvenile Arctic foxes disperseinthespring.Foxesaresensitivetodisturbance during the denning and pup rearing periods. Due to the existing level of human activities, fox dens are not 1.3anticipated Birds at or near the selected aggregate prospects.

Birds occupy all habitat types within the region for nesting, feeding, and or staging. The migration routes between wintering and breeding grounds are traditional and are used each year. Migration is influenced and governed by weather. Birds advance northwardastheweatherwarmsandreturnsouthwhenthe weather cools. The speed of migration varies among species and is influenced by the annual prevailing weather patterns.

A total of 57 bird species occur or potentiallyAsio occur flammeus near Arviat throughout the year, not includinganatum/tundrius) seasonal migrants, rare visitors, or vagrants (Table 3). Of these species, two are considered to have special conservation status. The Short-eared Owl ( )andthePeregrineFalcon( were assessed by COSEWIC as Special Concern (April 2008 and April 2007, respectively). In Nunavut, CESCC (2011) ranks Short-eared Owls as Sensitive and Peregrine Falcons as Secure. Table 3. Bird Species Occurring or Potentially Occurring near Arviat Species Common Name Scientific Name COSEWIC Status Nunavut Conservation Status1 Birds Greater White-fronted Goose Anser albifrons Not Assessed Secure Snow Goose Chen caerulescens Not Assessed Secure Ross’s Goose Chen rossii Not Assessed Secure Brant Branta bernicla Not Assessed Secure Cackling Goose Branta hutchinsii Not Assessed Secure Canada Goose Branta canadensis Not Assessed Secure Tundra Swan Cygnus columbianus Not Assessed Secure Northern Pintail Anas acuta Not Assessed Secure GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012 | ISSUED FOR USE

Table 3. Bird Species Occurring or Potentially Occurring near Arviat Species Common Name Scientific Name COSEWIC Status Nunavut Conservation Status1 Greater Scaup Aythya marila Not Assessed Secure King Eider Somateria spectabilis Not Assessed Sensitive Common Eider Somateria mollissima Not Assessed Sensitive Long-tailed Duck Clangula hyemalis Not Assessed Sensitive Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator Not Assessed Secure Willow Ptarmigan Lagopus lagopus Not Assessed Secure Rock Ptarmigan Lagopus muta Not Assessed Secure Red-throated Loon Gavia stellata Not Assessed Secure Pacific Loon Gavia pacifica Not Assessed Secure Common Loon Gavia immer Not At Risk Secure Yellow-billed Loon Gavia adamsii Not At Risk Secure Rough-legged Hawk Buteo lagopus Not At Risk Sensitive Gyrfalcon Falco rusticolus Not At Risk Sensitive Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Special Concern Secure anatum/tundrius Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis Not At Risk Secure American Golden-Plover Pluvialis dominica Not Assessed Sensitive Semipalmated Plover Charadrius semipalmatus Not Assessed Secure Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus Not Assessed Sensitive Semipalmated Sandpiper Calidris pusilla Not Assessed Sensitive Least Sandpiper Calidris minutilla Not Assessed Sensitive Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos Not Assessed Secure Dunlin Calidris alpina Not Assessed Sensitive Stilt Sandpiper Calidris himantopus Not Assessed Secure Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus Not Assessed Sensitive Red Phalarope Phalaropus fulicarius Not Assessed Sensitive Herring Gull Larus argentatus Not Assessed Secure Arctic Tern Sterna paradisaea Not Assessed Sensitive Parasitic Jaeger Stercorarius parasiticus Not Assessed Secure Long-tailed Jaeger Stercorarius longicaudus Not Assessed Secure Black Guillemot Cepphus grylle Not Assessed Secure Snowy Owl Bubo scandiacus Not At Risk Secure Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus Special Concern Sensitive Common Raven Corvus corax Not Assessed Secure Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris Not Assessed Secure Northern Wheatear Oenanthe oenanthe Not Assessed Sensitive American Robin Turdus migratorius Not Assessed Secure European Starling Sturnus vulgaris Not Assessed Exotic American Pipit Anthus rubescens Not Assessed Sensitive

Y14101361 Environmental Assessment IFU FEBUARY 2012 GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012 | ISSUED FOR USE

Table 3. Bird Species Occurring or Potentially Occurring near Arviat Species Common Name Scientific Name COSEWIC Status Nunavut Conservation Status1 Lapland Longspur Calcarius lapponicus Not Assessed Secure Smith’s Longspur Calcarius pictus Not Assessed Secure Snow Bunting Plectrophenax nivalis Not Assessed Sensitive Blackpoll Warbler Dendroica striata NotAssessed Undetermined American Tree Sparrow Spizella arborea Not Assessed Sensitive Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis Not Assessed Secure Harris’s Sparrow Zonotrichia querula Not Assessed Sensitive White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys Not Assessed Sensitive Common Redpoll Acanthis flammea Not Assessed Secure Hoary Redpoll Acanthis hornemanni Not Assessed Sensitive House Sparrow Passer domesticus Not Assessed Exotic 1. Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council (CESCC) (2011).

(Cornell Lab of Ornithology and the American Ornithologists’ Union 2011; Nunami 2008; Nunavut Planning Commission 2011; Sale 2006; and Sibley 2003)

The Short-eared Owl and Peregrine Falcon may occupytheselectedaggregateprospectsforforaging; however, no nests are expected on the aggregate prospects themselves due to the existing level of human disturbances oret poor al. nesting habitat quality. Short-eared Owls normally nest in dry open sites on the tundra or wetlands with enough vegetation, especially willows or dwarf birch, to conceal an incubating etfemale al. (Wiggins 2006). Appropriate Short-eared Owl nesting habitat exists throughout the local area. The female builds a newet al. nest each year, consisting of a shallow hole lined with grass and feathers (Wiggins 2006). Eggs are typically laid in early to late June and the chicks fledge once they reach approximately 30 days old (Wiggins 2006). Short-eared Owls occur wherever an abundance of small mammals are present, particularly in bogs, wetlands, and other tundra areas. Peregrine Falcons prefer cliff sites, usually near water, for nesting. The selected aggregate prospects and access road routes consist of inappropriate nesting habitat for Peregrine Falcons. No Peregrine Falcon nesting sites are known on or near the selected aggregate prospects (Campbell pers. comm. 2011; Pameolik pers. comm. 2011). However, the local area would support appropriate hunting habitat particularly for 1.3.1waterfowl,Waterfowl an important prey item.

Many waterfowl species migrate to the local area for the purposes of breeding and summer feeding, and for staging before continuing on with migration. Within the local area, waterfowl breed throughout the area in varying densities, and can be expected to breed in anyet al. habitat type that meets their nesting requirements. Many species show fidelity to nesting territories. By late May many of the waterfowl are occupying their nesting areas, and depart by mid-September (Latour 2008). The tundra habitats on and surrounding the selected aggregate prospects are important waterfowl habitat and the entire area has been designated as a Key Migratory Bird Terrestrial Habitat Site due to the large numbers of breeding waterfowl. The McConnell RiverKeyMigratoryBirdTerrestrialHabitatSiteisan GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012 | ISSUED FOR USE

important area for breeding Lesser Snow Geese, Ross’s Geese, and Canada Geese. In particular, large numbers of Snowet Geese, al. representing approximately 5% of the Canadian population nest in the coastal sedge lowlands near Arviat and occupy the adjacent ponds, lakes, and sedge wetlands for feeding and moulting (Latour 2008). Migrating waterfowl likely also concentrate along the shoreline of Hudson Bay. The diets of waterfowl consist primarily of aquatic vegetation; however, aquatic invertebrates and minnows are also eaten. In general, the majority of waterfowl exploit food resources found in the shallow waters of lakes, ponds, wetlands, and sedge meadows. The crests and poorly vegetated side slopes of the selected aggregate prospects are not considered quality waterfowl nesting habitat due to limited security cover in the form of vegetation. However, the side slopes and neighbouring areas with moderate soil moisture to support a higher plant cover may provide appropriate waterfowl nesting habitat. Waterfowl may also occupy these aggregate prospects for feeding. However, the neighbouring sedge wetlands, string bogs, sedge associated habitats, tundra ponds, and the shoreline of Hudson Bay provide important waterfowl habitat including nesting, staging, and feeding. These habitat types are common across the local area including along the Maguse Road. Current and future threats of waterfowl include habitat loss and alteration including changes to the natural drainage patterns and permafrost conditions, harvesting, predation, and over-grazing of the forage 1.4resources. Fish and Fish Habitat

