ITEM 1 - Proposed Draft Revised Project Certificate No

ITEM 1 - Proposed Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 Terms and Conditions (previously submitted to NIRB in January 2020) QIA-06, MHTO-02

January 25, 2021

RE: Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation (Baffinland) is pleased to provide the Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB) with its updated comments and suggested revisions to Project Certificate No. 005 for the Mary River Project (the Project). This document replaces the previous version of this document which was shared with NIRB in August 2019.

The following approach was taken to outline suggested revisions to current terms and conditions where Baffinland has identified an opportunity to clarify the requirements of Project Certificate No. 005 or where the objectives of the term and condition have previously been met:

1. If a suggested revision to an existing term and conditions is proposed, a description of the associated revision has been provided. 2. Where any suggested revisions to remove a term and condition has been made, a rationale to support the recommended change has been provided. 3. Where appropriate, the proposed edits and or new terms and conditions also reflect commitments that were made by Baffinland to interveners to resolve or address certain technical issues during the NIRB Phase 2 reconsideration process.

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 1 Baffinland Comments Category Meteorology and Climate Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 1. Project Phase(s) All phases Rationale: Objective To provide feedback on the impacts that climate change might be having on the port facilities. PC Condition No. 1 is duplicative of the requirements for PC Condition No. 83. See also suggested revisions to PC Term or Condition The Proponent shall use GPS monitoring or a similar means of monitoring at both Steensby Port and Milne Port, with Condition No. 2 that has been revised to address monitoring for effects of climate change on the Project and tidal gauges to monitor the relative sea levels and storm surges at these sites. Project infrastructure. Reporting Requirement The Proponent shall summarize and supply these monitoring results to NIRB in the annual project report. Stakeholder Review Marine Environmental Working Group (MEWG)

Project Certificate Condition No. 2 Baffinland Comments

Category Meteorology and Climate ‐ Climate Change Validation and Studies Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent The Proponent shall develop a climate change strategy that may include the following: Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure / Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring  conducting studies that identify Project risks as a result of climate change Objective To provide feedback on the impacts that climate change might be having on the Project.  data collection or research that will assist in defining long‐term climate trends, such as: Term or Condition The Proponent shall provide the results of any new or revised assessments and studies done to validate and update  Monitoring sea levels at Port climate change impact predictions for the Project and the effects of the Project on climate change in the Local Study  Weather and temperature changes Area and Regional Study Area as defined in the Proponent’s Final Environmental Impact Statement.  Permafrost stability  Engagement with Inuit communities and other relevant stakeholders on climate change initiatives  Investigation of initiatives that may be undertaken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions

Rationale: Proposed revisions consolidate the requirements of PC Condition No. 2 ‐4 and provide a more comprehensive approach to climate change planning and monitoring and engagement with other stakeholders throughout the life of the Project.

Reporting Requirement The Proponent shall provide new or revised assessments and studies to the NIRB, the affected communities, relevant regulatory authorities, and interested parties. Stakeholder Review Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB)

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 3 Baffinland Comments

Category Meteorology and Climate ‐ Green House Gas Emissions Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 3. Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure / Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Objective To confirm that the Proponent is exploring and implementing concrete steps to reduce greenhouse gases. Rationale: Term or Condition The Proponent shall provide interested parties with evidence of continued initiatives undertaken to reduce greenhouse See proposed revisions to PC Condition No. 2. gas emissions. Reporting Requirement The Proponent shall include relevant information in the Annual Report submitted to the NIRB. Stakeholder Review Nunavut Inuit Review Board (NIRB)

Project Certificate Condition No. 4 Baffinland Comments

Category Climate Change ‐ Consultation on Climate Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 4. Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure / Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Objective To promote public awareness and engagement of affected groups. Rationale: Term or Condition The Proponent shall endeavour to include the participation of Inuit from affected communities and other communities See proposed revisions to PC Condition No. 2. in Nunavut when undertaking climate‐change related studies and research. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB)

Project Certificate Condition No. 5 Baffinland Comments

Category Meteorology and Climate ‐ Weather Monitoring Data No Change. Responsible Parties The Proponent Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure /Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Objective To provide families of employees with up to date information. Term or Condition The Proponent shall endeavour to explore and implement reasonable measures to ensure that weather‐related information for the various Project sites is readily accessible to the public on a continual basis throughout the life of the Project. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister.

Stakeholder Review N/A

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2 Project Certificate Condition No. 6 Baffinland Comments

Category Meteorology and Climate ‐ Emissions Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent The Proponent shall provide the results of any emissions calculations conducted to determine the level of sulphur Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure / Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring dioxide (SO2) emissions, nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions and greenhouse gases generated by the Project using fuel Objective To provide feedback on the Project’s emissions. consumption or other relevant criteria as a basis. In cases where exceedances are manifested, the Proponent shall Term or Condition The Proponent shall provide the results of any emissions calculations conducted to determine the level of sulphur implement the adaptive management plan outlined in the Air Quality and Noise Abatement Management Plan.

dioxide (SO2) emissions, nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions and greenhouse gases generated by the Project using fuel consumption or other relevant criteria as a basis. Rationale: Revised to minimize duplication with PC Conditions No. 8 and 9 and reflect the inclusion of a detailed adaptive management approach to air quality monitoring in the Air Quality and Noise Abatement Management Plan.

Reporting Requirement To be included in the Annual Report submitted to the NIRB. Stakeholder Review N/A

Project Certificate Condition No. 7 Baffinland Comments

Category Air Quality ‐ Monitoring Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 7. Project Phase(s) Construction and Operations Objective To provide feedback on the Project’s emissions. Rationale: Term or Condition The Proponent shall update its Air Quality and Noise Abatement Management Plan to provide for continuous monitoring An updated Air Quality and Noise Abatement Management Plan was submitted as part of the Phase 2 FEIS at land‐based monitoring stations designed to capture operations phase ship‐generated SO2 and NO2 emissions at technical review process that includes continuous and active monitoring of SO2, NO2 and particulates. Steensby Port and Milne Port. Continuous monitoring is to be carried out through several shipping seasons at each port as required to determine that emissions are at acceptable levels. Reporting Requirement The updated plan shall be provided to the NIRB for review and comment at least 60 days prior to commencement of construction activities. Stakeholder Review N/A

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2 Project Certificate Condition No. 8 Baffinland Comments

Category Air Quality ‐ Greenhouse Gas Emissions Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 8. Project Phase(s) Construction and Operations Objective To provide feedback on the Project’s emissions. Rationale: Term or Condition The Proponent shall demonstrate through monitoring of air quality at the mine site and at the Steensby Inlet and Milne See proposed revisions to PC Condition No. 6.

Inlet port sites that SO2 and NO2 emissions remain within predicted levels and, where applicable, within limits established by all applicable guidelines and regulations. In cases where exceedances are manifested, the Proponent shall provide an explanation for the exceedance, a description of planned mitigation, and shall conduct additional monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of mitigative measures. Reporting Requirement To be included in the Proponent’s annual reporting to the NIRB. Stakeholder Review None

Project Certificate Condition No. 9 Baffinland Comments

Category Air Quality ‐ Greenhouse Gas Emissions Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 9. Project Phase(s) Construction and Operations Objective To provide feedback on the Project’s emissions. Rationale: Term or Condition The Proponent shall provide calculations of greenhouse gas emissions generated by activities at the Steensby Inlet and This essentially duplicates PC Condition No. 6. As such, Baffinland suggests this condition be removed. Milne Inlet port sites and other Project sources including aircraft associated with the Project. Calculations shall take into consideration, fuel consumption as measured by Baffinland’s purchase and use as well as the fuel use of its contractors It is noted that all fuel used by Baffinland employees, and its contractors or sub‐contractors on site, is included in and sub‐contractors. calculation of greenhouse gas emissions and reported to ECCC under Section 46 of the Environmental Protection Reporting Requirement To be included in the Proponent’s annual reporting to the NIRB. Act. Aircraft emissions would be reported separately by those contractors, and is not within Baffinland’s scope of Stakeholder Review N/A reporting requirements based on ECCC guidance.

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 10 Baffinland Comments Category Air Quality ‐ Dust Management and Monitoring Plan Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Construction, Operations Project Phase(s) Construction Rationale: Updated to reflect that dust fall monitoring will occur throughout the life of the Project.

Proposed Revision: Objective To prevent impacts to air quality form dust dispersion. The Proponent shall implement its Air Quality and Noise Abatement Management Plan, report all monitoring data Term or Condition The Proponent shall update its Dust Management and Monitoring Plan to address and/or include the following to the NIRB annually, and take adaptive management measures described in the Plan if monitoring indicates that additional items: dust in the ambient air or dust deposition is resulting in effects that exceed identified thresholds relative to air  Outline the specific plans for monitoring dust along the first few kilometres of the rail corridor leaving the Mary quality, water quality or vegetation outside the PDA. River mine site.  Identify the specific adaptive management measures to be considered should monitoring indicate that dust Rationale: deposition from trains transporting along the rail route is greater than initially predicted. Updated to reflect revisions that were made to the Air Quality and Noise Abatement Management Plan as part of  Outline specific plans for monitoring dustfall at intervals along and in the vicinity of the Milne Inlet Tote Road to the Phase 2 FEIS technical review, which address a more comprehensive approach to dust deposition mitigation, determine the amount and extent of dustfall. monitoring and adaptive management development.  Identify the specific adaptive management measures to be considered if monitoring indicates that dust deposition from traffic on the Milne Inlet Tote Road is greater than initially predicted. Proposed Revision: The Proponent shall implement its Dust Management and Monitoring Plan, report all monitoring data to the NIRB Annual. annually, and take all adaptive management measures described in its Dust Management and Monitoring Plan if monitoring indicates that dust in the ambient air or dust deposition from the increased traffic associated with the Rationale: increased volume of ore being shipped is greater than initially predicted. Updated to reflect that dust fall monitoring and management will occur throughout the life of the Project. Reporting Requirement To be provided to the NIRB for review and comment at least 60 days prior to commencement of construction activities. No Change.

Stakeholder Review Nunavut Water Board, Nunavut Impact Review Board, Qikiqtani Inuit Association, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, Environment and Climate Change Canada

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 11 Baffinland Comments Category Air Quality ‐ Incineration Management Plan Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 11.

Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure / Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Rationale: Objective To mitigate impacts to air quality from incineration activities. Operation of the incinerator is addressed in the Waste Management Plan for the Project. A separate Incineration Term or Condition The Proponent shall develop and implement an Incineration Management Plan that takes into consideration the Management Plan is not required. recommendations provided in Environment Canada’s Technical Document for Batch Waste Incineration (2010). Reporting Requirement Updated Incineration Management Plan to be provided to the NIRB at least 60 days prior to the commencement of construction activities.

Stakeholder Review Nunavut Impact Review Board

Project Certificate Condition No. 12 Baffinland Comments

Category Air Quality ‐ Incineration Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Construction, Operations Project Phase(s) Construction Rationale: See proposed revisions to term and description below.

Proposed Revision: The Proponent shall conduct at least one stack test immediately following the commissioning of each temporary Objective To mitigate impacts to air quality from incineration activities. and permanent incinerator and every five years following commissioning. Term or Condition Prior to commencing any incineration of on‐site Project wastes, the Proponent shall conduct at least one stack test immediately following the commissioning of each temporary and permanent incinerator. Rationale: Updated to reflect previous commitments made to ECCC through the ERP of the Project.

Reporting Requirement Stack test results to be reported to the NIRB and Environment Canada annually as required. Stakeholder Review Environment and Climate Change Canada, Nunavut Impact Review Board

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 13 Baffinland Comments Category Noise and Vibration ‐ Use of Explosives No Change. Responsible Parties The Proponent, Fisheries and Oceans Canada Project Phase(s) Construction Objective To determine appropriate protection of fish and aquatic life in the Arctic. Term or Condition The Proponent is encouraged to work with Fisheries and Oceans Canada at the regulatory phase and to take a precautionary approach when selecting the overpressure threshold to be applied to explosives use for the protection of fish and aquatic life. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Nunavut Water Board, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, Nunavut Impact Review Board, Qikiqtani Inuit Association

Project Certificate Condition No. 14 Baffinland Comments

Category Noise and Vibration ‐ Noise and Vibration Monitoring No Change. Responsible Parties The Proponent Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure /Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Objective To mitigate noise and vibration at Project sites, especially living areas. Term or Condition The Proponent shall conduct noise and vibration monitoring at Project accommodations sites located at the Mary River mine site, Steensby Inlet Port site, and Milne Inlet Port site. Sampling shall be undertaken during the summer and winter months during all phases of Project development. Reporting Requirement To be included in the Annual Report submitted to the NIRB. Stakeholder Review Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB)

Project Certificate Condition No. 14 (a) Baffinland Comments

Category Noise and Vibration ‐ Noise and Vibration Adaptive Management Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 14(a).

Project Phase(s) Construction Rationale: Objective To mitigate potential impacts of noise to marine wildlife during project construction. Any in‐water works required for the Project will be conducted in accordance with DFO with the requirements of a Term or Condition The Proponent, through coordination with the MEWG as may be appropriate, shall demonstrate appropriate adaptive Fisheries Act Authorizations, including measures to protect marine mammals during construction. management for construction activities at Milne Inlet that have the potential to disrupt marine mammal species, including pile driving and ore dock construction, are undertaken. Reporting Requirement To be included in the Annual Report submitted to the NIRB. Stakeholder Review Marine Environmental Working Group (MEWG)

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 14 (b) Baffinland Comments

Category Noise and Vibration‐ Noise and Vibration Adaptive Management No Change. Responsible Parties The Proponent Project Phase(s) Operations Objective To mitigate potential impacts of noise to wildlife and people during project operations. Term or Condition The Proponent, through coordination with the TEWG as may be appropriate, shall demonstrate appropriate adaptive management for project activities during operations which have the potential to produce noise and sensory disturbance to wildlife and other users of project areas. Reporting Requirement To be included in the Annual Report submitted to the NIRB. Stakeholder Review Terrestrial Environment Working Group (TEWG)

Project Certificate Condition No. 15 Baffinland Comments

Category Noise and Vibration ‐ Noise and Vibration Monitoring Proposed Revisions: Responsible Parties The Proponent, Qikiqtani Inuit Association, local Hamlet organizations Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 15. Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure /Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Rationale: Objective To enhance public safety when travelling around the Project area. Proposed revisions to PC Condition No. 163 incorporate the recommendations outlined in PC Condition 15. Term or Condition The Proponent shall collaborate to the extent possible with the Qikiqtani Inuit Association and local Hamlet organizations when undertaking consultation with all affected communities regarding railway, tote road and marine shipping operations. During these consultations, it is recommended that the Proponent provide information including video, audio, and photographic representation as well as any other aids (i.e. models) that may enhance the general public’s understanding of railway, tote road and marine shipping operations, as well as all safety considerations for members of the public who may be travelling around the project area. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review N/A

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 16 Baffinland Comments

Category Hydrology and Hydrogeology ‐ Water Infrastructure Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 16.