Atotalof11freshwaterfishspeciesoccurorpotentially occur in the local area (Table 4), as well as various marine fish species in Hudson Bay. Of these freshwater fish species, none have been assessed by COSEWIC or SARA; however, two species (Arctic Char and ArcticGrayling)arerankedbyCESCC(2011)asSensitive in Nunavut (Table 4). Table 4. Freshwater Fish Species Occurring or Potentially Occurring near Arviat ! Species Common ! Scientific Name ! COSEWIC Status ! Nunavut Name Conservation Status1 ! Freshwater Fish Arctic Char Salvelinus alpinus Not Assessed Sensitive Lake Trout Salvelinus namaycush Not Assessed Secure Lake Herring/Cisco Coregonus artedi Not Assessed Secure Lake Whitefish Coregonus clupeaformis Not Assessed Secure Round Whitefish Prosopium cylindraceum NotAssessed Undetermined Arctic Grayling Thymallus arcticus Not Assessed Sensitive Northern Pike Esox lucius Not Assessed Secure Longnose Sucker Catostomus catostomus NotAssessed Undetermined Burbot Lota lota Not Assessed Secure Ninespine Stickleback Pungitius pungitius Not Assessed Secure Slimy Sculpin Cottus cognatus NotAssessed Undetermined 1. Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council (CESCC) (2011).

Y14101361 Environmental Assessment IFU FEBUARY 2012 GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012 | ISSUED FOR USE

(Nunami 2008; Nunavut Planning Commission 2011; and Scott and Crossman 1979)

Many of the watercourses in the vicinity of the selected aggregate prospects are ephemeral to intermittent and flow in direct response to precipitation and/or surface runoff. In general, the watercourses within the local area drain tundra ponds, wetlands, and lakes in an easterly direction towards Hudson Bay. Several permanent but shallow watercourses also exist in the local area including along the Maguse Road near aggregate Prospect #6 (existing bridge crossing along the Maguse Road) and south near aggregate Prospect #5. These large shallow watercourses are known to freeze to the bottom substrate in the winter (Campbell pers. comm. 2011; Pameolik pers. comm. 2011). Two bridge crossings over intermittent watercourses currently exist, one along the Maguse Road (near aggregate Prospect #3) and another within the Hamlet limits (Campbell pers. comm. 2011; Pameolik pers. comm. 2011). Larger navigable watercourses in the region, outside the zone of influence of the selected aggregate prospects, include the Maguse River, approximately 4 km north of aggregate Prospect #6 and the McConnell River, approximately 24 km south of aggregate Prospect #5. Fish and fish habitat exist throughout the local region. Permanent water bodies may support fish on a year round basis, whereas, intermittent watercourses may periodically support fish at different life stages. Based on the DFO Nunavut Operational Statement for In-Water Construction Timing Windows, water bodies and watercourses near Arviat lie within Zone 2, which includes fall and spring spawning fish species. Fall spawners such as Arctic Char, Lake Trout, and whitefish species, may use water bodies and watercourses adjacent to the selected aggregate prospects and/or along the access road(s) for all life history stages. Spring spawning fish, including Northern Pike and Arctic Grayling, may also occupy these water bodies and watercourses on a year round basis wherever suitable habitat exists. In particular, Arctic Grayling are known to occur in the permanent watercourse along Maguse Road, near the aggregate Prospect #6 (Campbell pers. comm. 2011; Pameolik pers. comm. 2011). Of particular interest, community members are known to fish for Arctic Grayling alongthiswatercourse(Campbellpers.comm.2011; 1.4.1PameolikArctic pers. comm. Char 2011).

Coastal areas within the region are designated as an Arctic Char Area of Abundance (Nunavut Planning Commission 2011). Across their range in Nunavut, Arctic Char are considered abundant (Nunami 2008), and are ranked by CESCC (2011) as Sensitive in Nunavut. Arctic Char are found in inshore marine waters, and freshwater lakes and rivers near Arviat, and can be found far inland via larger river systems (Nunami 2008). Arctic Char may either remain permanently in freshwater or undertake an annual migration to the ocean in the spring (before or during ice breakup in June) and return to freshwater lakes/rivers in the fall to spawn and overwinter (Scott and Crossman 1979). Char spawn in the fall over gravel or cobble shoals in shallow lakes or calm river pools (with waters less than 2 m deep). Over the winter, eggs develop in the gravel/cobble bottom substrates and emerge at ice breakup (Nunami 2008; Scott and Crossman 1979). Fry remain in the freshwater lakes, rivers, and smaller watercourses until approximately 5-7 years of age, then migrate to the ocean during the summer (Scott and Crossman 1979). GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012 | ISSUED FOR USE

Spawning, rearing and overwintering habitats that are critical to char populations may occur in deeper lakes neighbouring the selected aggregate prospects, as well as along the access roads wherever appropriate habitat exists. Current and future threats to Arctic Char include over-harvesting and land use developments that disrupt 1.5critical life Sensitive history stages Environments (spawning, migration, rearing, and overwintering).

The majority if not all of the environments at or neighbouring the selected aggregate prospects are considered sensitive environments, partly due to the sensitivity of permafrost to disturbances. Permafrost inhibits vertical drainage through the soil profile (including on eskers) allowing for wetlands and shallow ponds to form at the surface. Disturbances to the surface soil may negatively affect the permafrost and, therefore, alter the surface and subsurface flow and in turn the vegetation communities and wildlife habitat. Of particular concern, the complex shallow lakes, tundra ponds, and sedge wetlands form important waterfowl habitat and are designated as a Key Migratory Bird Terrestrial Habitat Site. et al. Arviat and all the selected aggregate prospects lie within the McConnell River Key Migratory Bird Terrestrial Habitat Site (Nunavutet al. site No. 42) (Latour 2008). This important migratory bird habitat site includes a large2 area of coastal habitats fromtheThlewiazaRivernorthnearAlderLake,anarea covering 5,092 km (Latour 2008). This area is considered globally significant since it is known to host large waterfowl concentrations, as well as nationally significant for restricted range species (IBA 2011). This area hosts significant concentrations of Snow Geese, Canada Geese, and Ross’s Geese, and other waterfowl during the breeding season. Within this migratory bird terrestrial habitat site lies the McConnell River Migratory Bird Sanctuary, located approximately 25 km south of Arviat.et al. This sanctuary has additional designations as a Ramsar site (Wetland ofInternationalImportance),anImportantBirdArea (IBA) in Canada, and an International Biological Programme (IBP) Site (Latour 2008).

In addition,Polyartemiella all water bodies hazeni (including HudsonArtemiopsis Bay) and stefanssoni watercourses,Branchinecta including wetlands paludosa and the small shallow ponds on the esker crests are considered sensitive environments. Inet particular, al. fairy shrimp species ( ) and possibly and may occur in the lakes and ponds near Arviat including the shallow esker ponds (Billington 1989). These fairy shrimp may provide important food resources to waterfowl and waterbirds, particularly during migration. However, due to the high level of human activities on the selected aggregate prospects, many of these 1.6shallow esker Preliminary ponds are Impact moderately Assessment to highly disturbed.

This impact assessment should be considered preliminary until final selection of the granular source, further delineation of the aggregate prospect’s development footprint, and an environmental site assessment is completed. The development and operation of select aggregate prospects and their access road, if required, may include the following activities listed below. The scope of this preliminary assessment does not include the reclamation of the granular source(s) or their access road(s). Granular source development including removing overburden and heavy equipment use.

Y14101361 Environmental Assessment IFU FEBUARY 2012 GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012 | ISSUED FOR USE

Access road construction (including possible winter road access) and or upgrading including transportation and placement of granular fill/ice/snow, light and heavy equipment use, and culvert installation (if required). Granular source operation including heavy equipment use for excavation of granular material, stockpiling, transportation of granular material, and possibly crushing and screening activities. Access road operation including light and heavy traffic use (both related and unrelated to the development itself), road and culvert maintenance, and off-road traffic use. Due to the existing level of disturbance at or near the selected aggregate prospects, the level of negative environmental impact as a result of the development and operation of a granular source is considered low (Campbell pers. comm. 2011; Pameolik pers. comm. 2011). Any negative impacts from the development and operation of a selected aggregate prospect and road operation will be localized in geographic scale and short-term in duration. Specific to the ECs, the development and operation of a selected aggregate prospect and its access road may result in: Direct and indirect loss of vegetation communities (and wildlife habitat), possible loss of rare plants, and the introduction of invasive plants; Disturbance and mortality of barren-ground caribou primarily on their post-calving range and migration routes including the potential for increased hunting as a result of easier road access (road upgrades or new road access). Low to negligible levels of disturbance and mortality during winter. The development and operation of the aggregate prospects and access road are not expected to disturb caribou on their traditional calving ground or at known water and ice crossings; Disturbance of polar bears on a year-round basis, except during maternal denning. In addition, potential for increased mortality as a result of easier road access (road upgrades or new access road); Disturbance of red and Arctic foxes on a year-round basis, except during denning. In addition, potential for increased mortality as a result of easier road access (road upgrades or new access road); Disturbance of waterfowl during nesting, feeding, and migrations from activities occurring between late May to early September. Development of the aggregate prospect and its access road may also result in nest destruction, and increase in hunting as a result of easier road access; Direct loss of Arctic Char habitat due to the access road upgrades or new access road watercourse crossings, as well as indirect loss of habitat due to sedimentation/erosion, and introduction of harmful materials; and Direct loss and alteration of the Key Migratory Bird Habitat Site due to the development and operation of all the aggregate prospects and access road. The selected aggregate prospects exist near town and are subject to a moderate to high level of human disturbance. The development and operation of selectedaggregateprospects(includingtheirassociated access road, if required) may directly and indirectly result in loss and alteration of habitat,i.e. and low levels of wildlife avoidance and mortality. Effects may occurattheindividuallevelandonanannualbasis. Individual animals, particularly those that are more sensitive to human disturbances ( caribou) may GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012 | ISSUED FOR USE

avoid an area as a result of repeated disturbances. To avoid, minimize or mitigate the potential impacts 1.6.1discussedHabitat below, various Loss and strategies Alteration in the form of best management practices may be required.

The development of the aggregate prospects and access road (if required) will directly result in vegetation and wildlife habitat loss and alteration, including within the Key Migratory Bird Terrestrial Habitat Site. The creation and operation of an all-weather access road may disturb the underlying permafrost resulting in melting of the upper layer, particularly in low-lying poorly drained habitats. In addition, road construction or upgrades to an existing road may encourage non-project related traffic and off-road use. This off-road travel may result in vegetation loss, rutting, and disturbance to the upper layer of permafrost. Development of the aggregate prospect may also alter natural surface drainage patterns and indirectly effect downstream vegetation communities. In addition, the development and operation of the aggregate prospect and all-weather access road (if required) (including the use of light and heavy equipment, possible crushing and screening activities, stockpiling, and transport) may increase fugitive dust. This fugitive dust may negatively affect vegetation productivity and biodiversity at a local scale by increasing the heat absorption and reducing transpiration. Fugitive dust from the development and operation phases may also change the quality of water in nearby waterbodies. In particular, road construction in or near watercourses may increase downstream sedimentation and alter water quantity during construction and operation, whereby negatively affecting fish and fish habitat. The development of the selected aggregate prospects selectively removes habitats appropriate for denning. This selective removal of denning habitat may affect denning carnivores in the local area. Den site fidelity is common in carnivores such as grizzly bears, wolves, and foxes. In addition, an access road, if required, 1.6.2may be developedWildlife in Avoidance habitats supporting and Mortality nesting Short-eared Owls and waterfowl.

Currently, a moderate to high level of human activities/disturbances exist at all the selected aggregate prospects. An increase in noise and human presence as a result of the aggregate prospect development is considered low to negligible. That being said, the development of an aggregate prospect and its access road will increased noise and human presence and as a resultmaymakeadjacenthabitatslessfavourablefor many species. Some species may avoid the selected aggregate prospects (and associated all-weather or winter access road) or change their pattern of use. Animals that avoid or hesitate to cross roads or those that are disturbed by equipment/vehicles may expend greater energy. Typically, wildlife are most sensitive to disturbance during their winter denning and reproductive periods. Potential direct and indirect wildlife mortality may occur as a result of the development and operation of the selected aggregate prospects, including its associated access road. Direct effects include wildlife- vehicle/equipment collision. Wildlife–vehicle collisions may result in direct wildlife mortality. Birds and small mammals are the species group most often hit by traffic; however, large mammal-vehicle collisions may also occur. Indirect effects include increased predation, hunting, trapping, and problem wildlife as a result of the development and operation of the select aggregate prospects and their associated

Y14101361 Environmental Assessment IFU FEBUARY 2012 GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012 | ISSUED FOR USE

infrastructure. In particular, the initial stages of development at the selected aggregate prospects and along an access road may damage or destroy bird eggs and young. Wildlife, such as bears, wolverines, foxes, and raptors may also become attracted to the aggregate prospects and associated access road due to food wastes and wildlife killed by vehicles resulting in an 1.7increase in Possible human-wildlife Mitigation encounters and problem wildlife.

The development and operation of an aggregate prospect site and access road (if required) has the potential to cause low but negative direct and indirect effects to the selected ECs. Mitigation measures to avoid and or minimize these negative effects may be required. Additional terms and conditions may be recommended in applicable permits/licences. Possible mitigation measures that may be considered upon final environmental assessment include: Minimize the disturbance footprint wherever possible; Avoid or minimize the disturbance to the banks of watercourses; Restrict excavation each year to the active layer to prevent the slopes becoming unstable and causing erosion due to permafrost melt; Maintain or manage drainage conditions at the aggregate prospects and along the access road; Preparation and application of a Dust Management Plan (possibly including the use of non-toxic dust suppression chemicals) at the aggregate source and along the all-season access road; Creation of at least 30 m undisturbed buffer zones between the high water mark of water bodies and the construction/operation zones; Restriction of road and aggregate source development to non-critical wildlife periods, particularly for fish spawning and waterfowl nesting; Compliance to the DFO Nunavut Operational Statement for In-Water Construction Timing Windows which indicate in-water activities are not permitted from August 15 to July 15 to protect fish; Design culverts to accommodate fish passage; Enforcement of speed limits and litter prevention including storing petroleum products in bear-proof containers; Give all wildlife the right-of-way; Manage runoff and erosion potential. For example the installment of sedimentation/erosion control measures including stabilization of the disturbed face, slope minimum horizontal to vertical ratio of 2:1, and installation of silt fences down-gradient from the quarrying activities; Preparation and education of spill contingency planning; and Monitoring the effectiveness of mitigation to avoid or minimize negative environmental effects, particularly to species with special conservation status. GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012 | ISSUED FOR USE

1.8 Level of Environmental Risk

In general, aggregate prospects with a lower development footprint (including those with an existing access road) pose less negative environmental risk than aggregate prospects with larger footprints. However, an aggregate prospect that has sufficient material to support the community needs for an extended period of time will cause less environmental impact than developing multiple smaller aggregate prospects.