Project Phase(s) Construction Rationale: Objective To provide assurance that the potential impacts to flow and quantity of water in the Project area are minimized. PC Condition No. 16 duplicates regulatory requirements included within the Type ‘A’ Water License for the Term or Condition The Proponent shall ensure that the water related infrastructure or facilities that are designed and constructed, Project, specifically: including the modification of culverts, diversion of watercourses, and diversion of runoff into watercourses along the  Part D, Item 1 and 2; railway, access roads, port sites, the Milne Inlet Tote Road, and other areas of the Project site, are consistent with those  Part E, Item 23; and proposed in the FEIS and FEIS Addendum in terms of type, location, and scope and that the requirements of all relevant  Part G. regulatory authorities are satisfied advance of constructing those facilities. Additional regulatory licenses that mandate established requirements for the management of water related Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. infrastructure for the Project also include:  DFO Authorizations and Letters of Advice. Stakeholder Review Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC), Qikiqtani Inuit Association (QIA), Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC), Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB), Nunavut Water Board (NWB)

Project Certificate Condition No. 17 Baffinland Comments

Category Hydrology and Hydrogeology ‐ Effluent Management Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 17.

Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure /Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Rationale: Objective To prevent impacts to water bodies from effluent. PC Condition No. 17 duplicates regulatory requirements included within the Type ‘A’ Water License for the Term or Condition The Proponent shall develop and implement effective measures to ensure that effluent from project‐related facilities Project, specifically: and/or activities, including sewage treatment plants, ore stockpiles, and mine pit, satisfies all discharge criteria  Tables 4 – 15; requirements established by the relevant regulatory agencies prior to being discharged into the receiving environment.  Part D, item 15; and  Part F, Item 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Additional regulatory licenses that mandate established requirements for the management of water related Stakeholder Review Nunavut Water Board, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, Qikiqtani Inuit Association, Nunavut Impact Review infrastructure for the Project also include: Board, Environment and Climate Change Canada  MDMER.

Note – if this Condition remains, consider rewording to allow for occasional spills that are effectively addressed.

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 18 Baffinland Comments

Category Hydrology and Hydrogeology ‐ Pit Lake Monitoring Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 18.

Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure/Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Rationale: Objective To enhance predictions for mine site closure conditions. The Water License includes many conditions regarding closure and reclamation and the requirement to update Term or Condition The Proponent shall carry out continued analyses over time to confirm and update, accordingly, the approximate fill the Project’s Closure and Reclamation Plan. Specific relevant sections of the Type ‘A’ Water License include: time for the mine pit lake identified in the FEIS.  Part J; and Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister.  Schedule B. Additional licenses that mandate established requirements for the management of water related infrastructure Stakeholder Review Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, Nunavut Water Board, Qikiqtani Inuit Association, Nunavut Impact Review for the Project also include: Board  Commercial Lease No. Q13C301

See also proposed revisions to PC Condition No. 149, which includes a proposal for the establishment of a Mine Closure Working Group.

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 19 Baffinland Comments

Category Hydrology and Hydrogeology ‐ Water Infrastructure Monitoring Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Suggest to remove current text of PC Condition No. 19 and replace with following:

Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure /Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Category: Northern Transportation Corridor Water Quality Monitoring Objective To mitigate impacts to natural water flow. Term or Condition The Proponent shall ensure that it develops and implements adequate monitoring and maintenance procedures to Responsible Parties: No change ensure that the culverts and other conduits that may be prone to blockage do not significantly hinder or alter the natural flow of water from areas associated with the proposed mine. In addition, the Proponent shall monitor, Project Phase: Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure /Care and Maintenance, Closure

document and report the withdrawal rates for water removed and utilized for all domestic and industrial purposes. Objective: To monitor potential for Milne Inlet Tote Road and North Railway dustfall effects on water quality in the Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Northern Transportation Corridor. Stakeholder Review Nunavut Water Board, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada Term or Condition: The Proponent will expand the Milne Inlet Tote Road monitoring program to include water quality monitoring in specified locations, to assess potential effects of dustfall on waterbodies within the Northern Transportation Corridor.

Should monitoring indicate that there is potential for dustfall from Project traffic to have an effect on water quality, the monitoring program may be expanded to include monitoring of sediment quality and biota in Phillips Creek.

Should potential impacts to Arctic char populations be identified through the monitoring program (which shall include observations regarding physical condition of fish), the source of these effects will be evaluated through review of all potential variables including sedimentation. The Proponent shall work with QIA to further develop a metric for monitoring the physical condition of fish for implementation in 2022.

The program shall be evaluated every three years to determine if monitoring locations may be reduced in the event there are negligible to no observations of Project effects.

Reporting Requirement: Annually Stakeholder Review: Add Qikiqtani Inuit Association

Rationale: Part D, Item 22 and 23, of the Type ‘A’ Water License establishes requirements for the maintenance and operation of other conduits, while monitoring and management of water use volumes are captured under: Part F;  Part 1, Item 21;  Tables 2, 3, 2‐3, 12, 13, 14 and 15; and  Schedule B. Additional regulatory licenses that mandate established requirements for the management of water related infrastructure for the Project also include:  DFO Authorizations and Letters of Advice.

New proposed text to reflect resolution of QIA‐41

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 20 Baffinland Comments

Category Groundwater/Surface Waters ‐ Explosives Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Suggest to remove current text of PC Condition No. 20 and replace with following: Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure / Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring

Objective To ensure that the effects associated with the manufacturing, storage, transportation and use of explosives do not Category: North Railway Construction Monitoring negatively impact the areas surrounding the Project. Term or Condition The Proponent shall monitor the effects of explosives residue and related by‐products from project‐related blasting Responsible Parties: No change activities as well as develop and implement effective preventative and/or mitigation measures, including treatment, if Project Phase(s): Construction necessary, to ensure that the effects associated with the manufacturing, storage, transportation and use of explosives

do not negatively impact the Project and surrounding areas. Objective: To ensure that appropriate monitoring of surface water bodies along the North Railway is carried out Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. during construction. Stakeholder Review Nunavut Water Board, Qikiqtani Inuit Association, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, Environment and Climate Change Canada Term or Condition: The Proponent shall develop a North Railway construction plan that includes monitoring of specified waterbodies for potential dustfall effects during the construction period. The construction plan shall also specify site‐specific adaptive management thresholds which would trigger additional monitoring during operations.

Reporting Requirement: Annually during construction as part of NIRB Annual Report.

Stakeholder Review: No change

Rationale: PC Condition No. 20 duplicates regulatory requirements included within the Type ‘A’ Water License for the Project, specifically:  Part I, Item 23;  Schedule D, Item 1g; and  Schedule 1. Additional regulatory licenses that mandate established requirements for monitoring the effects of explosive residue and related by‐products from blasting activities, including the manufacturing, storage, transportation and use of explosive also includes:  MDMER. Reflects agreed resolution of QIA‐31.

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 21 Baffinland Comments

Category Groundwater/Surface Waters ‐ Aquatic Effects Monitoring Plan and dustfall monitoring No Change. Responsible Parties The Proponent Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations Objective To mitigate potential impacts to surface and ground waters. Term or Condition The Proponent shall ensure that the scope of the Aquatic Effects Monitoring Plan (AEMP) includes, at a minimum: Monitoring of non‐point sources of discharge, selection of appropriate reference sites, measures to ensure the collection of adequate baseline data and the mechanisms proposed to monitor and treat runoff, and sample sediments Measures for dustfall monitoring designed as follows: To establish a pre‐trucking baseline and collect data during Project operation for comparison To facilitate comparison with existing guidelines and potentially with thresholds to be established using studies of Arctic char egg survival and/or other studies recommended by the Terrestrial Environment Working Group (TEWG) To assess the seasonal deposition (rates, quantities) and chemical composition of dust entering aquatic systems along representative distance transects at right angles to the Tote Road and radiating outward from Milne Port and the Mine Site. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Nunavut Impact Review Board, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, Nunavut Water Board, Qikiqtani Inuit Association

Project Certificate Condition No. 22 Baffinland Comments

Category Groundwater/Surface Waters ‐ Sediment and Erosion Management Plan Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 22.

Project Phase(s) Construction Rationale: Objective To develop appropriate sediment and erosion controls to prevent impacts to surface waters. Establishment of a sediment and erosion management plan to prevent and/or mitigate sediment loading into Term or Condition The Proponent shall develop a detailed Sediment and Erosion Management Plan to prevent and/or mitigate sediment surface water is captured under the Type ‘A’ Water License, namely sections: loading into surface water within the Project area.  Part D, Item 4 and 25; and Reporting Requirement Plan to be provided to the NIRB for review and comment at least 60 days prior to commencement of construction  Part E, Item 2.

activities. Additional regulatory licenses that are relevant also include: Stakeholder Review Nunavut Water Board, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, Nunavut Impact Review Board, Qikiqtani Inuit DFO Authorizations and any subsequent Letters of Advice; and Association  MDMER.

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 23 Baffinland Comments

Category Groundwater / Surface Waters ‐ Groundwater Monitoring No Change. Responsible Parties The Proponent Project Phase(s) Construction Objective To prevent impacts to groundwater quality. Term or Condition The Proponent shall develop and implement a Groundwater Monitoring and Management Plan to monitor, prevent and/or mitigate the potential effects of the Project on groundwater within the Project area. Reporting Requirement Plan to be provided to the NIRB for review and comment at least 60 days prior to commencement of construction activities. Stakeholder Review Nunavut Water Board, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, Nunavut Impact Review Board

Project Certificate Condition No. 24 Baffinland Comments

Category Groundwater/Surface Waters ‐ Effluent Management Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 24.

Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure /Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Rationale: Objective To mitigate impacts to groundwater and surface waters from effluent discharge. Effluent discharge is managed under criteria established in Type ‘A’ Water License, namely sections: Term or Condition The Proponent shall monitor as required the relevant parameters of the effluent generated from Project activities and  Part E, Item 1; facilities and shall carry out treatment if necessary to ensure that discharge conditions are met at all times.  Part B, Item 14; Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister.  Tables 4 – 15;  Part F, Item 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26; and Stakeholder Review Nunavut Water Board, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, Qikiqtani Inuit Association, Nunavut Impact Review  Schedule 1.

Board Additional regulatory licenses that are relevant also include:  MDMER.

Note – if this Condition remains, consider rewording to allow for occasional spills that are effectively addressed.

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 25 Baffinland Comments

Category Landforms ‐ Additional Geotechnical Investigations Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 25.

Project Phase(s) Construction Rationale: Objective To mitigate impacts to sensitive landforms. Biannual geotechnical inspections to monitor for and minimize the impact of the Project’s activities and Term or Condition The Proponent shall undertake the additional geotechnical investigations to identify sensitive landforms, modify infrastructure on sensitive landforms is required by the Type ‘A’ Water License, namely sections: engineering design for Project infrastructure, develop and implement preventative and/or migration and monitoring  Part D, Item 10; measures to minimize the impacts of the Project’s activities and infrastructure on sensitive landforms.  Part D, Item 18; and  Part I, Item 12 and 13. Reporting Requirement Plan to be provided to the NIRB for review and comment at least 60 days prior to commencement of construction activities.

Stakeholder Review Nunavut Water Board, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, Qikiqtani Inuit Association

Project Certificate Condition No. 26 Baffinland Comments

Category Landforms and Soils ‐ Erosion Management Plan Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 26.

Project Phase(s) Construction Rationale: Objective To develop appropriate measures for preventing destabilization and erosion. Establishment of a comprehensive erosion management plan to minimize the effects of destabilization and Term or Condition The Proponent shall develop and implement a comprehensive erosion management plan to prevent or minimize the erosion is captured under the Type ‘A’ Water License, namely sections: effects of destabilization and erosion that may occur due to the Project’s construction and operation.  Part D, Item 4, 10 and 25; and Reporting Requirement Plan to be provided to the NIRB for review and comment at least 60 days prior to commencement of construction  Part E, Item 2.

activities. Additional regulatory licenses that are relevant also include: Stakeholder Review Nunavut Water Board, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, Qikiqtani Inuit Association, Fisheries and Oceans  Fisheries Act. Canada, Environment and Climate Change Canada

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 27 Baffinland Comments

Category Landforms, Geology and Geomorphology ‐ Natural Aesthetics Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 27.

Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure/Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Rationale: Objective To mitigate impacts to natural aesthetics. A public consultation report has been completed and submitted to NIRB as part of the Phase 2 FEIS Addendum Term or Condition The Proponent shall include within its public consultation report information related to the sentiments expressed by that identifies subjects of concern for the communities, including aesthetics of the landscape. affected communities about the impacts that changes to the topography and landscape have had on the aesthetic value of the Project area. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review The Communities of: Artic Bay, Clyde River, Hall Beach, Igloolik and Pond Inlet

Project Certificate Condition No. 28 Baffinland Comments

Category Landforms, Geology and Geomorphology ‐ Permafrost Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 28.

Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure/Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Rationale: Objective To ensure that permafrost integrity is maintained. Biannual geotechnical inspections to monitor for permafrost degradation and the implementation of mitigation Term or Condition The Proponent shall monitor the effects of the Project on the permafrost along the railway and all other Project affected measures to ensure integrity of the permafrost is maintained is managed through the Type ‘A’ Water License, areas and must implement effective preventative measures to ensure that the integrity of the permafrost is maintained. namely in sections: Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister.  Part D, Item 10;  Part D, Item 18; Stakeholder Review Environment Climate Change Canada, Qikiqtani Inuit Association, Nunavut Water Board, Indigenous and Northern  Part I, Item 12 and 13; and Affairs Canada, Nunavut Impact Review Board.  Schedule B, 1, e, ii.

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 29 Baffinland Comments

Category Landforms, Geology and Geomorphology ‐ Design Plans Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 29.

Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations Rationale: Objective To confirm constructed components meet design as assessed. The requirement to provide as‐built drawings to regulatory agencies is mandated under the Type ‘A’ Water Term or Condition The Proponent shall provide to the respective regulatory authorities, for review and acceptance, for‐construction License for the Project, namely sections: engineering design and drawings, specifications and engineering analysis to support design in advance for constructing  Part B, Item 12; those facilities. Once project facilities are constructed, the Proponent shall provide copies of the as‐built drawings and  Part D, Item 1 and 2;  Part E, Item 23; design to the appropriate regulatory authorities.  Part G; and Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister.  Schedule D, 1 and c. Stakeholder Review Nunavut Water Board (NWB), Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB), Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC), Additional licenses that mandate established requirements for the management of water related infrastructure Qikiqtani Inuit Association (QIA) for the Project also include:  Commercial Lease No. Q13C301

Project Certificate Condition No. 30 Baffinland Comments Category Landforms, Geology and Geomorphology ‐ Quarries Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 30.

Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure/Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Rationale: Objective To provide oversight on quarry design and management. The requirement to develop site‐specific quarry operation and management plans in advance of the development of any potential quarry site or borrow pit is stipulated in the Type ‘A’ Water License under Part D, Item 6. Term or Condition The Proponent shall develop site‐specific quarry operation and management plans in advance of the development of any potential quarry site or borrow pit. Reporting Requirement Plans to be provided to the NIRB for review and comment at least 30 days prior to commencement of construction activities. Stakeholder Review Qikiqtani Inuit Association (QIA), Nunavut Water Board (NWB)

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 31 Baffinland Comments Category Vegetation ‐ Construction and Operations No Change. Responsible Parties The Proponent Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations Objective To minimize impacts to vegetation. Term or Condition The Proponent shall ensure that Project activities are planned and conducted in such a way as to minimize the Project footprint. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Qikiqtani Inuit Association, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, Nunavut Impact Review Board

Project Certificate Condition No. 32 Baffinland Comments

Category Vegetation ‐ Construction and Operations No Change. Responsible Parties The Proponent Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure /Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Objective To prevent introduction of invasive species. Term or Condition The Proponent shall ensure that equipment and supplies brought to the Project sites are clean and free of soils that could contain plant seeds not naturally occurring in the area. Vehicle tires and treads in particular must be inspected prior to initial use in Project areas. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Qikiqtani Inuit Association, Nunavut Water Board, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, Nunavut Impact Review Board

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2 Project Certificate Condition No. 33 Baffinland Comments

Category Vegetation ‐ Monitoring Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 33.

Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure /Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Rationale: Objective To facilitate monitoring. This duplicates requirements of PC Condition No. 38. Term or Condition The Proponent shall include relevant Monitoring and Management Plans within its Environmental Management System, Terrestrial Environment Management and Monitoring Plan (TEMMP). Reporting Requirement To be included in the Annual Report submitted to the NIRB. Stakeholder Review Terrestrial Environment Working Group (TEWG)

Project Certificate Condition No. 34 Baffinland Comments

Category Vegetation ‐ Monitoring Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Construction, Operations, Closure Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations Rationale: To account for potential environmental monitoring during the closure phase of the Project.

Proposed Revision: To determine if metal concentrations in soil and vegetation exceed CCME and relevant available thresholds. Objective 1. Monitor metals concentrations in both soils and vegetation, particularly caribou forage (i.e., lichen) at varying

distances from the PDA to compare metal concentrations in soil and vegetation between near (impacted) and far Rationale: (control) sites. See revisions to Term and Condition. 2. Determine if metal concentrations in soil and vegetation exceed CCME and relevant available threshold levels provided in the literature. Proposed Revision: Term or Condition The Proponent shall conduct soil sampling to determine metal levels of soils in areas with berry‐producing plants near any of the potential development areas, prior to commencing operations. The Proponent shall conduct soil and vegetation metal monitoring, particularly for caribou forage (i.e. lichen) or other plants identified as culturally important for harvesting to Inuit to compare metal concentrations in soil and vegetation at varying distance classes from the PDA at an appropriate frequency for monitoring established in the TEMMP.

The Proponent shall conduct soil sampling to determine metal levels of soils in areas with culturally important plants in Inuit preferred harvesting areas near any Project infrastructure or activities outside of the PDA at the same frequency as soil monitoring under the TEEMP. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Rationale: All vegetation is considered to be impacted within the PDA. Baffinland suggests that vegetation monitoring to be conducted at the same frequency as soil monitoring under the TEEMP, given that increases in soil metal concentration are highly unlikely to be observed on an annual basis and correlation in this data set. Soil monitoring frequency is currently conducted every three years. Stakeholder Review Terrestrial Environment Working Group (TEWG) Proposed Revision: Annual Rationale: A summary of the results of the monitoring program will be provided in the Annual Report to the NIRB.

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 35 Baffinland Comments

Category Vegetation ‐ Monitoring Suggested revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent, local Hunters and Trappers Organizations, Government of Nunavut Provided caribou populations are present in sufficient numbers to carry out such monitoring and harvesters Project Phase(s) Construction and Operations make samples from harvested caribou available to the Proponent, the Proponent shall undertake or support Objective To determine baseline metal levels in foraging caribou. monitoring of baseline metal levels in organ tissue from caribou harvested within the local study area. The Term or Condition The Proponent shall undertake monitoring of baseline metal levels in organ tissue from caribou harvested within the Proponent is strongly encouraged to coordinate with local Hunters and Trappers Organizations and the local study area, prior to commencing operations. The Proponent is strongly encouraged to coordinate with local Government of Nunavut regarding procurement of harvested caribou organs. Hunters and Trappers Organizations regarding procurement of harvested caribou organs.

Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Add Commentary: Recognizes that organ tissue sample is dependent on the availability of caribou and the Stakeholder Review Terrestrial Environment Working Group (TEWG) participation of HTO’s. Also provides flexibility for Baffinland to fund third party support, rather than having to carry out the program directly.

Project Certificate Condition No. 36 Baffinland Comments

Category Vegetation ‐ Monitoring No Change. Responsible Parties The Proponent Project Phase(s) Construction Objective Measure percent plant cover and plant group composition of available caribou forage within the RSA to track potential changes at varying distances from the edge of the PDA through long‐term monitoring. Term or Condition The Proponent shall establish an ongoing monitoring program for vegetation species used as caribou forage (such as lichens) near Project development areas, prior to commencing operations. Reporting Requirement To be included in the Annual Report submitted to the NIRB. Stakeholder Review Terrestrial Environment Working Group (TEWG)

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 37 Baffinland Comments

Category Vegetation ‐ Monitoring No Change. Responsible Parties The Proponent, Government of Nunavut Department of Environment Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure /Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Objective To prevent establishment of invasive species. Term or Condition The Proponent shall incorporate protocols for monitoring for the potential introduction of invasive vegetation species (e.g. surveys of plant populations in previously disturbed areas) into its Terrestrial Environment and Monitoring Plan. Any introductions of non‐indigenous plant species must be promptly reported to the Government of Nunavut Department of Environment. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister.

Stakeholder Review Terrestrial Environment Working Group (TEWG)

Project Certificate Condition No. 38 Baffinland Comments

Category Vegetation ‐ Adaptive Management No Change. Responsible Parties The Proponent Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure /Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Objective To mitigate impacts to vegetation abundance, diversity, and health. Term or Condition The Proponent shall review, on an annual basis, all monitoring information and the vegetation mitigation and management plans developed under its Environmental Management System, Terrestrial Environment and Monitoring Plan (TEMMP) and adjust such plans as may be required to effectively prevent or reduce the potential for significant adverse project effects on vegetation abundance, diversity and health. Reporting Requirement To be included in the Annual Report submitted to the NIRB. Stakeholder Review Nunavut Impact Review Board, Terrestrial Environment Working Group (TEWG)

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 39 Baffinland Comments

Category Vegetation ‐ Reclamation and Revegetation Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 39.

Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure /Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Rationale: Objective To prevent erosion and promote progressive revegetation of disturbed areas. See suggested revisions to PC Condition No. 149., which includes a proposal for the establishment of a Mine Term or Condition The Proponent shall develop a progressive revegetation program for disturbed areas that are no longer required for Closure Working Group. operations, such program to incorporate measures for the use of test plots, reseeding and replanting of native plants as necessary. It is further recommended that this program be directly associated with the management plans for erosion control established for the Project. Reporting Requirement To be provided to the NIRB for review and comment at least 60 days prior to commencement of construction activities. Stakeholder Review Nunavut Impact Review Board

Project Certificate Condition No. 40 Baffinland Comments

Category Vegetation ‐ Reclamation and Revegetation Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Objective: To ensure that IQ and cultural use are reflected in revegetation strategies

Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure /Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Proposed Revision Objective To prevent erosion and promote progressive revegetation of disturbed areas. Term or Condition: The Proponent shall include revegetation strategies in its reclamation plan based on both IQ Term or Condition The Proponent shall include revegetation strategies in its Site Reclamation Plan that support progressive reclamation and western science that support progressive reclamation, promote natural revegetation and recovery of and that promote natural revegetation and recovery of disturbed areas compatible with the surrounding natural disturbed areas compatible with the surrounding natural environment, and that incorporate cultural use standards environment and re‐establishment of critical areas as identified by the impacted communities.

Proposed Revision Stakeholder Review: QIA

Rationale: See suggested revisions to PC Condition No. 149, which includes a proposal for the establishment of a Mine Closure Working Group. Added language to reflect resolution of QIA‐09.

Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister.

Stakeholder Review QIA

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 41 Baffinland Comments Category Freshwater Aquatic Environment ‐ Setbacks No Change. Responsible Parties The Proponent Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure /Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Objective To mitigate impacts of runoff into freshwater aquatic habitat. Term or Condition Unless otherwise approved by regulatory authorities, the Proponent shall maintain a minimum 100‐metre naturally‐ vegetated buffer between the high‐water mark of any fish‐bearing water bodies and any permanent quarries with potential for acid rock drainage or metal leaching. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Qikiqtani Inuit Association, Nunavut Water Board, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, Nunavut Impact Review Board

Project Certificate Condition No. 42 Baffinland Comments Category Freshwater Aquatic Environment ‐ Setbacks Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 42.

Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure /Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Rationale: Objective To mitigate impacts of runoff into freshwater aquatic habitat. The Type ‘A’ Water License for the Project stipulates the requirement for a 31m buffer between the mining operation and adjacent water bodies, namely sections: Term or Condition The Proponent shall maintain minimum a 30‐metre naturally‐vegetated buffer between the mining operation and  Part D, Item 9, 13 and 25; adjacent water bodies.  Part E, Item 17; Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister.  Part F, Item 5 and 12; and Stakeholder Review Qikiqtani Inuit Association, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, Nunavut Impact Review Board  Part H, Item 2 and 11.

Project Certificate Condition No. 43 Baffinland Comments

Category Freshwater Aquatic Environment ‐ Drainage Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 43.

Project Phase(s) Construction Rationale: Objective To mitigate impacts of runoff into freshwater aquatic habitat. This PC Condition is duplicative of requirements outlined in the Type ‘A’ Water License, namely sections: Term or Condition Prior to the start of construction, the Proponent must submit a Site Drainage and Silt Control Plan to the appropriate  Part D, Item 4, 10 and 25; and regulatory authorities for approval.  Part E, Item 2. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister.

Stakeholder Review Nunavut Water Board, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, Qikiqtani Inuit Association

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 44 Baffinland Comments

Category Freshwater Aquatic Environment ‐ Explosives Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 44.

Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure / Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Rationale: Objective To mitigate impacts of explosives on freshwater aquatic habitat. PC Condition No. 44 duplicates regulatory requirements included within the Type ‘A’ Water License for the Term or Condition The Proponent shall meet or exceed the guidelines set by Fisheries and Oceans Canada for blasting thresholds and Project, specifically: implement practical and effective measures to ensure that residue and by‐products of blasting do not negatively affect  Part E, Item 24. fish and fish habitat. Additional regulatory licenses that mandate established requirements for blasting activities, includes:  Fisheries Act. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review N/A

Project Certificate Condition No. 45 Baffinland Comments

Category Freshwater Aquatic Environment ‐ General Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 44.

Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure / Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Rationale: Objective To mitigate impacts to freshwater aquatic habitat. PC Condition No. 45 duplicates regulatory requirements included within the Type ‘A’ Water License for the Term or Condition The Proponent shall adhere to the No‐Net‐Loss principle at all phases of the project to prevent or mitigate direct or Project, specifically: indirect fish and fish habitat losses.  Part E, Item 2. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Additional regulatory licenses that mandate established requirements for blasting activities, includes:  DFO Authorizations. Stakeholder Review Fisheries and Oceans Canada

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 46 Baffinland Comments

Category Freshwater Aquatic Environment ‐ Drainage Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 46.

Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure/Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Rationale: Objective To mitigate impacts to freshwater aquatic habitat. PC Condition No. 46 duplicates regulatory requirements included within the Type ‘A’ Water License for the Term or Condition The Proponent shall ensure that runoff from fuel storage and maintenance facility areas, sewage and wastewater other Project, specifically: facilities responsible for generating liquid effluent and runoff meet discharge requirements.  Tables 4 – 15; Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister.  Part D, Item 15; and  Part F, Item 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26. Stakeholder Review Nunavut Water Board, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, Qikiqtani Inuit Association Additional regulatory licenses that mandate established discharge requirements for effluent from fuel storage and maintenance facility areas, sewage and wastewater facilities includes:  MDMER.

Note – if this Condition remains, consider rewording to allow for occasional spills that are effectively addressed.

Project Certificate Condition No. 47 Baffinland Comments

Category Freshwater Aquatic Environment ‐ Watercourses Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 47.

Project Phase(s) Construction Rationale: Objective To prevent blockages or restrictions to fish passage. PC Condition No. 47 duplicates regulatory requirements regarding the design and construction of Project Term or Condition The Proponent shall ensure that all Project infrastructure in watercourses are designed and constructed in such a infrastructure in watercourses included within the Type ‘A’ Water License, specifically: manner that they do not unduly prevent and limit the movement of water in fish bearing streams and rivers.  Part D, Item 1 and 2; Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister.  Part E, Item 23;  Part G; and Stakeholder Review Nunavut Water Board (NWB), Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC), Qikiqtani Inuit Association (QIA), Fisheries  Part B, Item 14 & Part E, Item 2 (discusses maintenance and monitoring procedures for culverts and and Oceans Canada (DFO) conduits). Additional regulatory licenses that mandate established requirements for blasting activities, includes:  DFO Authorizations and Letters of Advice.

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 48 Baffinland Comments

Category Freshwater Aquatic Environment ‐ Explosives Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent, Qikiqtani Inuit Association, Fisheries and Oceans Canada Category: Freshwater Aquatic Environment

Responsible Parties: The Proponent, Qikiqtani Inuit Association, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Crown‐Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Project Phase: No change Objective: To address concerns raised by the community with respect to potential for impacts of the Project on the freshwater environment Term or Condition: Suggest to replace with [During 2021‐2022], the Proponent shall coordinate freshwater focused workshops with Inuit in the North Baffin to address specific concerns raised by Inuit in respect of impacts of the Project on freshwater. Reporting Requirement: In [2021 and 2022] Annual Report, the Proponent is to confirm the specified workshops have taken place, summarize the concerns raised during the workshops, and the measures undertaken by the Proponent in response. Stakeholder Review: N/A

Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations Objective To mitigate impacts to freshwater aquatic habitat. Rationale: PC Condition No. 48 duplicates regulatory requirements included within the Type ‘A’ Water License for the Project, specifically:  Part E, Item 24. Additional regulatory licenses that mandate established requirements for blasting activities, includes:

 Fisheries Act.