Y14101361 Environmental Assessment IFU FEBUARY 2012 GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012 | ISSUED FOR USE – REVISION 1

APPENDIX C LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

Y14101361 IFU - REVISION 1_13 February 2012 SIEVE ANALYSIS REPORT Washed Sieve: ASTM C136 and C117

Project No.: Y14101361 Sample No.: 5548-1 Project: Granular Program Study Date Sampled: August 3, 2011 Client: Government of Nunavut Sampled by: KCK Attention: Cesar Concepcion Date Tested: August 23, 2011 Email: [email protected] Tested by: AR Office: Yellowknife Description: Moisture Content (as received): 6.4% SAND, trace gravel, trace fines (silt / clay) No. Crushed Faces:Two (2) or Three (3) Source: Arviat Airstrip Esker West By Particle Mass: Supplier: N/A Sample Location: Testpit 1A - 10 to 25 cm Specification:

100 Sieve Percent Size Passing 90

16 100 50 12.5 100

10 100 40 5 98 2.5 96 30 1.25 89 20 0.630 62 0.315 31 10 0.160 4

0.080 0.8 0 0.080 0.160 0.315 0.630 1.25 2.5 5 10 16 25 40 50 12.5 20 Sieve Size (mm)

Remarks: USC = SW

Reviewed By:

Data presented hereon is for the sole use of the stipulated client. EBA is not responsible, nor can be held liable, for use made of this report by any other party, with or without the knowledge of EBA. The testing services reported herein have been performed by an EBA technician to recognized industry standards, unless otherwise noted. No other warranty is made. These data do not include or represent any interpretation or opinion of specification compliance or material suitability. Should engineering interpretation be required, EBA will provide it upon written request. SIEVE ANALYSIS REPORT Washed Sieve: ASTM C136 and C117

Project No.: Y14101361 Sample No.: 5548-2 Project: Granular Program Study Date Sampled: August 3, 2011 Client: Government of Nunavut Sampled by: KCK Attention: Cesar Concepcion Date Tested: August 23, 2011 Email: [email protected] Tested by: AR Office: Yellowknife Description: Moisture Content (as received): 2.5% SAND and GRAVEL, trace fines (silt / clay) No. Crushed Faces:Two (2) or Three (3) Source: Arviat Airstrip Esker West By Particle Mass: Supplier: N/A Sample Location: Testpit 1A - 70 to 110 cm Specification:

100 Sieve Percent Size Passing 90

80 100 80 50 84 40 77 70 25 73 60 20 69 16 68 50 12.5 66

10 63 40 5 53 2.5 44 30 1.25 31 20 0.630 22 0.315 14 10 0.160 2

0.080 0.9 0 0.080 0.160 0.315 0.630 1.25 2.5 5 10 16 25 40 50 12.5 20 Sieve Size (mm)

Remarks: USC = SW

Reviewed By:

Project No.: Y14101361 Sample No.: 5548-3 Project: Granular Program Study Date Sampled: August 4, 2011 Client: Government of Nunavut Sampled by: KCK Attention: Cesar Concepcion Date Tested: August 23, 2011 Email: [email protected] Tested by: AR Office: Yellowknife Description: Moisture Content (as received): 1.6% GRAVEL, sandy, trace fines (silt / clay) No. Crushed Faces:Two (2) or Three (3) Source: Arviat Prospect #4 East By Particle Mass: Supplier: N/A Sample Location: Testpit 2A - 0 to 50 cm Specification:

100 Sieve Percent Size Passing 90

80 100 80 50 93 40 83 70 25 69 60 20 60 16 53 50 12.5 48

10 44 40 5 34 2.5 26 30 1.25 16 20 0.630 8 0.315 4 10 0.160 2

0.080 1.1 0 0.080 0.160 0.315 0.630 1.25 2.5 5 10 16 25 40 50 12.5 20 Sieve Size (mm)

Remarks: USC = GW

Reviewed By:

Project No.: Y14101361 Sample No.: 5548-4 Project: Granular Program Study Date Sampled: August 4, 2011 Client: Government of Nunavut Sampled by: KCK Attention: Cesar Concepcion Date Tested: August 24, 2011 Email: [email protected] Tested by: AR Office: Yellowknife Description: Moisture Content (as received): 2.4% GRAVEL and SAND, trace fines (silt / clay) No. Crushed Faces:Two (2) or Three (3) Source: Arviat Prospect #4 East By Particle Mass: Supplier: N/A Sample Location: Testpit 4A - 0 to 65 cm Specification:

100 Sieve Percent Size Passing 90

80 50 100 40 99 70 25 87 60 20 76 16 69 50 12.5 62

10 55 40 5 42 2.5 32 30 1.25 24 20 0.630 13 0.315 4 10 0.160 1

0.080 0.7 0 0.080 0.160 0.315 0.630 1.25 2.5 5 10 16 25 40 50 12.5 20 Sieve Size (mm)

Remarks: USC = GP

Reviewed By:

Project No.: Y14101361 Sample No.: 5548-5 Project: Granular Program Study Date Sampled: August 4, 2011 Client: Government of Nunavut Sampled by: KCK Attention: Cesar Concepcion Date Tested: August 25, 2011 Email: [email protected] Tested by: AR Office: Yellowknife Description: Moisture Content (as received): 3.3% GRAVEL, sandy, trace fines (silt / clay) No. Crushed Faces:Two (2) or Three (3) Source: Arviat Prospect #4 East By Particle Mass: Supplier: N/A Sample Location: Testpit 5A - 0 to 30 cm Specification:

100 Sieve Percent Size Passing 90

80 50 100 40 95 70 25 70 60 20 64 16 57 50 12.5 49

10 43 40 5 34 2.5 32 30 1.25 28 20 0.630 15 0.315 3 10 0.160 1

0.080 0.7 0 0.080 0.160 0.315 0.630 1.25 2.5 5 10 16 25 40 50 12.5 20 Sieve Size (mm)

Remarks: USC = GP

Reviewed By:

Project No.: Y14101361 Sample No.: 5548-6 Project: Granular Program Study Date Sampled: August 4, 2011 Client: Government of Nunavut Sampled by: KCK Attention: Cesar Concepcion Date Tested: August 23, 2011 Email: [email protected] Tested by: AR Office: Yellowknife Description: Moisture Content (as received): 9.7% SAND, gravelly, some fines (silt / clay) No. Crushed Faces:Two (2) or Three (3) Source: Arviat Prospect #4 East By Particle Mass: Supplier: N/A Sample Location: Testpit 5A - 30 to 50 cm Specification:

100 Sieve Percent Size Passing 90

40 100 70 25 92 60 20 90 16 88 50 12.5 86

10 85 40 5 78 2.5 73 30 1.25 69 20 0.630 64 0.315 50 10 0.160 24

0.080 16.6 0 0.080 0.160 0.315 0.630 1.25 2.5 5 10 16 25 40 50 12.5 20 Sieve Size (mm)

Remarks: USC = SM

Reviewed By:

Project No.: Y14101361 Sample No.: 5548-7 Project: Granular Program Study Date Sampled: August 4, 2011 Client: Government of Nunavut Sampled by: KCK Attention: Cesar Concepcion Date Tested: August 24, 2011 Email: [email protected] Tested by: AR Office: Yellowknife Description: Moisture Content (as received): 1.4% GRAVEL, sandy, trace fines (silt / clay) No. Crushed Faces:Two (2) or Three (3) Source: Arviat Prospect #3 By Particle Mass: Supplier: N/A Sample Location: Testpit 6A - 40 to 80 cm Specification:

100 Sieve Percent Size Passing 90

80 50 100 40 98 70 25 84 60 20 77 16 67 50 12.5 59

10 51 40 5 33 2.5 23 30 1.25 14 20 0.630 4 0.315 1 10 0.160 1

0.080 0.6 0 0.080 0.160 0.315 0.630 1.25 2.5 5 10 16 25 40 50 12.5 20 Sieve Size (mm)

Remarks: USC = GW

Reviewed By:

Project No.: Y14101361 Sample No.: 5548-8 Project: Granular Program Study Date Sampled: August 4, 2011 Client: Government of Nunavut Sampled by: KCK Attention: Cesar Concepcion Date Tested: August 24, 2011 Email: [email protected] Tested by: AR Office: Yellowknife Description: Moisture Content (as received): 2.5% SAND, gravelly, trace fines (silt / clay) No. Crushed Faces:Two (2) or Three (3) Source: Arviat Prospect #3 By Particle Mass: Supplier: N/A Sample Location: Testpit 6A - 80 to 120 cm Specification:

100 Sieve Percent Size Passing 90

80 50 100 40 90 70 25 86 60 20 85 16 81 50 12.5 79

10 77 40 5 69 2.5 58 30 1.25 46 20 0.630 30 0.315 16 10 0.160 5

0.080 1.6 0 0.080 0.160 0.315 0.630 1.25 2.5 5 10 16 25 40 50 12.5 20 Sieve Size (mm)

Remarks: USC = SP

Reviewed By:

Project No.: Y14101361 Sample No.: 5548-9 Project: Granular Program Study Date Sampled: August 4, 2011 Client: Government of Nunavut Sampled by: KCK Attention: Cesar Concepcion Date Tested: August 25, 2011 Email: [email protected] Tested by: AR Office: Yellowknife Description: Moisture Content (as received): 4.1% SAND, some gravel, trace fines (silt / clay) No. Crushed Faces:Two (2) or Three (3) Source: Arviat Prospect #1 By Particle Mass: Supplier: N/A Sample Location: Testpit 8A - 0 to 50 cm Specification:

100 Sieve Percent Size Passing 90

40 100 70 25 97 60 20 95 16 93 50 12.5 91

10 89 40 5 84 2.5 77 30 1.25 63 20 0.630 22 0.315 3 10 0.160 2

0.080 1.1 0 0.080 0.160 0.315 0.630 1.25 2.5 5 10 16 25 40 50 12.5 20 Sieve Size (mm)

Remarks: USC = SP

Reviewed By:

Project No.: Y14101361 Sample No.: 5548-10 Project: Granular Program Study Date Sampled: August 4, 2011 Client: Government of Nunavut Sampled by: KCK Attention: Cesar Concepcion Date Tested: December 12, 2011 Email: [email protected] Tested by: AR Office: Yellowknife Description: GRAVEL and SAND, trace fines and oversize Moisture Content (as received): 5.7% material see below No. Crushed Faces:Two (2) or Three (3) Source: Arviat Prospect #2 By Particle Mass: Supplier: N/A Sample Location: Testpit 7A - 40 to 60 cm Specification:

100 Sieve Percent Size Passing 90

80 100 80 50 92 40 89 70 25 79 60 20 73 16 68 50 12.5 64

10 61 40 5 53 2.5 47 30 1.25 42 20 0.630 35 0.315 27 10 0.160 11

0.080 8.1 0 0.080 0.160 0.315 0.630 1.25 2.5 5 10 16 25 40 50 12.5 20 Sieve Size (mm)

Remarks: USC = SP - GP Visual estimate of oversize material is 30%

Reviewed By:

Project No.: Y14101361 Sample No.: 5590-1 Project: Granular Program Study Date Sampled: September 27, 2011 Client: Government of Nunavut Sampled by: KCK Attention: Cesar Concepcion Date Tested: October 24, 2011 Email: [email protected] Tested by: JM Office: Yellowknife Description: Moisture Content (as received): 0.1% GRAVEL, very clean No. Crushed Faces:Two (2) or Three (3) Source: Arviat Prospect #5 By Particle Mass: Supplier: N/A Sample Location: Testpit 1B - 10 to 30 cm Specification:

100 Sieve Percent Size Passing 90

80 50 100 40 97 70 25 59 60 20 37 16 24 50 12.5 13

10 6 40 5 0 2.5 0 30 1.25 0 20 0.630 0 0.315 0 10 0.160 0

0.080 0.1 0 0.080 0.160 0.315 0.630 1.25 2.5 5 10 16 25 40 50 12.5 20 Sieve Size (mm)

Remarks: USC = GP

Reviewed By:

Project No.: Y14101361 Sample No.: 5590-2 Project: Granular Program Study Date Sampled: September 27, 2011 Client: Government of Nunavut Sampled by: KCK Attention: Cesar Concepcion Date Tested: October 20, 2011 Email: [email protected] Tested by: JM Office: Yellowknife Description: Moisture Content (as received): 1.9% GRAVEL and SAND, trace fines (silt / clay) No. Crushed Faces:Two (2) or Three (3) Source: Arviat Prospect #5 By Particle Mass: Supplier: N/A Sample Location: Testpit 1B - 30 to 60 cm Specification:

100 Sieve Percent Size Passing 90

80 50 100 40 96 70 25 82 60 20 76 16 68 50 12.5 63

10 56 40 5 43 2.5 31 30 1.25 17 20 0.630 10 0.315 5 10 0.160 3

0.080 2.4 0 0.080 0.160 0.315 0.630 1.25 2.5 5 10 16 25 40 50 12.5 20 Sieve Size (mm)

Remarks: USC = GP

Reviewed By:

Project No.: Y14101361 Sample No.: 5590-3 Project: Granular Program Study Date Sampled: September 27, 2011 Client: Government of Nunavut Sampled by: KCK Attention: Cesar Concepcion Date Tested: October 20, 2011 Email: [email protected] Tested by: JM Office: Yellowknife Description: Moisture Content (as received): 2.4% SAND, some gravel, trace fines (silt / clay) No. Crushed Faces:Two (2) or Three (3) Source: Arviat Prospect #5 By Particle Mass: Supplier: N/A Sample Location: Testpit 1B - 60 to 110 cm Specification:

100 Sieve Percent Size Passing 90

40 100 70 25 92 60 20 92 16 90 50 12.5 88

10 87 40 5 82 2.5 77 30 1.25 71 20 0.630 61 0.315 38 10 0.160 14

0.080 6.2 0 0.080 0.160 0.315 0.630 1.25 2.5 5 10 16 25 40 50 12.5 20 Sieve Size (mm)

Remarks: USC = SP

Reviewed By:

Project No.: Y14101361 Sample No.: 5590-4 Project: Granular Program Study Date Sampled: September 27, 2011 Client: Government of Nunavut Sampled by: KCK Attention: Cesar Concepcion Date Tested: October 20, 2011 Email: [email protected] Tested by: JM Office: Yellowknife Description: Moisture Content (as received): 1.2% GRAVEL and SAND, trace fines (silt / clay) No. Crushed Faces:Two (2) or Three (3) Source: Arviat, Prospect #4 West By Particle Mass: Supplier: N/A Sample Location: Testpit 2B - 20 to 40 cm Specification:

100 Sieve Percent Size Passing 90

80 100 80 50 98 40 92 70 25 78 60 20 71 16 65 50 12.5 59

10 55 40 5 46 2.5 37 30 1.25 28 20 0.630 14 0.315 3 10 0.160 2

0.080 1.3 0 0.080 0.160 0.315 0.630 1.25 2.5 5 10 16 25 40 50 12.5 20 Sieve Size (mm)

Remarks: USC = GP

Reviewed By:

Project No.: Y14101361 Sample No.: 5590-5 Project: Granular Program Study Date Sampled: September 28, 2011 Client: Government of Nunavut Sampled by: KCK Attention: Cesar Concepcion Date Tested: October 24, 2011 Email: [email protected] Tested by: JM Office: Yellowknife Description: Moisture Content (as received): 0.5% GRAVEL, some sand, trace fines (silt / clay) No. Crushed Faces:Two (2) or Three (3) Source: Arviat Prospect #6 By Particle Mass: Supplier: N/A Sample Location: Testpit 3B - 20 to 70 cm Specification:

100 Sieve Percent Size Passing 90

80 100 80 50 90 40 82 70 25 61 60 20 48 16 37 50 12.5 32

10 28 40 5 19 2.5 10 30 1.25 3 20 0.630 2 0.315 2 10 0.160 2

0.080 1.4 0 0.080 0.160 0.315 0.630 1.25 2.5 5 10 16 25 40 50 12.5 20 Sieve Size (mm)

Remarks: USC = GW

Reviewed By:

Project No.: Y14101361 Sample No.: 5590-6 Project: Granular Program Study Date Sampled: September 29, 2011 Client: Government of Nunavut Sampled by: KCK Attention: Cesar Concepcion Date Tested: October 24, 2011 Email: [email protected] Tested by: JM Office: Yellowknife Description: Moisture Content (as received): 1.4% GRAVEL and SAND, trace fines (silt / clay) No. Crushed Faces:Two (2) or Three (3) Source: Arviat Prospect #6 By Particle Mass: Supplier: N/A Sample Location: Testpit 4B - 20 to 70 cm Specification:

100 Sieve Percent Size Passing 90

80 100 80 50 96 40 84 70 25 69 60 20 61 16 55 50 12.5 51

10 48 40 5 42 2.5 36 30 1.25 27 20 0.630 9 0.315 2 10 0.160 1

0.080 0.6 0 0.080 0.160 0.315 0.630 1.25 2.5 5 10 16 25 40 50 12.5 20 Sieve Size (mm)

Remarks: USC = GP

Reviewed By:

Project No.: Y14101361 Sample No.: 5590-7 Project: Granular Program Study Date Sampled: September 29, 2011 Client: Government of Nunavut Sampled by: KCK Attention: Cesar Concepcion Date Tested: October 20, 2011 Email: [email protected] Tested by: JM Office: Yellowknife Description: Moisture Content (as received): 0.4% GRAVEL, trace sand, trace fines (silt / clay) No. Crushed Faces:Two (2) or Three (3) Source: Arviat Prospect #6 By Particle Mass: Supplier: N/A Sample Location: Testpit 5B - 0 to 30 cm Specification:

100 Sieve Percent Size Passing 90

80 100 80 50 96 40 88 70 25 61 60 20 44 16 30 50 12.5 21

10 15 40 5 6 2.5 4 30 1.25 4 20 0.630 3 0.315 1 10 0.160 1

0.080 0.5 0 0.080 0.160 0.315 0.630 1.25 2.5 5 10 16 25 40 50 12.5 20 Sieve Size (mm)

Remarks: USC = GP

Reviewed By:

Data presented hereon is for the sole use of the stipulated client. EBA is not responsible, nor can be held liable, for use made of this report by any other party, with or without the knowledge of EBA. The testing services reported herein have been performed by an EBA technician to recognized industry standards, unless otherwise noted. No other warranty is made. These data do not include or represent any interpretation or opinion of specification compliance or material suitability. Should engineering interpretation be required, EBA will provide it upon written request. CONCRETE AGGREGATE ANALYSIS REPORT CSA A23.2-2A and CSA A23.2-5A

Project No.:Y14101361 Sample No.: 5590-8 Project: Granular Program Study Date Sampled: September 27, 2011 Client:Governement of Nunaut Date Tested: December 7, 2011 Attention:Cesar Concepcion Tested by: AR Office: Yellowknife Email: [email protected] Moisture Content: 0.3% Description:GRAVEL and SAND, trace fines Colour Plate No.: Source:Arviat Prospect #5 Bulk Relative Density: Sample Location: Testpit 1B *See Remarks Bulk Relative Density (SSD): Supplier:N/A Apparent Relative Density: Specification:CSA Group II 20-10 mm Coarse Aggregate Absorption:

100 Sieve Percent Sizes Passing 90

70 28 100

20 99 60 14 64 10 47 50 5 38 40

2.5 34 Percent Passing 1.25 31 30 0.630 27 0.315 17 20 0.160 7 10 0.080 2.9

0 0.080 0.160 0.315 0.630 1.25 2.5 5 10 14 20 28 40 56

Sieve Size (mm)

Remarks: USC = GP *Composite of 5590-1 and 5590-3

Reviewed By: C.E.T.

Data presented hereon is for the sole use of the stipulated client. EBA is not responsible, nor can be held liable, for use made of this report by any other party, with or without the knowledge of EBA. The testing services reported herein have been performed by an EBA technician to recognized industry standards, unless otherwise noted. No other warranty is made. These data do not include or represent any interpretation or opinion of specification compliance or material suitability. Should engineering interpretation be required, EBA will provide it upon written request. Flat and Elongated Particles in Coarse Aggregate CSA A23.2-13A, Procedure B

Project:Granular Program Studay Sample No.: 5590-8 Project No:Y14101361 Description.: Client:Governement of Nunavut Sampled By: KCK Date Tested: December 13, 2010 Attention:Ceser Concepcion Fax: Tested By: AR Email:[email protected] Office: Yellowknife Source: Arviat Prospect #5 - Crushed Composite of 5590-1 and 5590-3

Mass of Fraction Subsample Length of Subsample Size Fraction Total Flat Particles Fraction Percentage Mass Gauge Factor Mass of Flat (mm) (g) (g) (%) (g) (1.8 xG) = L (g)

37.5 - 28 19.7 ± 0.3 0.0 0.0 28 - 20 14.4 ± 0.15 0.0 0.0 20 - 14 859.5 32.9 859.5 10.2 ± 0.15 1.0 90.7 90.7 14 - 10 460.1 17.6 460.1 7.2 ± 0.1 1.0 66.3 66.3 10 - 6.3 211.2 8.1 98.0 4.9 ± 0.1 2.2 14.5 31.2 Total Mass1530.8 Total Flat Particles (g) 188.2 Total Flat Particles 12.3%

Subsample Mass of Fraction Subsample Length of Total Elongated Size Fraction Mass of Fraction Percentage Mass Gauge Factor Particles (mm) Elongated (g) (%) (g) (1.8 xG) = L (g) (g) 37.5 - 28 59.0 ± 0.3 0.0 0.0 28 - 20 43.2 ± 0.3 0.0 0.0 20 - 14 859.5 32.9 859.5 30.6 ± 0.3 1.0 125.7 125.7 14 - 10 460.1 17.6 460.1 21.6 ± 0.2 1.0 138.7 138.7 10 - 6.3 211.2 8.1 98.0 14.7 ± 0.2 2.2 44.3 95.5 Total Mass1530.8 Total Elongated Particles (g) 359.9 Total Elongated Particles 23.5%

Remarks: Procedure B. Only 120 particles in 20-14 range & 151 particles in 14-10 range

Reviewed By: C.E.T.

Data presented hereon is for the sole use of the stipulated client. EBA is not responsible, nor can be held liable, for use made of this report by any other party, with or without the knowledge of EBA. The testing services reported herein have been performed by an EBA technician to recognized industry standards, unless otherwise noted. No other warranty is made. These data do not include or represent any interpretation or opinion of specification compliance or material suitability. Should engineering interpretation be required, EBA will provide it upon written request. FRACTURED PARTICLES IN COARSE AGGREGATE (Fracture Count) ASTM D 5821

Project No: Y14101361 Sample No.: 5590-8 Project: Granular Study Program Date Sampled: September 28, 2011 Client:Governemnt of Nunavut Sampled By: KCK Date Tested: December 15, 2011 Attention:Cesar Concepcion Fax: Tested By: AR Email:[email protected] Office: Yellowknife

Description: GRAVEL & SAND, trace fines Source: Arviat Prospect #5 Sample Location: Testpit 1B *See Remarks Supplier:

One Two Sieve Size Sample Grading, Portion in Rounded One Face Two Face Face Face % passing Size, % (g) (%) (%) Passing Retained (g) (g)

28 5 100 100 436.4 N/A 815.6 65%

Weighted Average: 65%

Remarks: *Crushed Composite of 5590-1 and 5590-3

Reviewed By: P.Eng.

Data presented hereon is for the sole use of the stipulated client. EBA is not responsible, nor can be held liable, for use made of this report by any other party, with or without the knowledge of EBA.The testing services reported herein have been performed by an EBA technician to recognized industry standards, unless otherwise noted. No other warranty is made. These data do not include or represent any interpretation or opinion of specification compliance or material suitability. Should engineering interpretation be required, EBA will provide it upon written request. Table: 2 SUMMARY OF PETROGRAPHIC ANALYSIS OF FINE AGGREGATE CSA A23.2-04, 15A

Project: Granular Program Study Sample No.: 5590.8 Client: Government of Nunavut Date Received: 28-Sep-11 Project No.: Y14101361 Date Tested: 14-Dec-11 Source: Arviat Prospect #5 Petrographer: WJ Description: Sand Office: Calgary

5.0-2.5mm 2.5-1.25mm 1.25-630µm 630-315µm 315-160µm Weighted Rock Type % in fraction % in fraction% in fraction % in fraction % in fraction Average

Granite/Gneiss 81.6 79.579.2 80.9 74.9 78.7 Trachyte 14.6 11.310.9 11.9 13.7 12.6 Rhyollite 3.7 4.32.7 2.6 1.7 2.6 Quartzite 0.0 5.07.2 4.6 9.7 6.0

Percent of Fraction: 4 34 10 10

Weighted Average Chert Content: 0.0%

Weighted Total Ironstone Content: 0.0% (Retained on the 2.5mm sieve)

Notes

(1) Silica present in the above-identified rock types (*) has a potential for reaction with alkali compounds in Portland cement. The potential for alkali-aggregate reactivity (AAR) must be separately assessed.