Term or Condition The Proponent shall engage with Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Qikiqtani Inuit Association in exploring possible Project specific thresholds for blasting that would exceed the requirements of Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Guidelines for the Use of Explosives In or Near Canadian Fisheries Waters (D.G. Wright and G.E. Hopky, 1998).

Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister.

Stakeholder Review N/A

Project Certificate Condition No. 48(a) Baffinland Comments

Category Freshwater Aquatic Environment ‐ Arctic char No Change. Responsible Parties The Proponent Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations Objective To determine presence and health of arctic char in freshwater aquatic habitat. Term or Condition The Proponent shall develop plans to conduct additional surveys for the presence of arctic char in freshwater bodies and ongoing monitoring of arctic char health where applicable, within watersheds proximal to the mine, tote road and Milne Inlet Port project development areas, including but not limited to, Phillips Creek, Tugaat and Qurluktuk. The Proponent shall consult with the MHTO regarding the design, timing, and location of proposed surveys and ongoing monitoring. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Nunavut Water Board (NWB), Qikiqtani Inuit Association (QIA), Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC), Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB), Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO)

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 49 Baffinland Comments

Category Terrestrial Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat ‐ Terrestrial Environment Working Group No Change. Responsible Parties The Proponent Project Phase(s) All phases Objective To provide environmental oversight. Term or Condition The Proponent shall establish a Terrestrial Environment Working Group ("TEWG") which will act as an advisory group in connection with mitigation measures for the protection of the terrestrial environment and in connection with its Environmental Effects Monitoring Program, as it pertains to the terrestrial environment. Members may consider the draft terms of reference for the TEWG filed in the Final Hearing, but they are not bound by them. The role of the TEWG is not intended to either duplicate or to affect the exercise of regulatory authority by appropriate government agencies and departments. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister.

Stakeholder Review Terrestrial Environment Working Group (TEWG)

Project Certificate Condition No. 50 Baffinland Comments

Category Terrestrial Wildlife and Habitat ‐ General No Change. Responsible Parties The Proponent and other Parties as appropriate Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure /Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Objective To ensure appropriate and responsive adaptive management. Term or Condition The Proponent shall continue to develop and implement Project‐specific monitoring for the terrestrial environment, and will demonstrate appropriate refinements to design, incorporation of analytical methods and elaboration of methodologies. The monitoring plan shall contain clear thresholds to allow for the assessment of long‐term trends and cumulative effects where project interactions are identified. Coordination and cooperation will be required where data collection, analysis and interpretation, or responsibility for mitigation and management requires the efforts of multiple parties (e.g., government, Qikiqtani Inuit Association, communities). Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Terrestrial Environment Working Group (TEWG)

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2 Project Certificate Condition No. 51 Baffinland Comments

Category Terrestrial Wildlife and Habitat ‐ General No Change. Responsible Parties The Proponent and/or TWEG Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure /Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Objective To promote coordination of monitoring efforts. Term or Condition The Proponent, either directly or as part of the TEWG, shall consider and, where appropriate, cooperate with relevant regional and/or community‐based monitoring initiatives that raise issues or produce information pertinent to mitigating project‐induced impacts. The Proponent shall give special consideration for supporting regional studies of population health and harvest programs for North Baffin caribou which help address areas of uncertainty for Project impact predictions. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Terrestrial Environment Working Group (TEWG)

Project Certificate Condition No. 52 Baffinland Comments

Category Terrestrial Wildlife and Habitat ‐ Caribou Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent, TEWG Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 52.

Project Phase(s) Construction Rationale: Objective To ensure best practices are used for caribou protection. Should Project monitoring identify a need for caribou deterrents from hazardous areas, appropriate mitigation Term or Condition Within 3 months of issuance of the Project Certificate, the Proponent shall initiate design, and develop the timeline to measures will be discussed with the TEWG and implemented to minimize potential effects in accordance with test and implement means of deterring caribou from pits and other hazardous areas. A review of best practices and requirements of PC Condition No. 50, 51 and 53. techniques will be undertaken at other Northern mines where interactions with caribou occur. Considerations should include temporary ribbon placement, Inuksuks, or fencing and subsequent monitoring for effectiveness. These activities shall be reported back to the Terrestrial Environment Working Group. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister; results to be reported back to the Terrestrial Environment Working Group. Stakeholder Review Terrestrial Environment Working Group (TEWG)

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 53 Baffinland Comments

Category Terrestrial Wildlife and Habitat ‐ Caribou Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Suggest to add: Project Phase(s) Construction Objective To mitigate impacts to caribou from Project‐related traffic. (g) With respect to the construction and operation of the North Railway, enhancement of existing mitigation measures in the appropriate monitoring plans to reduce potential interference with caribou, including Term or Condition The Proponent shall demonstrate consideration for the following: incorporation as appropriate of the specific measures included in the Commitment List regarding the a) Steps taken to prevent caribou mortality and injury as a result of train and vehicular traffic, including operational operation of the railway and design modifications to aid in caribou crossing: measures meant to maximize the potential for safe traffic relative to operations on the railway, Milne Inlet Tote Road and associated access roads. (h) With respect to the construction and operation of the North Railway, the Proponent shall implement a b) Specific measures intended to address the reduced effectiveness of visual protocols for the Milne Inlet Tote Road and multi‐dimensional approach to monitoring involving Inuit staff and incorporating Inuit interests; access roads/trails during times of darkness and low visibility must be included. c) Monitoring and mitigation measures at points where the railway, roads, trails and flight paths pass through caribou (i) With respect to the construction of the North Railway, the Proponent shall hold a workshop on wildlife calving areas, particularly during caribou calving times. The details of these monitoring and mitigation measures shall be crossing design with Inuit, organized in consultation with the Qikiqtani Inuit Association, the Hamlet of developed in conjunction with the Terrestrial Environment Working Group. Pond Inlet and the MHTO, and demonstrate in a follow‐up report to the NIRBhow it has used Inuit input to d) Evaluation of the effectiveness of proposed caribou crossings over the railway, Milne Inlet Tote Road and access roads finalize wildlife crossings, land user crossings, slope designs, and develop appropriate adaptive as well as the appropriate number. management measures as captured in relevant management plans. e) Development of a surveillance system along the railway corridor to identify the presence of caribou in proximity to the train tracks and operational protocols for the train to avoid collisions and enable caribou to cross the train tracks Rationale: unimpeded. (g) is suggested to address resolution of QIA‐02 f) Protocols for documentation and reporting of all caribou collisions and mortalities, as well as mechanisms for adaptive (h) is suggested to address resolution of QIA‐01 and QIA‐02 management responses designed to prevent further such interactions. (i) is suggested to address resolution of QIA‐01 and QIA‐02 Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Terrestrial Environment Working Group (TEWG), QIA

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 54 Baffinland Comments

Category Terrestrial Wildlife and Habitat ‐ Caribou Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 54.

Project Phase(s) Construction ‐ within six (6) months of issuance of Project Certificate Rationale: Objective To Update the Terrestrial Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan Any necessary updates to the TEMMP not already captured in the updated draft version submitted during the Term or Condition The Proponent shall provide an updated Terrestrial Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan which shall current review process can be captured as commitments. include, but not be limited to the following: a) Details of the methods and rationale for conducting monitoring prior to the commencement of construction; b) Monitoring for caribou presence and behavior during railway and Tote Road construction; c) Description and justification of statistical design or other means of determining effect and proposed analyses to support the conclusions drawn from monitoring impacts of the mine and related infrastructure on wildlife; d) Details of monitoring and mitigation activities, which should be established in collaboration with the Terrestrial Environment Working Group and are expected to include: e) Dustfall (fugitive and Total Suspended Particulates), that addresses methods to reduce risk to caribou forage from dustfall; f) Snow track surveys during construction and the use of video‐surveillance to improve the predictability of caribou exposure to the railway and Tote Road. Using the result of this information, an early warning system for caribou on the railway and Tote Road shall be developed for operation. g) Details of monitoring thresholds related to level of mitigation and management; and h) Details of a comprehensive hunter harvest survey to determine the effect on caribou populations and potential effects on caribou behaviour resulting from increased human access caused by upgrades to the Milne Inlet tote road (and any other roads if they are shifted from private to public use) and increase local knowledge of the mine site, including establishing pre‐construction baseline harvesting data. Reporting Requirement Plan to be submitted to the NIRB and the TEWG within 6 months of issuance of a Project Certificate. Stakeholder Review Terrestrial Environment Working Group (TEWG), Nunavut Impact Review Board

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 55 Baffinland Comments

Category Terrestrial Wildlife and Habitat ‐ Wolves No Change. Responsible Parties The Proponent, Government of Nunavut Department of Environment Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure /Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Objective To mitigate potential impacts to wolves. Term or Condition The Proponent shall develop an adaptive management plan applicable to wolves and wolf habitat in collaboration with the Government of Nunavut‐ Department of Environment (GN‐DOE) to ensure compliance with the Nunavut Wildlife Act. Consideration must be given to the following: Monitoring for active wolf dens within a 10 km radius from the mine site, under the direction and prior approval of the GN DOE, and reporting the results through NIRB’s Annual Reports on terrestrial wildlife in the Potential Development Area (PDA); Estimating the available (glacio‐fluvial materials) esker habitat within the Regional Study Area/PDA and identifying such habitat as ecologically sensitive; Developing “wolf indices” for presence/abundance of wolves (by conducting studies) to set a baseline pre‐construction baseline; and Ensuring that wolf monitoring is capable of determining the relative abundance and distribution of wolves in the Project Development Area over time.

Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Terrestrial Environment Working Group (TEWG)

Project Certificate Condition No. 56 Baffinland Comments

Category Terrestrial Wildlife and Habitat ‐ Wildlife Habitat Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 56.

Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure /Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Rationale: Objective To ensure progressive reclamation of disturbed wildlife habitat. See suggested revisions to PC Condition No. 149, which includes a proposal for the establishment of a Mine Term or Condition The Proponent shall develop a strategy for the recovery of terrestrial wildlife habitat in a progressive manner that is Closure Working Group. consistent with the Nunavut Wildlife Act. Overall, this will require the integration of a decision‐making process and the identification of mitigation responses to cumulative impacts on caribou survival, breeding propensity, and population dynamics. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Qikiqtani Inuit Association, Nunavut Water Board, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 57 Baffinland Comments

Category Terrestrial Wildlife and Habitat ‐ Reporting Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent The Proponent shall report annually regarding its terrestrial environment monitoring efforts, with inclusion of the Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure /Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring following information: a) Description of all updates to terrestrial ecosystem baseline data; Objective To mitigate and monitor for impacts to wildlife. b) A description of the involvement of Inuit in the monitoring program; Term or Condition The Proponent shall report annually regarding its terrestrial environment monitoring efforts, with inclusion of the c) An explanation of the annual results relative to the scale of the natural variability of Valued Ecosystem following information: Components in the region, as described in the baseline report; a) Description of all updates to terrestrial ecosystem baseline data; e) A detailed presentation and analysis of the distribution relative to mine structures and activities for b) A description of the involvement of Inuit in the monitoring program; caribou and other terrestrial mammals observed during the surveys and incidental sightings; c) An explanation of the annual results relative to the scale of the natural variability of Valued Ecosystem Results of the annual monitoring program, including field methodologies and statistical approaches used Components in the region, as described in the baseline report; to support conclusions drawn; d) A detailed presentation and analysis of the distribution relative to mine structures and activities for caribou and f) An annual summary of traffic levels on the Milne Inlet Tote Road and rail transits); other terrestrial mammals observed during the surveys and incidental sightings; g) An assessment and presentation of annual environmental conditions relative to data collected. e) Results of the annual monitoring program, including field methodologies and statistical approaches used to h) A discussion of any proposed changes to the monitoring survey methodologies, statistical approaches or f) support conclusions drawn; proposed adaptive management stemming from the results of the monitoring program; A summary of the chronology and level of mine activities (such as vehicle frequency and type); i) An analysis of wildlife responses to operations with emphasis on calving and post‐calving caribou g) An assessment and presentation of annual environmental conditions including timing of snowmelt, green‐up, behaviour and displacements (if any), and caribou responses to and crossing of the railway, the Milne as well as standard weather summaries; Inlet Tote Road and associated access roads/trails (if any); h) A discussion of any proposed changes to the monitoring survey methodologies, statistical approaches or j) A description of the extent of dustfall based on measured levels of dustfall (fugitive and finer particles proposed adaptive management stemming from the results of the monitoring program. such as TSP) on vegetation

Reporting Requirement To be included in the Annual Report submitted to the NIRB. Commentary: Stakeholder Review Nunavut Impact Review Board, Terrestrial Environment Working Group (TEWG) Certain monitoring described above may not be undertaken in years where caribou are not observed in meaningful numbers in the Project area. In the event this occurs, in order to achieve compliance with this Term and Condition the Proponent shall clearly describe the reasons that such monitoring was not carried out in its Annual Report.

Rationale: Proposed revisions provides a more focused scope for reporting on terrestrial environment monitoring activities and inter‐annual trends.

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 58 Baffinland Comments

Category Terrestrial Wildlife and Habitat ‐ Reporting Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 58 (note TC 58 b, c, d and f incorporated at revised No. 58 above).

Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure /Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Rationale: Objective To mitigate and monitor for impacts to wildlife. Reporting requirements are duplicative to several other PC Conditions, including PC Condition No. 10, 34, 36, 37, 50, 51, 53 (b, c, d and d), 55, 57, 67, 74 and 75. Term or Condition Within its annual report to the NIRB, the Proponent shall incorporate a review section which includes: a) An examination for trends in the measured natural variability of Valued Ecosystem Components in the region relative to the baseline reporting; b) A detailed analysis of wildlife responses to operations with emphasis on calving and post‐calving caribou behaviour and displacements (if any), and caribou responses to and crossing of the railway, the Milne Inlet Tote Road and associated access roads/trails; c) A description of the extent of dustfall based on measured levels of dustfall (fugitive and finer particles such as TSP) on lichens and blueberries, and ash content of caribou fecal pellets; d) A demonstration and description of how the monitoring results, including the railway, road traffic, air traffic and dustfall contribute to cumulative effects of the project; e) Any proposed changes to the monitoring survey methodologies, statistical approaches or proposed adaptive management stemming from the results of the monitoring program; f) Any updates to information regarding caribou migration trails. Maps of caribou migration trails, primarily obtained through any new collar and snow tracking data, shall be updated (at least annually) in consultation with the Qikiqtani Inuit Association and affected communities, and shall be circulated as new information becomes available. Reporting Requirement To be included in the Annual Report submitted to the NIRB. Stakeholder Review Nunavut Impact Review Board, Terrestrial Environment Working Group (TEWG)

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 59 Baffinland Comments

Category Terrestrial Wildlife and Habitat – Aircraft Disturbances Responsible Parties The Proponent Proposed Revision: The Proponent shall ensure that pilots are informed of minimum cruising altitude guidelines and that a daily log Project Phase(s) Construction, Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure /Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure or record of flight paths and cruising altitudes of aircraft within all Project Areas is maintained and made available Monitoring for the Terrestrial Environment Working Group and relevant regulatory authorities such as Transport Canada to Objective To mitigate aircraft disturbance to wildlife and Inuit harvesting. monitor adherence and to follow up on complaints. Term or Condition The Proponent shall ensure that aircraft maintain, whenever possible(except for specified operational purposes such as drill moves, take offs and landings), and subject to pilot discretion regarding aircraft and human safety, a cruising Subject to safety requirements or other appropriate pilot rationale for low altitudes, the Proponent shall altitude of at least 610 metres during point to point travel when in areas likely to have migratory birds, and 1,000 metres require all project related aircraft to maintain a cruising altitude of at least: vertical and 1,500 metres horizontal distance from observed concentrations of migratory birds (or as otherwise  650 m during point to point travel when in areas likely to have migratory birds; prescribed by the Terrestrial Environment Working Group) and use flight corridors to avoid areas of significant wildlife  1100 m vertical and 1500 m horizontal distance from observed concentrations of migratory birds; and importance. The Proponent, in collaboration with the Terrestrial Environment Working Group shall develop a program  1100 m over the area identified as a key site for moulting snow geese during the moulting period (July‐ or specific measures to ensure that employees and subcontractors providing aircraft services to the Project are August), and if maintaining this altitude is not possible, maintain a lateral distance of at least at least respectful of wildlife and Inuit harvesting that may occur in and around project areas. 1500 m from the boundary of this site.