(2) See CSA A23.1 and A23.2 for assessment of AAR in new concrete construction. In the absence of test results, this aggregate should be considered moderately reactive.

Petrographer:

Data presented hereon is for the sole use of the stipulated client. EBA is not responsible, nor can be held liable, for use made of this report by any other party, with or without the knowledge of EBA. The testing services reported herein have been performed by an EBA technician to recognized industry standards, unless otherwise noted. No other warranty is made. These data do not include or represent any interpretation or opinion of specification compliance or material suitability. Should engineering interpretation be required, EBA will provide it upon written request. Table: 1 Summary of Petrographic Analysis of Coarse Aggregate Test Report CSA 23.2-04 15A

Project: Granular Program Study Sample No.: 5590-8 Client: Government of Nunavut Date Received: September 28, 2011 Project No.: Y14101361 Date Tested: December 14, 2011 Source: Arviat Prospect #5 Petrographer: WJ Description: Gravel Office: Calgary

Petrographic28 - 20 mm 20 - 14 mm 14 - 10 mm 10 - 5 mm Weighted Rock Type Multiplier% in fraction % in fraction % in fraction % in fraction Average %

Good - High Strength GRANITE/GNEISS 1 78.4 81.4 71.0 78.2 TRACHYTE 1 10.8 12.1 13.7 11.6 RHYOLITE 1 7.1 1.7 6.2 5.5

Fair - Medium Strength GRANITE/GNEISS- weathered 3 3.7 4.3 7.4 4.4 TRACHYTE - weak 3 0.0 0.5 1.3 0.3

Poor - Low Strength GRANITE/GNEISS - weak 6 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.1

Deleterious

Petrographic Number :Not Tested 107 110 119

Percent of Fraction in Sample:0.0 36.0 17.0 9.0

Weighted Average Petrographic Number: 110

Weighted Average Chert Content: 0.0 %

Weighted Average Ironstone Content: 0.0 %

Petrographer:

Data presented hereon is for the sole use of the stipulated client. EBA is not responsible, nor can be held liable, for use made of this report by any other party, with or without the knowledge of EBA. The testing services reported herein have been performed by an EBA petrographer to recognized industry standards, unless otherwise noted. No other warranty is made. These data do not include or represent any interpretation or opinion of specification compliance or material suitability. Should engineering interpretation be required, EBA will provide it upon written request. CONCRETE AGGREGATE ANALYSIS REPORT CSA A23.2-2A and CSA A23.2-5A

Project No.:Y14101361 Sample No.: 5590-9 Project: Granular Program Study Date Sampled: September 29, 2011 Client:Governement of Nunaut Date Tested: December 7, 2011 Attention:Cesar Concepcion Tested by: AR Office: Yellowknife Email: [email protected] Moisture Content: 0.3% Description:GRAVEL, some sand, trace fines Colour Plate No.: Source:Arviat Prospect #6 Bulk Relative Density: Sample Location: Testpit 3B + 4B + 5B *See remarks Bulk Relative Density (SSD): Supplier:N/A Apparent Relative Density: Specification:CSA Group I 20-5 mm Coarse Aggregate Absorption:

100 Sieve Percent Sizes Passing 90

70 28 100

20 99 60 14 54 10 36 50 5 22 40

2.5 15 Percent Passing 1.25 10 30 0.630 5 0.315 3 20 0.160 2 10 0.080 1.1

0 0.080 0.160 0.315 0.630 1.25 2.5 5 10 14 20 28 40 56

Sieve Size (mm)

Remarks: USC = GW *Composite of 5590-5, 5590-6,and 5590-7

Reviewed By: C.E.T.

Data presented hereon is for the sole use of the stipulated client. EBA is not responsible, nor can be held liable, for use made of this report by any other party, with or without the knowledge of EBA. The testing services reported herein have been performed by an EBA technician to recognized industry standards, unless otherwise noted. No other warranty is made. These data do not include or represent any interpretation or opinion of specification compliance or material suitability. Should engineering interpretation be required, EBA will provide it upon written request. Flat and Elongated Particles in Coarse Aggregate CSA A23.2-13A, Procedure B

Project:Granular Program Studay Sample No.: 5590-9 Project No:Y14101361 Description.: Client:Governement of Nunavut Sampled By: KCK Date Tested: December 13, 2010 Attention:Ceser Concepcion Fax: Tested By: AR Email:[email protected] Office: Yellowknife Source: Arviat Prospect #6 - Crushed Composite of 5590-5, 5590-6, and 5590-7

Mass of Fraction Subsample Length of Subsample Size Fraction Total Flat Particles Fraction Percentage Mass Gauge Factor Mass of Flat (mm) (g) (g) (%) (g) (1.8 xG) = L (g)

37.5 - 28 19.7 ± 0.3 0.0 0.0 28 - 20 14.4 ± 0.15 0.0 0.0 20 - 14 2120.6 44.3 1515.2 10.2 ± 0.15 1.4 187.4 262.3 14 - 10 839.4 17.5 839.4 7.2 ± 0.1 1.0 66.8 66.8 10 - 6.3 502.8 10.5 100.9 4.9 ± 0.1 5.0 20.1 100.2 Total Mass3462.8 Total Flat Particles (g) 429.2 Total Flat Particles 12.4%

Subsample Mass of Fraction Subsample Length of Total Elongated Size Fraction Mass of Fraction Percentage Mass Gauge Factor Particles (mm) Elongated (g) (%) (g) (1.8 xG) = L (g) (g) 37.5 - 28 59.0 ± 0.3 0.0 0.0 28 - 20 43.2 ± 0.3 0.0 0.0 20 - 14 2120.6 44.3 1515.2 30.6 ± 0.3 1.4 288.8 404.2 14 - 10 839.4 17.5 839.4 21.6 ± 0.2 1.0 171.6 171.6 10 - 6.3 502.8 10.5 100.9 14.7 ± 0.2 5.0 34.4 171.4 Total Mass3462.8 Total Elongated Particles (g) 747.2 Total Elongated Particles 21.6%

Remarks:

Reviewed By: C.E.T.

Data presented hereon is for the sole use of the stipulated client. EBA is not responsible, nor can be held liable, for use made of this report by any other party, with or without the knowledge of EBA. The testing services reported herein have been performed by an EBA technician to recognized industry standards, unless otherwise noted. No other warranty is made. These data do not include or represent any interpretation or opinion of specification compliance or material suitability. Should engineering interpretation be required, EBA will provide it upon written request. FRACTURED PARTICLES IN COARSE AGGREGATE (Fracture Count) ASTM D 5821

Project No: Y14101361 Sample No.: 5590-9 Project: Granular Study Program Date Sampled: September 28, 2011 Client:Governemnt of Nunavut Sampled By: KCK Date Tested: December 15, 2011 Attention:Cesar Concepcion Fax: Tested By: AR Email:[email protected] Office: Yellowknife

Description: GRAVEL, some sand, trace fines Source: Arviat Prospect #6 Sample Location: Testpit 3B+4B+5B *See Remarks Supplier:

One Two Sieve Size Sample Grading, Portion in Rounded One Face Two Face Face Face % passing Size, % (g) (%) (%) Passing Retained (g) (g)

28 5 100 100 625.9 N/A 955.8 60%

Weighted Average: 60%

Remarks: Crushed Composite of 5590-5, 5590-6, and 5590-7

Reviewed By: P.Eng.