The Proponent, in collaboration with the Terrestrial Environment Working Group shall develop a program or specific measures to ensure that employees and subcontractors providing aircraft services to the Project are respectful of wildlife and Inuit harvesting that may occur in and around project areas. This includes the use of established flight corridors, when possible, to avoid areas of significant wildlife importance.

Rationale: Revised to eliminate duplication that currently exists between PC Condition No. 59, 71 and 72 and to enhance enforceability. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Proposed Revision: Construction, Operations, Closure

Rationale: To reflect implementation of mitigation measures, subject to safety requirements, throughout the life of the Project. Stakeholder Review Terrestrial Environment Working Group (TEWG)

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 60 Baffinland Comments

Category Terrestrial Wildlife and Habitat ‐ Explosives Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 60 – see related revisions to TC 61 to reduce number of terms and conditions.

Project Phase(s) Construction Rationale:

Objective To mitigate impacts to wildlife from explosives. Restriction of blasting activities when migrating caribou, sensitive local carnivores or birds may be negatively

Term or Condition Prior to construction, the Proponent shall develop a detailed blasting program to minimize the effects of blasting on affected is accounted for by PC Condition No. 61.

terrestrial wildlife that includes, but is not limited to the restriction of blasting when migrating caribou, sensitive local carnivores or birds may be negatively affected.

Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister.

Stakeholder Review N/A

Project Certificate Condition No. 61 Baffinland Comments

Category Terrestrial Wildlife and Habitat ‐ Operations (General) Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent, TEWG Whenever practical and not causing a human safety issue, a stop work policy shall be implemented when wildlife Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure / Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring in the area may be endangered by the work being carried out. An operational definition of ‘endangered’ shall be Objective To mitigate Project impacts to wildlife. provided by the Terrestrial Environment Working Group. During construction, the Proponent shall develop and Term or Condition Whenever practical and not causing a human safety issue, a stop work policy shall be implemented when wildlife in the implement as part of its operating procedures measures which minimize the effects of blasting on terrestrial area may be endangered by the work being carried out. An operational definition of ‘endangered’ shall be provided by wildlife that includes, but is not limited to the restriction of blasting when migrating caribou and other wildlife the Terrestrial Environment Working Group. are in the blasting area. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister.

Stakeholder Review Terrestrial Environment Working Group (TEWG) Note revision above is consistent with TEMMP, Section 3.3.1.

Project Certificate Condition No. 62 Baffinland Comments

Category Terrestrial Wildlife and Habitat ‐ Operations (General) Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 62 Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure /Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Objective To prevent increased harvesting pressure on wildlife. Rationale: Term or Condition The Proponent shall prohibit project employees from transporting firearms to site and from operating firearms in As described in Article 11.4 of the IIBA, “Inuit employees shall be permitted access during their leisure hours, project areas for the purpose of wildlife harvesting. subject to Company policies, to all Project Areas for the purpose of any form of harvesting…in conformity with Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Subsection 5.7.17 (b) of the NLCA…”. PC Condition No. 124 as currently written contradicts the Proponent’s ability Stakeholder Review N/A to meet the requirements of the IIBA or the NLCA.

See also suggested revisions to PC Condition No. 124.

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 63 Baffinland Comments

Category Terrestrial Wildlife and Habitat ‐ Public Engagement No Change. Responsible Parties The Proponent, local Hunters and Trappers Organizations Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure /Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Objective To keep communities up to date with Project operations. Term or Condition The Proponent shall liaise with local Hunters and Trappers Organizations in advance of carrying out terrestrial wildlife surveys. At a minimum, The Proponent shall also meet annually in person with Hunters and Trappers Organizations to discuss wildlife monitoring and mitigation plans and address community concerns regarding wildlife interactions. The Proponent may be required to facilitate these meetings through payment of honoraria and meeting costs. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Terrestrial Environment Working Group (TEWG) and with local Hunter and Trappers Organizations (HTOs)

Project Certificate Condition No. 64 Baffinland Comments Category Terrestrial Wildlife and Habitat ‐ Waste Management No Change. Responsible Parties The Proponent Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure /Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Objective To prevent human‐carnivore interactions. Term or Condition The Proponent shall ensure that its Environment Protection Plan incorporates waste management provisions to prevent carnivores from being attracted to the Project site(s). Consideration must be given to the following measures: Installation of an incinerator beside the kitchen that will help to keep the food waste management process simple and will minimize the opportunity for human error (i.e. storage of garbage outside, hauling in a truck (odours remain in truck), hauling some distance to a landfill site, incomplete combustion at landfill, fencing of landfill, etc.) Installation of solid carnivore‐proof skirting on all kitchen and accommodation buildings (i.e., heavy‐duty steel mesh that would drop down from the edge of the buildings/trailers and buried about a half meter into the ground to prevent animals from digging under the skirting). Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Environment Climate Change Canada, Qikiqtani Inuit Association, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, Nunavut Impact Review Board.

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2 Project Certificate Condition No. 65 Baffinland Comments Category Birds ‐ Awareness No Change. Responsible Parties The Proponent Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure /Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Objective To prevent disturbance to birds and bird habitat. Term or Condition The Proponent shall ensure all employees working at project sites receive awareness training regarding the importance of avoiding known nests and nesting areas and large concentrations of foraging and moulting birds. Reporting To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Requirement Stakeholder Review Qikiqtani Inuit Association, Nunavut Impact Review Board, Terrestrial Environment Working Group (TEWG)

Project Certificate Condition No. 66 Baffinland Comments

Category Birds ‐ Species at Risk Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Is Species at Risk or their nests and eggs are encountered during Project activities or monitoring programs, the Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure /Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Proponent is strongly encouraged to consider avoidance as a primary mitigation measure. The Proponent shall Objective To prevent impacts to sensitive bird species. establish clear zones of avoidance on the basis of the species‐specific nest setback distances outlined in the Term or Condition If Species at Risk or their nests and eggs are encountered during Project activities or monitoring programs, the primary Terrestrial Environment Management and Monitoring Plan. mitigation measure must be avoidance. The Proponent shall establish clear zones of avoidance on the basis of the species‐specific nest setback distances outlined in the Terrestrial Environment Management and Monitoring Plan. Rationale: Revisions allows for enhanced enforceability.

Proposed Revision: Annual.

Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Rationale: Reporting on implementation of PC Condition No. 66 would be included in the Annual Report to the NIRB as relevant.

Stakeholder Review Terrestrial Environment Working Group (TEWG)

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 67 Baffinland Comments

Category Birds ‐ Species at Risk No change. Responsible Parties The Proponent Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure /Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Objective To prevent impacts to sensitive bird species. Term or Condition The Proponent shall ensure that the mitigation and monitoring strategies developed for Species at Risk are updated as necessary to maintain consistency with any applicable status reports, recovery strategies, action plans and management plans that may become available during the duration of the Project. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Terrestrial Environment Working Group (TEWG), Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC)

Project Certificate Condition No. 68 Baffinland Comments

Category Birds ‐ Project Infrastructure Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent The Proponent shall ensure appropriate deterrents are installed on communication towers established for the Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure /Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Project. The Proponent should also consider reducing lighting where it may serve as a bird attractant and does not Objective To prevent potential injuries to birds. present risks to safe operations: Term or Condition The Proponent shall ensure flashing red, red strobe or white strobe lights and guy‐wire deterrents are used on communications towers established for the Project. Consideration should also be given to reducing lighting when Rationale: possible in areas where it may serve as an attractant to birds or other wildlife. It was determined through consultation with ECCC that strobe lights were not a relevant mitigation measure as most birds are in the area during the summer when there is 24 hours of light.

Reporting Requirement To be included in the Annual Report submitted to the NIRB. Stakeholder Review Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC), Terrestrial Environment Working Group (TEWG)

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 69 Baffinland Comments

Category Birds ‐ Construction/Clearing Activities No Change. Responsible Parties The Proponent Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure /Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Objective To prevent nesting by birds in active Project areas. Term or Condition Prior to bird migrations and commencement of nesting, the Proponent shall identify and install nesting deterrents (e.g. flagging) to discourage birds from nesting in areas likely to be disturbed by construction/clearing activities taking place during the nesting season. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Terrestrial Environment Working Group (TEWG)

Project Certificate Condition No. 70 Baffinland Comments

Category Birds ‐ Construction/Clearing Activities No Change. Responsible Parties The Proponent Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure /Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Objective To prevent impacts to birds and nesting areas. Term or Condition The Proponent shall protect any nests found (or indicated nests) with a buffer zone determined by the setback distances outlined in its Terrestrial Environment Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, until the young have fledged. If it is determined that observance of these setbacks is not feasible, the Proponent will develop nest‐specific guidelines and procedures to ensure bird’s nests and their young are protected. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Terrestrial Environment Working Group (TEWG)

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 71 Baffinland Comments

Category Birds ‐ Flight Altitude Requirements Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 71 following merge with PC Condition No. 59.

Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure /Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Rationale: Objective To mitigate aircraft disturbance to birds. See proposed revisions to PC Condition No. 59, which has been updated to incorporate PC Condition No. 71 to Term or Condition Subject to safety requirements, the Proponent shall require all project related aircraft to maintain a cruising altitude of reduce duplication. at least:  650 m during point to point travel when in areas likely to have migratory birds;  1100 m vertical and 1500 m horizontal distance from observed concentrations of migratory birds; and  1100 m over the area identified as a key site for moulting snow geese during the moulting period (July‐August), and if maintaining this altitude is not possible, maintain a lateral distance of at least at least 1500 m from the boundary of this site. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Terrestrial Environment Working Group (TEWG)

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 72 Baffinland Comments Category Birds ‐ Flight Altitude Requirements Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent, Transport Canada Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 72 following merge with PC Condition No. 59.

Project Phase(s) Construction, Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure /Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Rationale: Monitoring See proposed revisions to PC Condition No. 59, which has been updated to incorporate PC Condition No. 72 to Objective To mitigate aircraft disturbance to birds. reduce duplication. Term or Condition The Proponent shall ensure that pilots are informed of minimum cruising altitude guidelines and that a daily log or record of flight paths and cruising altitudes of aircraft within all Project Areas is maintained and made available for regulatory authorities such as Transport Canada to monitor adherence and to follow up on complaints. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Qikiqtani Inuit Association, Nunavut Impact Review Board, Transport Canada, Terrestrial Environment Working Group (TEWG)

Project Certificate Condition No. 73 Baffinland Comments

Category Birds Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 73.

Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure /Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Rationale: Objective To monitor Project‐related effects on migratory birds. See proposed revisions to PC Condition No. 74, which incorporate the need to seek feedback from relevant Term or Condition The Proponent shall develop detailed and robust mitigation and monitoring plans for migratory birds, reflecting input agencies and reduce duplication between the two conditions. from relevant agencies, the Qikiqtani Inuit Organization and communities as part of the Terrestrial Environment Working Group and to the extent applicable the Marine Environment Working Group. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Terrestrial Environment Working Group (TEWG), Marine Environment Working Group (MEWG)

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 74 Baffinland Comments

Category Birds ‐ Monitoring . Responsible Parties The Proponent Proposed Revision: Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure /Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring The Proponent shall continue to develop and update relevant monitoring and management plans for migratory Objective To develop appropriate mitigation and monitoring of impacts to birds. birds on an as‐need basis throughout the life of the Project based on input provided by the MEWG and TEWG. Term or Condition The Proponent shall continue to develop and update relevant monitoring and management plans for migratory birds The key indicators for follow up monitoring under the TEMMP will include peregrine falcon, gyrfalcon, common under the Proponent’s Environmental Management System, Terrestrial Environment Mitigation and Monitoring Plan and king eider, red knot, seabird migration and wintering, and songbird and shorebird diversity. prior to construction. The key indicators for follow up monitoring under this plan will include peregrine falcon, gyrfalcon, common and king eider, red knot, seabird migration and wintering, and songbird and shorebird diversity. Rationale: Updated to reflect longer‐term monitoring requirements, and incorporate need to ongoing input from TEWG on the effectiveness of monitoring and mitigations measures for migratory birds. Proposed Revision: Annually

Rationale: Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Summarized results of monitoring programs and mitigation measures to be included in the Annual Report to the NIRB.

Stakeholder Review Terrestrial Environment Working Group (TEWG)

Project Certificate Condition No. 75 Baffinland Comments

Category Birds – Monitoring No Change. Responsible Parties The Proponent Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure /Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Objective To assess the extent of terrestrial habitat loss. Term or Condition The Proponent’s monitoring program shall assess and report, on annual basis, the extent of terrestrial habitat loss due to the Project to verify impact predictions and provide updated estimates of the total project footprint. Reporting Requirement To be provided within the Annual Report to the NIRB.

Stakeholder Review Qikiqtani Inuit Association, Nunavut Impact Review Board, Terrestrial Environment Working Group (TEWG)

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 76 Baffinland Comments

Category Marine Environment ‐ General Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 54.

Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure / Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Rationale: Objective To mitigate potential impacts to the marine environment. Updates to the Marine Monitoring Plan (MMP) were completed and submitted as part of the Phase 2 FEIS Term or Condition The Proponent shall develop a comprehensive Environmental Effects Monitoring Program to address concerns and technical review. The MMP will be updated as needed to incorporate results of monitoring and adaptive identify potential impacts of the Project on the marine environment. management measures already stipulated in PC Condition No. 85, 87, 99, 101, 103, 106, 110, 113, 119 and 121. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Marine Environmental Working Group (MEWG)

Project Certificate Condition No. 77 Baffinland Comments

Category Marine Environment ‐ Working Group No Change. Responsible Parties The Proponent, Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the Government of Nunavut, the Qikiqtani Inuit Association and interested parties Project Phase(s) All Phases Objective The MEWG will consult with, and provide advice and recommendations to the Proponent in connection with mitigation measures for the protection of the marine environment, monitoring of effects on the marine environment and the consideration of adaptive management plans. The role of the MEWG is not intended to either duplicate or to affect the exercise of regulatory authority by appropriate government agencies and departments. Term or Condition A Marine Environment Working Group ("MEWG") shall be established to serve as an advisory group in connection with mitigation measures for the protection of the marine environment, and in connection with the Project Environmental Effects Monitoring program, as it pertains to the marine environment. Membership on the MEWG will include the Proponent, Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Parks Canada, the Government of Nunavut, the Qikiqtani Inuit Association, the Mittimatalik Hunters and Trappers Organization, and other agencies or interested parties as determined to be appropriate by these key members. Makivik Corporation shall also be entitled to membership on the MEWG at its election. The MEWG members may consider the draft terms of reference for the MEWG filed in the Final Hearing, but they are not bound by them. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Marine Environment Working Group (MEWG)

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2 Project Certificate Condition No. 78 Baffinland Comments

Category Marine Environment ‐ Ice Breaking and Shipping Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent The Proponent shall update the baseline information for land fast ice using a long‐term dataset and with Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure/Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring information on inter‐annual variation. The analysis for pack and landfast ice shall be updated periodically using Objective To obtain accurate and current ice information. annual sea ice data (floe size, cover, concentration). Term or Condition The Proponent shall update the baseline information for land fast ice using a long‐term dataset (28 years), and with information on inter‐annual variation. The analysis for pack and landfast ice shall be updated annually using annual sea Rationale: ice data (floe size, cover, concentration) and synthesized and reported in the most appropriate management plan. Annual tracking of ice decay and formation will continue to occur, however there is no reasonable or foreseeable need to re‐analyze this data on an annual basis. Revisions have also addressed management plans that would be updated pending updated land fast ice decay and formation analysis that would result in an operational change.

Proposed Revision: As required.

Rationale: Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister Annual tracking of ice decay and formation will continue to occur on an annual basis, however there is no reasonable or foreseeable need to re‐analyze this data on an annual basis.

Stakeholder Review N/A

Project Certificate Condition No. 79 Baffinland Comments

Category Marine Environment ‐ Ice Breaking and Shipping No Change. Responsible Parties The Proponent, Canadian Hydrographic Services Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure / Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Objective To assist in the development of nautical charts for Canadian waters. Term or Condition The Proponent shall provide the Canadian Hydrographic Services with bathymetric data and other relevant information collected in support of Project shipping where possible, to assist in the development of nautical charts for Canadian waters. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Canadian Hydrographic Service (CHS)

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 80 Baffinland Comments

Category Marine Environment ‐ Ice Breaking and Shipping No Change. Responsible Parties The Proponent, Canadian Hydrographic Services Project Phase(s) Construction Objective To identify areas of risk along the shipping route. Term or Condition Prior to commercial shipping of iron ore, the Proponent shall conduct a detailed risk assessment for Project‐related shipping accidents, noting areas along the ship tracks where vessels may be particularly vulnerable to environmental conditions such as sea ice, and any seasonal differences in risk. This assessment shall inform mitigation and adaptive management plans. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Canadian Hydrographic Service (CHS)

Project Certificate Condition No. 81 Baffinland Comments Category Marine Environment ‐ Shoreline Effects and Sediment Redistribution Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 81 Project Phase(s) Construction Objective To mitigate potential shoreline effects from shipping. Rationale: Term or Condition The Proponent shall reassess the potential for ship wake impacts to cause coastal change following any further changes This PC Condition is duplicative to the requirements under PC Condition No. 84. See also suggested revisions to PC to the proposed shipping routes. Condition No. 84. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Marine Environmental Working Group (MEWG)

Project Certificate Condition No. 82 Baffinland Comments

Category Marine Environment ‐ Shoreline Effects and Sediment Redistribution Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent If ore carriers are commissioned directly by the Proponent, they are strongly encouraged to have them subjected Project Phase(s) Construction and Operations to sea trials to measure wake characteristics at various vessel speeds and distances from the vessel. Objective To mitigate potential shoreline effects from shipping. Term or Condition The Proponent is strongly encouraged to have its ore carriers subjected to sea trials to measure wake characteristics at Rationale: various vessel speeds and distances from the vessel. Baffinland does not yet own its own vessels and instead relies on market availability of existing ore carriers.

Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Marine Environmental Working Group (MEWG)

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 83 Baffinland Comments

Category Marine Environment ‐ Shoreline Effects and Sediment Redistribution Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent The Proponent shall install tidal gauges at Steensby and Milne Port to monitor sea levels and storm surges at an Project Phase(s) All phases appropriate frequency to be determined in consultation with the MEWG, or at a minimum, once every 5 years. Objective To provide data on tide levels and storm surges. Term or Condition The Proponent shall install tidal gauges at Steensby and Milne Port to monitor sea levels and storm surges. Add Commentary: Reporting Requirement The Proponent shall summarize and supply these monitoring results to NIRB in the annual Project report. The Proponent collected tidal gauge data in 2014 and 2017‐2019 at Milne Port and no observable sea level rise was Stakeholder Review Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB) noted.

Project Certificate Condition No. 83(a) Baffinland Comments

Category Marine Environment ‐ Shoreline Effects and Sediment Redistribution Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 83 (a) (or alternatively, retain condition and add as Commentary the rationale Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations set out below so that compliance with PC Condition No. 83(a) is confirmed going forward). Objective To identify potential for and conduct monitoring to identify effects of sediment redistribution associated with construction and operation of the Milne Port. Rationale: Term or Condition The Proponent shall conduct hydrodynamic modelling in the Milne Inlet Port area to determine the potential impacts A hydrodynamic modelling report for Milne Port has been completed and the results were submitted as part of the Phase 2 FEIS Addendum. arising from disturbance to sediments including re‐suspension and subsequent transport and deposition of sediment. The modelling results shall be used to update the marine water and sediment quality monitoring and mitigation program to include activities associated with the construction and operation of the Milne Inlet Port. The monitoring program shall include an ongoing assessment of the potential introduction of metals that bio‐accumulate in the marine food chain. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Marine Environmental Working Group (MEWG)

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 84 Baffinland Comments

Category Marine Environment ‐ Shoreline Effects and Sediment Redistribution Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 84 (or alternatively, retain condition and add as Commentary the rationale set Project Phase(s) Construction and Operations out below so that compliance with PC Condition No. 84 is confirmed going forward). Objective To prevent sediment redistribution along the shipping route Term or Condition The Proponent shall update its sediment redistribution modeling once ship design has been completed and sampling Rationale: should be undertaken to validate the model and to inform sampling sites and the monitoring plan.

Relevant BIM N/A A ship wake and propeller wash assessment for the Northern portion of the Project has been completed and Commitments results were submitted as part of the Phase 2 FEIS Addendum. It is noted that this condition would remain in Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister place to account for the Southern portion of the Project Status Not Applicable Stakeholder Review None

Project Certificate Condition No. 85 Baffinland Comments

Category Marine Environment ‐ Shoreline Effects and Sediment Redistribution No Change. Responsible Parties The Proponent Project Phase(s) Construction and Operations Objective To prevent sediment redistribution along the shipping route Term or Condition The Proponent shall develop a monitoring plan to verify its impact predictions associated with sediment redistribution resulting from propeller wash in shallow water locations along the shipping route. If monitoring detects negative impacts from sediment redistribution, additional mitigation measures will need to be developed and implemented. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister Stakeholder Review None

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 86 Baffinland Comments

Category Marine Environment ‐ Ballast Water Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent No Change. Project Phase(s) Construction Objective To update ballast water discharge impact predictions. Add Commentary: Term or Condition Prior to commercial shipping of iron ore, the Proponent shall use more detailed bathymetry collected from Steensby Ballast water dispersion modelling for the Northern portion of the Project has been completed and results were Inlet and Milne Inlet to model the anticipated ballast water discharges from ore carriers. The results from this modeling submitted as part of the FEIS for Phase 2 Project Proposal. This condition remains in place to account for the Southern portion of the Project. shall be used to update ballast water discharge impact predictions and should account for density dependent flow and annual timescales over the project life. Additional sampling should also be undertaken to validate the model and to inform sampling sites and the monitoring plan. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Marine Environmental Working Group (MEWG)

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 87 Baffinland Comments

Category Marine Environment ‐ Ballast Water Proposed Revision: Marine Environment – Aquatic Invasive Species

Rationale: Updated to better reflect monitoring outlined in term and condition Responsible Parties The Proponent Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure / Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Proposed Revision: Objective To prevent invasive species introductions resulting from Project shipping a) The Proponent shall develop a long term monitoring program to evaluate changes to marine habitat and Term or Condition The Proponent shall develop a detailed monitoring program at a number of sites over the long term to evaluate changes organisms and to monitor for invasive species introductions resulting from Project‐related shipping. to marine habitat and organisms and to monitor for non‐native introductions resulting from Project‐related shipping. b) The Proponent shall develop a monitoring program in collaboration with DFO and Transport Canada to This program needs to be able to detect changes that may have biological consequences and should be initiated several ensure that ballast water will comply with all applicable regulations prior to discharge. This monitoring years prior to any ballast water discharge into Steensby Inlet and Milne Inlet to collect sufficient baseline data and program shall include a component for the monitoring of contaminants of risk from the vessels Port of origin should continue over the life of the Project. and treatment systems, as applicable, to assess potential risks to the marine environment associated with discharge. c) The Proponent shall use data collected through the monitoring program described at (b) to support the development and future refinement of a trigger list of high biological risk invasive species or groupings of invasive species of concern and associated response plans in collaboration with DFO starting in 2021.

Rationale: Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Updated to reflect current phase of the Project (i.e. post‐baseline data collection) and commitment to conduct on‐board testing of ballast water prior to discharge. International and Domestic regulations may be subject to changes over the life of mine. Flexibility should be allowed for as changes occur.

Proposed Revision: Annually Stakeholder Review Marine Environmental Working Group (MEWG)

Rationale: Results of the monitoring programs will be summarized in the Annual Report to the NIRB. No Change.

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 88 Baffinland Comments

Category Marine Environment ‐ Ballast Water Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Project Phase(s) Construction Add Commentary: Objective To prevent invasive species introductions resulting from Project shipping. A risk assessment for the Introduction of Aquatic Invasive Species from Ballast Water for the Northern portion Term or Condition Prior to commercial shipping of iron ore and in conjunction with the Marine Environment Working Group, the of the Project has been completed and results were submitted as part of the FEIS and FEIS addendum for Phase Proponent shall provide an updated risk analysis regarding ballast water discharge to assess the adequacy of treatment 2 Project Proposal. This condition remains in place to account for the Southern portion of the Project. and implications on the receiving environment. This risk analysis shall consider, but not be limited to: Invasive species Seasonal oceanography Ballast water quality and quantity Receiving water quality; e. Residual physical, chemical, and/or biological effects Any risk assessment analysis regarding ballast water exchange and treatment efficacy in arctic waters Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Marine Environment Work Group (MEWG)

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 89 Baffinland Comments

Category Marine Environment ‐ Ballast Water Proposed Revisions: Marine Environment – Aquatic Invasive Species

Rationale: To reflect incorporation of multiple PC Conditions (i.e. 90 and 91) into a singular term and condition. Responsible Parties The Proponent Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure/Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Proposed Revision: To prevent impacts of the introduction of aquatic invasive species into the marine environment as a result of shipping activities

Rationale: Objective To prevent impacts to marine water quality resulting from ballast water exchange. To reflect incorporation of multiple PC Conditions (i.e. 90 and 91) into a singular term and condition.

Proposed Revision: The Proponent shall ensure that all shipping contractors meet the legal requirements of ballast water management, including all applicable regulations

Rationale: Term or Condition The Proponent shall develop and implement an effective ballast water management program that may include the Revisions have been made to reference applicable regulations for managing the potential introduction of aquatic treatment and monitoring of ballast water discharges in a manner consistent with applicable regulations and/or exceed invasive species, and to minimize duplication that currently exists between PC Condition No. 89, 90 and 91. those regulations if they are determined to be ineffective for providing the desired and predicted results. The ballast Specific regulations are not references as their names may change over time. See also proposed revisions to PC water management program shall include, without limitation, a provision that requires ship owners to test their ballast Condition No. 87. water to confirm that it meets the salinity requirements of the applicable regulations prior to discharge at the Milne Port, and a requirement noting that the Proponent, in choosing shipping contractors will, whenever feasible, give preference to contractors that use ballast water treatment in addition to ballast water exchange.

Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Transport Canada, Marine Environmental Working Group (MEWG)

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 90 Baffinland Comments

Category Marine Environment ‐ Ballast Water Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 90.

Project Phase(s) Construction Rationale: Objective To prevent impacts to marine water quality resulting from ballast water exchange. See proposed revisions to PC Condition No. 89. Term or Condition The Proponent shall incorporate into its Shipping and Marine Mammals Management Plan provisions to achieve compliance with the requirements under the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediment (2004) or its replacement and as implemented by the Canadian Ballast Water and Control Regulations as may be amended from time to time. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Transport Canada, Marine Environment Working Group (MEWG)

Project Certificate Condition No. 91 Baffinland Comments

Category Marine Environment ‐ Ballast Water Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 91.

Project Phase(s) Construction Rationale: Objective To prevent impacts to marine water quality in Steensby Inlet and Milne Inlet. See proposed revisions to PC Condition No. 89. Term or Condition The Proponent shall develop a detailed monitoring plan for Steensby Inlet and Milne Inlet for fouling that complies with all applicable regulatory requirements and guidelines as issued by Transport Canada, and includes sampling areas on ships where antifouling treatment is not applied such as the areas where non‐native species are most likely to occur. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister Stakeholder Review Transport Canada, Marine Environmental Working Group (MEWG)

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 92 Baffinland Comments

Category Marine Environment ‐ Spill Prevention Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 92. Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure/Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Objective To ensure adequate spill response capacity. Rationale: Term or Condition The Proponent shall ensure that it maintains the necessary equipment and trained personnel to respond to all sizes of Duplicates regulatory requirements under Canada Shipping Act, 2012 required OPEP‐OPPP. potential spills associated with the Project in a self‐sufficient manner. No Change. Proposed Revision: Transport Canada and Canadian Coast Guard

Rationale: Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. TC and CCG are the appropriate regulatory authorities to provide guidance on spill response associated with the Stakeholder Review Marine Environmental Working Group (MEWG) Project.

Project Certificate Condition No. 93 Baffinland Comments

Category Marine Environment ‐ Spill Prevention No Change. Responsible Parties The Proponent Project Phase(s) Construction Objective To prevent impacts to the marine environment at Steensby Inlet. Term or Condition Prior to construction, based on vessel selection and if so required, the Proponent shall reassess the risk analysis of using vessel‐based fuel storage, including the potential environmental impacts of containment failure under a range of winter ice conditions, how a spill might spread and the impact of fuel if it does not volatilize to the atmosphere. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review N/A

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 94 Baffinland Comments

Category Marine Environment ‐ Spill Prevention No Change. Responsible Parties The Proponent Project Phase(s) Construction Objective To promote public awareness of Project activities. Term or Condition The Proponent shall consult directly with affected communities regarding its plans for over‐wintering of fuel in Steensby Inlet, with discussion topics to include descriptions of the duration of proposed activities, vessel type, spill preparedness and emergency response protocols, environmental impact predictions and answers to community member questions. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Communities of Hall Beach and Igloolik

Project Certificate Condition No. 95 Baffinland Comments

Category Marine Environment ‐ Spill Prevention No Change. Responsible Parties The Proponent, Transport Canada Project Phase(s) Construction Objective To prevent impacts to the marine environment at Steensby Inlet. Term or Condition The Proponent shall meet or exceed all regulatory regulations and requirements as apply to the practice of overwintering a fuel vessel at Steensby Inlet, with reporting to the NIRB and Transport Canada. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review N/A

Project Certificate Condition No. 96 Baffinland Comments

Category Marine Environment ‐ Spill Prevention Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Suggest to remove PC Conditions No. 96.

Project Phase(s) Construction Rationale: Objective To ensure adequate oversight of Project activities is occurring. This PC Condition duplicates the requirement to report results to NIRB and Transport Canada outlined in PC Term or Condition The Proponent will update the NIRB on the results of all compliance monitoring and site inspections undertaken by Condition No. 95. government agencies for the overwintering of a fuel vessel in Steensby Inlet. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review N/A

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 97 Baffinland Comments

Category Marine Environment ‐ Spill Prevention Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent (e) Spill models shall be reexamined and reassessed as required where changes to Project shipping are contemplated that have not been considered through previous assessments. Project Phase(s) Construction

Objective To prevent impacts to the marine environment along the shipping route. Add Commentary: Term or Condition Prior to the commercial shipping of iron ore, the Proponent shall conduct fuel spill dispersion modeling that will, at a Oil spill modelling for the Northern portion of the Project was conducted and results were submitted as part of minimum, consider: the FEIS and FEIS addendum for Phase 2 Project Proposal. This condition remains in place to account for the a) Modeling of oil spills for both the Northern and Southern Shipping Routes, in representative locations, Southern portion of the Project. identified by the Proponent, in consultation with the Marine Environment Working Group along both Shipping Routes, and including:  Pinch points;  The approaches into Steensby Inlet and Milne Inlet;  Shallow water and shorelines; and,  Areas that have been identified as having high flows and/or high concentrations of marine mammals, marine fish or seabirds. b) Open water and, where applicable, ice‐covered conditions c) Spill volumes up to and including loss of a full tanker cargo d) Differences in the quantity and properties of each type of bulk fuel transported by vessels when they are at, or in transit to, the ports at Steensby Inlet and Milne Inlet Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Transport Canada Marine Safety. Canadian Coast Guard

Project Certificate Condition No. 98 Baffinland Comments

Category Marine Environment ‐ Spill Prevention No Change. Responsible Parties The Proponent Project Phase(s) Construction Objective To prevent impacts to the marine environment along the shipping route. Term or Condition The Proponent shall incorporate the results of revised fuel spill dispersion modeling into its impact predictions for the marine environment and its spill response and emergency preparedness plans. Reporting To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Requirement Stakeholder Review Transport Canada Marine Safety, Canadian Coast Guard

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 99 Baffinland Comments

Category Marine Environment ‐ Supplemental Baseline Assessments Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent, Marine Environment Working Group The Proponent, working with the Marine Environment Working Group, shall consider and identify priorities for Project Phase(s) Construction conducting the following supplemental baseline assessments prior to the commencement of ore carrier shipping for Objective To supplement baseline information and improve predictions for potential impacts to marine wildlife. the Southern portion of the Project: Term or Condition The Proponent, working with the Marine Environment Working Group, shall consider and identify priorities for a) Establish shipping season, inter‐annual baseline in Steensby Inlet that enables effective monitoring of conducting the following supplemental baseline assessments: physical and chemical effects of ballast water releases, sewage outfall, and bottom scour by ship props, a) Establish shipping season, inter‐annual baseline in Steensby Inlet and Milne Inlet that enables effective particularly downslope and downstream from the docks. This shall include the selection and identification monitoring of physical and chemical effects of ballast water releases, sewage outfall, and bottom scour by ship of physical, chemical, and biological community/indicator components. The biological indicators shall props, particularly downslope and downstream from the docks. This shall include the selection and include both pelagic and benthic species but with emphasis on relatively sedentary benthic species (e.g., identification of physical, chemical, and biological community/indicator components. The biological indicators sculpins). shall include both pelagic and benthic species but with emphasis on relatively sedentary benthic species (e.g., b) The collection of additional baseline data in Steensby Inlet on walrus, beluga, bearded seal anadromous sculpins). Arctic Char abundance, distribution ecology and habitat use. c) Enhance baseline data on marine wildlife (fish, invertebrates, birds, mammals, etc.) and to provide more b) The collection of additional baseline data: details on species abundance and distribution found in the Project area. c) in Steensby Inlet on walrus, beluga, bearded seal anadromous Arctic Char abundance, distribution ecology and d) Enhance the baseline for affected freshwater systems, which includes control sites to detect Project‐ habitat use related changes. d) In Milne Inlet on narwhal, bowhead and anadromous Arctic Char abundance, distribution ecology and habitat use Add Commentary: e) Enhance baseline data on marine wildlife (fish, invertebrates, birds, mammals, etc.) and to provide more details The requirements of collecting baseline data for the Northern Shipping Route have been completed. These have on species abundance and distribution found in the Project area. This shall include, but not be limited to the been submitted to NIRB and are also available on Baffinland’s Document Portal (website). following: f) Aerial surveys for basking ringed seals throughout the landfast ice of Steensby Inlet and at an appropriate control location Rationale: g) Shore‐based observations of pre‐Project narwhal and bowhead whale behavior in Milne Inlet that continues at Current effort for the Northern Shipping Route is focused on environmental effects monitoring (EEM) using a an appropriate frequency throughout the Early Revenue Phase and for not less than three consecutive years number of different EEM programs that focus on detection of potential Project effects on marine mammals and the h) Enhance the baseline for affected freshwater systems, which includes control sites to detect Project‐related marine environment. See also revisions to PC Condition 101. changes before they cause significant harm. The method for collection of data is removed to allow for flexibility in the design and implementation of monitoring programs based on monitoring report results, input from government agencies and Inuit.

Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Marine Environment Working Group (MEWG)

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2 Project Certificate Condition No. 100 Baffinland Comments

Category Marine Environment ‐ Supplemental Baseline Assessments No Change. Responsible Parties The Proponent, Marine Environment Working Group Project Phase(s) Construction Objective To supplement baseline information and improve predictions for potential impacts to marine wildlife. Term or Condition The Proponent shall update its Shipping and Marine Wildlife Management Plan, to include avoidance of polynyas and mitigation measures designed for potential fuel spills along the shipping lane during the winter months, with consideration for the impact of spilled fuel on marine mammals when they might be less mobile or able to avoid contact with spilt fuel or fumes. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Marine Environment Working Group (MEWG)

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 101 Baffinland Comments

Category Marine Environment ‐ Monitoring Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent, Marine Environment Working Group Term or Condition: Project Phase(s) Construction and Operations The Proponent shall incorporate into the appropriate monitoring plans the following items: Objective To monitor for potential impacts to marine wildlife and marine habitat. a) A monitoring program that focuses on walrus use of Steensby Inlet and their reaction to disturbance Term or Condition The Proponent shall incorporate into the appropriate monitoring plans the following items: from construction activities, aircraft, and vessels; a) A monitoring program that focuses on walrus use of Steensby Inlet and their reaction to disturbance from b) Efforts to involve Inuit in monitoring studies at all levels; construction activities, aircraft, and vessels; c) Monitoring protocols that are responsive to Inuit concerns; b) Efforts to involve Inuit in monitoring studies at all levels; d) Marine monitoring protocols are to consider the use of additional detecting devices to ensure adequate c) Monitoring protocols that are responsive to Inuit concerns; monitoring through changing seasonal conditions and daylight; d) Marine monitoring protocols are to consider the use of additional detecting devices to ensure adequate e) Consistent use of terminology describing relevant ice conditions in English and translated to Inuktitut. monitoring through changing seasonal conditions and daylight; e) Schedule for periodic aerial surveys as recommended by the Marine Environment Working Group; Reporting Requirement: f) Periodic aerial surveys for basking ringed seals throughout the landfast ice of Steensby Inlet, and a suitable control location. Surveys shall be conducted at an appropriate frequency to detect change inter‐annual Add “The Proponent shall provide a summary of the following information as part of its Annual Report to NIRB and in preliminary field reports within 35 days of Spring shoulder season shipping activities commencing and 15 days of variability; Fall shoulder season activities ending:

g) Shore‐based observations of pre‐Project narwhal behavior in Milne Inlet, that continues at an appropriate  planned and completed marine monitoring programs; frequency throughout the Early Revenue Phase (not less than three years);  the specific date on which the shipping season was opened and closed, within the nominal shipping h) Conduct landfast ice monitoring for the duration of the Project Operations phase, which will include: window; i) The number of ship transits that are able to use the same track; and,  determinants for opening and closing the shipping season; and j) The area of landfast ice disrupted annually by ship traffic; and  ecological and cultural factors that influence the decision to commence or end shipping activities for the k) Monitoring strategy focused on assessing and mitigating interaction between humans and wildlife at the port shipping season.” site(s).  GIS coordinates and a description of group size(s) of narwhal observed along end of season aerial clearance survey and associated ice conditions. Reporting Requirement To be provided in the Annual Report to the NIRB. Stakeholder Review Marine Environmental Working Group (MEWG), Nunavut Impact Review Board Rationale: Revised to create a more focused Project scope and reduce duplication between PC Condition No. 78, 99 and 101. Specifics on monitoring program design removed to allow flexibility in the design and implementation of monitoring programs based on monitoring report results, input from government agencies and Inuit. To reflect resolution of QIA‐04. QIA‐47 and QIA‐48.

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2 Project Certificate Condition No. 102 Baffinland Comments

Category Marine Environment ‐ Traffic Log and Shipping Information Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Suggest to Remove PC Condition No. 102.

Project Phase(s) Construction and Operations Rationale: Objective To promote public awareness of Project shipping activities for the general public. This is duplicative of requirements under PC Condition No.164. Term or Condition The Proponent shall ensure that routing of Project vessels is tracked and recorded for both the southern and northern shipping routes, with data made accessible in real time to communities in Nunavut and Nunavik. Reporting Requirement To be provided in the Annual Report to the NIRB. Stakeholder Review N/A

Project Certificate Condition No. 103 Baffinland Comments

Category Marine Environment ‐ Traffic Log and Shipping Information Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Construction, Operations and Closure. Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure /Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Rationale: Shipping activities are not expected to occur during temporary or post‐closure phases of the Project.

Proposed Revision: The Proponent shall report annually to the NIRB regarding project‐related ship track and sea ice information, including: Objective To monitor effectiveness of mitigation of shipping impacts to marine wildlife. a) A record of all ship tracks taken along both shipping routes covering the entire shipping season; Term or Condition The Proponent shall report annually to the NIRB regarding project‐related ship track and sea ice information, including: b) When employing ice‐breaking, an overlay of ship tracks onto ice imagery to determine whether ships are a) A record of all ship tracks taken along both shipping routes covering the entire shipping season; effectively avoiding shore leads and polynyas; b) When employing ice‐breaking, an overlay of ship tracks onto ice imagery to determine whether ships are c) A comparison of recorded ship tracks to the expected nominal shipping route, and probable (if any) extent of effectively avoiding shore leads and polynyas; year‐round shipping during periods of ice cover and open‐water; c) A comparison of recorded ship tracks to the expected nominal shipping route, and probable (if any) extent of d) An assessment of the level of adherence to the nominal shipping route and the spatial extent of the shipping year‐round shipping during periods of ice cover and open‐water; zone of influence; d) An assessment of the level of adherence to the nominal shipping route and the spatial extent of the shipping e) A summary all incidences of significant deviations from the nominal shipping routes for traffic to/from Milne zone of influence; and Port and Steensby Port as presented in the FEIS and FEIS Addendum, with corresponding discussion regarding e) When employing ice‐breaking, marine bird and mammal species and number of individuals attracted to ship justification for deviations and any observed environmental impacts; and tracks in ice. f) maps with its Annual Reports that illustrate tracks taken by each Project‐related ship within the RSA and Baffin Bay, relative to recorded ice coverage.

Every 3 years [from 2022] the Proponent will conduct an analysis of ship tracks through Baffin Bay in relation to sea‐ice to assess the extent of Project shipping’s interaction with sea‐ice in Baffin Bay [and shall provide such analysis to NIRB].

Rationale: Combining PC Condition No. 104 and 103 reduces current duplicative reporting requirements between the two. Item (e) of PC Condition 103 is suggested to be removed given that relative numbers for marine mammals and Reporting Requirement To be provided in the Annual Report to the NIRB seabirds attracted to sea ice would be captured in monitoring requirements for PC 106.

Stakeholder Review Nunavut Impact Review Board Additional wording to reflect commitment made by Baffinland to resolve GN‐24.