Data presented hereon is for the sole use of the stipulated client. EBA is not responsible, nor can be held liable, for use made of this report by any other party, with or without the knowledge of EBA.The testing services reported herein have been performed by an EBA technician to recognized industry standards, unless otherwise noted. No other warranty is made. These data do not include or represent any interpretation or opinion of specification compliance or material suitability. Should engineering interpretation be required, EBA will provide it upon written request. Table: 3 Summary of Petrographic Analysis of Coarse Aggregate Test Report CSA 23.2-04 15A

Project: Granular Program Study Sample No.: 5590.9 Client: Government of Nunavut Date Received: September 28, 2011 Project No.: Y14101361 Date Tested: December 14, 2011 Source: Arviat Prospect #6 Petrographer: WJ Description: Gravel Office: Calgary

Petrographic28 - 20 mm 20 - 14 mm 14 - 10 mm 10 - 5 mm Weighted Rock Type Multiplier% in fraction % in fraction % in fraction % in fraction Average %

Good - High Strength GRANITE/GNEISS 1 66.3 62.6 73.5 66.4 TRACHYTE 1 13.8 14.4 12.6 13.7 RHYOLITE 1 6.6 13.3 2.5 7.8 QUARTZITE 1 0.5 1.2 0.3 0.6 CARBONATE 1 4.5 2.7 2.5 3.7

Fair - Medium Strength GRANITE/GNEISS- weathered 3 7.3 5.6 7.7 6.9 TRACHYTE - weak 3 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 CARBONATE 3 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0

Poor - Low Strength GRANITE/GNEISS - weak 6 1.1 0.2 0.6 0.8

Deleterious

Petrographic Number :Not Tested 120 112 119

Percent of Fraction in Sample:0.0 36.0 17.0 9.0

Weighted Average Petrographic Number: 118

Weighted Average Chert Content: 0.0 %

Weighted Average Ironstone Content: 0.0 %

Petrographer:

Data presented hereon is for the sole use of the stipulated client. EBA is not responsible, nor can be held liable, for use made of this report by any other party, with or without the knowledge of EBA. The testing services reported herein have been performed by an EBA petrographer to recognized industry standards, unless otherwise noted. No other warranty is made. These data do not include or represent any interpretation or opinion of specification compliance or material suitability. Should engineering interpretation be required, EBA will provide it upon written request. Table: 4 SUMMARY OF PETROGRAPHIC ANALYSIS OF FINE AGGREGATE CSA A23.2-04, 15A

Project: Granular Program Study Sample No.: 5590-9 Client: Government of Nunavut Date Received: 28-Sep-11 Project No.: Y14101361 Date Tested: 14-Dec-11 Source: Arviat Prospect #6 Petrographer: WJ Description: Sand Office: Calgary

5.0-2.5mm 2.5-1.25mm 1.25-630µm 630-315µm 315-160µm Weighted Rock Type % in fraction % in fraction% in fraction % in fraction % in fraction Average

Granite/Gneiss 71.9 71.365.8 60.2 56.7 62.4 Trachyte 21.4 20.517.6 17.5 19.4 18.9 Rhyollite 3.4 4.61.8 3.9 4.2 3.7 Quartzite 1.2 2.110.7 12.3 13.4 10.0 Carbonate 2.1 1.51.1 1.6 1.8 1.7 Mica 0.0 0.02.9 4.5 4.5 3.3

Percent of Fraction: 4 34 10 10

Weighted Average Chert Content: 0.0%

Weighted Total Ironstone Content: 0.0% (Retained on the 2.5mm sieve)

Notes

(2) See CSA A23.1 and A23.2 for assessment of AAR in new concrete construction. In the absence of test results, this aggregate should be considered moderately reactive.

Petrographer:

Data presented hereon is for the sole use of the stipulated client. EBA is not responsible, nor can be held liable, for use made of this report by any other party, with or without the knowledge of EBA. The testing services reported herein have been performed by an EBA technician to recognized industry standards, unless otherwise noted. No other warranty is made. These data do not include or represent any interpretation or opinion of specification compliance or material suitability. Should engineering interpretation be required, EBA will provide it upon written request. GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012 | ISSUED FOR USE – REVISION 1

APPENDIX D SCREENER INFORMATION

Y14101361 IFU - REVISION 1_13 February 2012 Forest Roads Page 1 of 5

HOME PAGE

TOTAL ROAD SOLUTIONS

FOREST ROADS

LOW VOLUME ROADS

RAILS-TO-TRAILS

ASPHALT / CONCRETE

Total

The FAHR ROADCRUSHER - Forester C- 2000 was originally designed with forest road development in mind.

The Forest C-2000 is compact enough to be used in all types of conditions, yet effective

http://www.fahrindustries.com/Forest_Roads.html 2/7/2012 Forest Roads Page 2 of 5

enough to get the job done. The crusher is able to crush rocks as large as 16" in diameter as it moves along at an even pace.

The FAHR ROADCRUSHER works best when there is an even mixture of fines to medium sized rocks. As the Forester C-2000 crushes, it can reduce material to a size of 2 inch minus*, in a single pass.

An average windrow of material (about 5 feet wide and 16 inches high), will produce enough material to cover an average road surface with about 12-14 feet wide by 4 inches thick of crushed material. This method produces a strong interlocking structure which improves the life of the finished road bed.

http://www.fahrindustries.com/Forest_Roads.html 2/7/2012 Forest Roads Page 3 of 5

Picture 1 - Windrow of oversize road material

This picture is typical of what a forest road (or low volume road) should look like. Notice that all the finer material was not worked out as the grader operator formed the windrow. It is important that some finer dirt/soil is kept in the windrow as it helps bind the crushed material when the finished road is formed.

Picture 2 - position

On narrow roads (as in this photo) it is important to keep side of the road surface so traffic can flow by freely. regions weather conditions, water may be required t formed windrow. This will not only keep dust down but optimal water content, important when compacting the c

http://www.fahrindustries.com/Forest_Roads.html 2/7/2012 Forest Roads Page 4 of 5

Picture 3 - Rock crushing

The FAHR ROADCRUSHER is capable of crushing rocks as large as 16 inches in diameter into 2 inch minus material (mostly 1 inch). The crusher can crush any type of rock including slate, granite, shale, river rock and lava rock (just to name a few), and can crush about 1 mile (1.6 km) of windrow per day.

Picture 4

This photo is (Mario) showi great job he FAHR ROADCR large rocks in of the crushe material behin

Picture 5 - The finished product

The crushed material in this photo may look a bit too fine but its not. The top layer always looks this way as the lighter materials (because of gravity) always falls last. The remaining material is now ready for the grader operator to come along and mix the

http://www.fahrindustries.com/Forest_Roads.html 2/7/2012 Forest Roads Page 5 of 5

material and distribute it evenly over the road surface.

*=Approximatesize,rocksmaybesmallerand/orlargerdependingonmaterial*=Approximatesize, rocksmay be smallerand/or l

"FAHR"FFAHRR ROADCRUSHER"OADCRUSHER"i isisa a RegisteredRegistered Trade-Mark®Trade-e M of FAHR Industries, Inc LogoLLogo andand "model""mmoddelel FFo Foresterrestter C-2000"CC-2000"i isisa aTTr Trade-Markadde-e MMaa of FAHR Industries, Inc. N wholewholeo orri innp part,artt, maymaayb beec copiedopiedw withoutithout firstffirss obtaining written permissio CopyrightCopypyririghght © 1990-2012199990-0-2020121 FAHRF Industries, Inc. All right

http://www.fahrindustries.com/Forest_Roads.html 2/7/2012

GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012 | ISSUED FOR USE – REVISION 1

APPENDIX E AIR PHOTOS

Y14101361 IFU - REVISION 1_13 February 2012

GRANULAR RESOURCE STUDY – ARVIAT, NUNAVUT EBA FILE: Y14101361 | FEBRUARY 2012 | ISSUED FOR USE – REVISION 1

APPENDIX F SURFICIAL GEOLOGY MAP

Y14101361 IFU - REVISION 1_13 February 2012