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 104 Baffinland Comments

Category Marine Environment ‐ Traffic Log and Shipping Information Proposed Revisions: Responsible Parties The Proponent Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 104 Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations Objective To prevent impacts to marine wildlife from Project shipping activities. Rationale: Term or Condition Subject to safety considerations and the potential for conditions as determined by the crew of transiting vessels, to See proposed revisions to PC No. 103, which incorporates the terms and conditions for PC Condition No. 104, but result in route deviations: reduces current duplicative reporting requirements. a) The Proponent shall require, for shipping to/from Steensby Port, project vessels to maintain a route to the south of Mill Island to prevent disturbance to walrus and walrus habitat on the northern shore of Mill Island. Where project vessels are required to transit to the north of Mill Island owing to environmental or other conditions, an incident report is to be provided to the Marine Environment Working Group and the NIRB within 30 days, noting all wildlife sightings and interactions as recorded by shipboard monitors. b) The Proponent shall summarize all incidences of significant deviations from the nominal shipping routes for traffic to/from Milne Port and Steensby Port as presented in the FEIS and FEIS Addendum to the NIRB annually, with corresponding discussion regarding justification for deviations and any observed environmental impacts. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review N/A

Project Certificate Condition No. 105 Baffinland Comments

Category Marine Environment ‐ Traffic Log and Shipping Information No change. Responsible Parties The Proponent Project Phase(s) Construction and Operations Objective To prevent impacts to marine wildlife from Project shipping activities. Term or Condition The Proponent shall ensure that measures to reduce the potential for interaction with marine mammals, particularly in Hudson Strait and Milne Inlet, are identified and implemented prior to commencement of shipping operations. These measures could include, but are not limited to: a) Changes in the frequency and timing (including periodic suspensions) of shipping during winter months in Hudson Strait and during the open water season in Milne Inlet, i.e., when interactions with marine mammals are likely to be the most problematic b) Reduced shipping speeds where ship‐marine mammal interactions are most likely c) Identification of alternate shipping routes through Hudson Strait for use when conflicts between the proposed routes and marine mammals could arise. Repeated winter aerial survey results showing marine mammal distribution and densities in Hudson Strait would greatly assist in this task. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister Stakeholder Review Marine Environmental Working Group (MEWG)

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 106 Baffinland Comments

Category Marine Environment ‐ Shipboard Observers Responsible Parties The Proponent Proposed Revision: Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure /Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring The proponent will develop a surveillance monitoring program to allow for observations between shipping activities and marine wildlife and seabirds. The design of the program should take into account seasons where shipping occurs and the means for observers to effectively carry out assigned duties.

Rationale: Objective To ensure that interactions with marine mammals and Project shipping activities are effectively monitored. The proposed modifications to the PC Condition has been updated to reflect feedback received by the MEWG Term or Condition The Proponent shall ensure that shipboard observers are employed during seasons where shipping occurs and provided during the ERP of the Project and allows flexibility in the methods to undertake observations based on with the means to effectively carry out assigned duties. The role of shipboard observers in shipping operations should be information learned throughout the ERP and constraints related to contract vessels. Examples of these programs taken into consideration during the design of any ore carriers purpose‐built for the Project, with climate controlled are ship‐based and/or shore based observations. stations and shipboard lighting incorporated to permit visual sightings by shipboard observers during all seasons and Proposed Revision: conditions. Any shipboard lighting incorporated should be in accordance with the Canada Shipping Act, 2001’s Collision Annually. Regulations, and should not interfere with safe navigation of the vessel.

Rationale: A summary of results will be provided in the Annual Report to the NIRB.

Reporting Requirement As needed.

Stakeholder Review Marine Environment Working Group (MEWG)

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 107 Baffinland Comments

Category Marine Environment ‐ Shipboard Observers Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 107. Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations Objective To determine the presence of, and ensure that interactions with marine mammals, seabirds and seaducks are effectively Rationale: monitored for, along the northern and southern shipping routes, as applicable. Unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) field tests were conducted in 2014 using DJI Phantom 2 rotary‐wing UAVs. Term or Condition The Proponent shall revise the proposed “surveillance monitoring” to improve the likelihood of detecting strong marine Limiting environmental conditions such as cold temperatures and high winds restricted the ability to fly the UAV mammal, seabird or seaduck responses occurring too far ahead of the ship to be detectable by observers aboard the ore ahead of the ship during at‐sea transits and pose unnecessary safety risks to the vessel and crew, other vessels or carriers. A baseline study early in the shipping operations could employ additional surveillance to detect potential small boats in the area, and aircrafts operating in the area. changes in distribution patterns and behavior. At an ambitious scope, this might be achieved using unmanned aircraft flown ahead of ships, or over known areas of importance for seabirds or haul‐out sites in the case of walruses, in accordance with the requirements of their Special Flight Operations Certificate. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Marine Environment Working Group (MEWG)

Project Certificate Condition No. 108 Baffinland Comments

Category Marine Environment ‐ Shipboard Observers Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 108

Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations Rationale: Objective To ensure that interactions with marine mammals, seabirds, and seaducks are effectively monitored for along the See suggested revisions to PC Condition No. 106. southern and northern shipping routes, as applicable. Term or Condition The Proponent shall ensure that data produced by the surveillance monitoring program is analysed rigorously by experienced analysts (in addition to being discussed as proposed in the FEIS) to maximize their effectiveness in providing baseline information, and for detecting potential effects of the project on marine mammals, seabirds and seaducks in the Regional Study Area. It is expected that data from the long‐term monitoring program be treated with the same rigor. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Marine Environment Working Group (MEWG)

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 109 Baffinland Comments

Category Marine Environment ‐ Ship Noise Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 109

Project Phase(s) Construction and Operations Rationale: Objective To prevent impacts to marine mammals from Project shipping activities. See proposed revisions to PC No. 110, which incorporate aspects of term and condition for PC No. 109, Term or Condition The Proponent shall conduct a monitoring program to confirm the predictions in the FEIS with respect to disturbance eliminating current duplication between these PC Conditions. effects from ships noise on the distribution and occurrence of marine mammals. The survey shall be designed to address effects during the shipping seasons, and include locations in Hudson Strait and Foxe Basin, Milne Inlet, Eclipse Sound and Pond Inlet. The survey shall continue over a sufficiently lengthy period to determine the extent to which habituation occurs for narwhal, beluga, bowhead and walrus. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Marine Environmental Working Group (MEWG)

Project Certificate Condition No. 110 Baffinland Comments

Category Marine Environment ‐ Ship Noise Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent, Marine Environment Working Group The Proponent shall develop an acoustic monitoring program that allows for an assessment of the predictions in Project Phase(s) Construction and Operations the FEIS and FEIS addendum (short and long term cumulative) of vessel noise on marine mammals. In consultation Objective To prevent impacts to marine mammals from Project shipping activities. with the MEWG, the monitoring program shall be designed to assess against early warning indicators or Term or Condition The Proponent shall immediately develop a monitoring protocol that includes, but is not limited to, acoustical thresholds that serve to determine if un‐predicted impacts as a result of vessel noise are occurring. The monitoring, to facilitate assessment of the potential short term, long term, and cumulative effects of vessel noise on monitoring program shall continue over a sufficiently lengthy period to determine the extent to which habituation marine mammals and marine mammal populations. The Proponent is expected to work with the Marine Environment occurs for narwhal, beluga, bowhead and walrus. Working Group to determine appropriate early warning indicator(s) that will ensure rapid identification of negative impacts along the southern and northern shipping routes. Rationale: PC Condition has been modified to incorporate components of PC Conditions Nos. 109, 111 and 112, thereby eliminating duplicative reporting requirements. Proposed Revision: Annually.

Rationale: Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. The results of the acoustic monitoring program will be reported in the Annual Report to NIRB.

Stakeholder Review Marine Environmental Working Group (MEWG)

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 111 Baffinland Comments

Category Marine Environment ‐ Ship Noise Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent, Marine Environment Working Group Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 111 Project Phase(s) Construction and Operations Objective To prevent impacts to marine mammals from Project shipping activities. Rationale: Term or Condition The Proponent shall develop clear thresholds for determining if negative impacts as a result of vessel noise are See proposed revisions to PC No. 110, which incorporate aspects of term and condition for PC No. 111, eliminating occurring. Mitigation and adaptive management practices shall be developed to restrict negative impacts as a result of current duplication between these PC Conditions. vessel noise. This shall include, but not be limited to: a) Identifications of zones where cumulative noise could be mitigated due to biophysical features (e.g., water depth, distance from migration routes, distance from overwintering areas etc.) b) Vessel transit planning, for all seasons, to determine the degree to which cumulative sound impacts can be mitigated through the seasonal use of different zones. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Marine Environmental Working Group (MEWG)

Project Certificate Condition No. 112 Baffinland Comments Category Marine Environment ‐ Ship Noise Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent, Marine Environment Working Group Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 112 Project Phase(s) Construction and Operations Objective To prevent impacts to marine mammals from Project shipping activities. Rationale: Term or Condition Prior to commercial shipping of iron ore, the Proponent, in conjunction with the Marine Environment Working See proposed revisions to PC No. 110, which incorporate aspects of term and condition for PC No. 112, eliminating Group, shall develop a monitoring protocol that includes, but is not limited to, acoustical monitoring that provides current duplication between these PC Conditions. an assessment of the negative effects (short and long term cumulative) of vessel noise on marine mammals. Monitoring protocols will need to carefully consider the early warning indicator(s) that will be best examined to ensure rapid identification of negative impacts. Thresholds shall be developed to determine if negative impacts as a result of vessel noise are occurring. Mitigation and adaptive management practices shall be developed to restrict negative impacts as a result of vessel noise. This shall include, but not be limited to: a) Identification of zones where noise could be mitigated due to biophysical features (e.g., water depth, distance from migration routes, distance from overwintering areas etc.) b) Vessel transit planning, for all seasons A monitoring and mitigation plan is to be developed, and approved by Fisheries and Oceans Canada prior to the commencement of blasting in marine areas Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister Stakeholder Review Marine Environmental Working Group (MEWG)

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 113 Baffinland Comments

Category Marine Environment ‐ Arctic Char No Change. Responsible Parties The Proponent, Marine Environment Working Group Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure/Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Objective To prevent impacts to marine fish in Steensby Inlet and Milne Inlet Term or Condition The Proponent shall conduct monitoring of marine fish and fish habitat, which includes but is not limited to, monitoring for Arctic Char stock size and health condition in Steensby Inlet and Milne Inlet, as recommended by the Marine Environment Working Group Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister Stakeholder Review Marine Environmental Working Group (MEWG)

Project Certificate Condition No. 114 Baffinland Comments

Category Marine Environment ‐ Arctic Char No Change. Responsible Parties The Proponent, Marine Environment Working Group Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure/Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Objective To prevent impacts to marine fish in Steensby Inlet and Milne Inlet. Term or Condition In the event of the development of a commercial fishery in the Steensby Inlet area or Milne Inlet‐Eclipse Sound areas, the Proponent, in conjunction with the Marine Environment Working Group, shall update its monitoring program for marine fish and fish habitat to ensure that the ability to identify Arctic Char stock(s) potentially affected by Project activities and monitor for changes in stock size and structure of affected stocks and fish health (condition, taste) is maintained to address any additional monitoring issues identified by the MEWG relating to the commercial fishery. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister Stakeholder Review N/A

Project Certificate Condition No. 115 Baffinland Comments

Category Marine Environment ‐ Arctic Char Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 115.

Project Phase(s) Construction and Operations Rationale: Objective To prevent impacts to marine fish in Steensby Inlet and Milne Inlet. Any in‐water works required for the Project would be conducted in accordance with DFO guidance and Term or Condition The Proponent is encouraged to continue to explore off‐setting options in both the freshwater and marine environment requirements established in Fisheries Act Authorizations necessitated by Project activities which includes to offset the serious harm to fish which will result from the construction and infrastructure associated with the Project. determination of off‐setting options and consultation with Inuit. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), Marine Environment Working Group (MEWG)

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 116 Baffinland Comments

Category Marine Environment ‐ Blasting Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent, Fisheries and Oceans Canada The Proponent shall engage with Fisheries and Oceans Canada to develop project specific thresholds, mitigation Project Phase(s) Construction and monitoring for any blasting activities that would exceed the requirements of Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Objective To prevent impacts to marine fish and fish habitat from explosives. Guidelines for the Use of Explosives In or Near Canadian Fisheries Waters. Term or Condition Prior to construction, the Proponent shall develop mitigation measures to minimize the effects of blasting on marine fish and fish habitat, marine water quality and wildlife that includes, but is not limited to compliance with the Guidelines for Rationale: the Use of Explosives In or Near Canadian Fisheries Waters (Wright and Hopky 1998) as modified by Fisheries and Revision provides certainty that for all relevant activities, specific thresholds, mitigations and monitoring for any Oceans Canada for use in the North and as revised from time to time. blasting activities would exceed regulatory guidance. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review N/A

Project Certificate Condition No. 117 Baffinland Comments

Category Marine Environment ‐ Blasting Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent, Fisheries and Oceans Canada Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 117.

Project Phase(s) Construction Rationale: Objective To prevent impacts to marine fish and fish habitat from explosives. See proposed Revision to PC Condition No. 116. Term or Condition The Proponent shall ensure that blasting in, and near, marine water shall only occur during periods of open water. Blasting in, and near, fish‐bearing freshwaters shall, to the greatest degree possible, only occur in open water. If blasting is required during ice‐covered periods, it must meet requirements established by Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), Marine Environment Working Group (MEWG)

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 118 Baffinland Comments

Category Marine Environment ‐ Blasting Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 118.

Project Phase(s) Construction Rationale: Objective To prevent impacts to marine fish and fish habitat from explosives. See Proposed Revision to PC Condition No. 166. Term or Condition The Proponent shall incorporate into the appropriate mitigation plan prior to construction, thresholds for the use of specific mitigation measures meant to prevent or limit marine wildlife disturbance, such as bubble curtains for blasting, and nitrate removal. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review N/A

Project Certificate Condition No. 119 Baffinland Comments

Category Marine Environment ‐ Ringed Seals Proposed Revision: The Proponent shall, in conjunction with the Marine Environment Working Group, monitor ringed seal birth lair Responsible Parties The Proponent, Marine Environment Working Group abundance and distribution for at least two years prior to the start of winter shipping associated with the Project Phase(s) Construction Southern shipping route, with continued monitoring over the life of the project as necessary to test the Objective To prevent impacts to ringed seals from icebreaking associated with Project shipping. accuracy of the impact predictions and determine if mitigation is needed. Monitoring shall also include a control Term or Condition The Proponent shall, in conjunction with the Marine Environment Working Group, monitor ringed seal birth lair site outside of the Project’s zone of influence. abundance and distribution for at least two years prior to the start of icebreaking to develop a baseline, with continued monitoring over the life of the project as necessary to test the accuracy of the impact predictions and determine if The Proponent shall develop a ringed seal monitoring plan for the Northern shipping route that incorporates Inuit perspectives into the design, planning and implementation phases. mitigation is needed. Monitoring shall also include a control site outside of the Project’s zone of influence.

Rationale: Seasonal shipping through the Northern Shipping Route does not overlap with seal parturition, pupping or nursing periods. However, this commitment was made by the Proponent to resolve QIA‐04.

Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Marine Environment Working Group (MEWG)

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 120 Baffinland Comments

Category Marine Environment ‐ Marine Mammal Interactions No Change. Responsible Parties The Proponent Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure/Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Objective To prevent impacts to marine mammals associated with Project shipping. Term or Condition The Proponent shall ensure that, subject to vessel and human safety considerations, all project shipping adhere to the following mitigation procedures while in the vicinity of marine mammals: a) Wildlife will be given right of way b) Ships will when possible, maintain a straight course and constant speed, avoiding erratic behavior c) When marine mammals appear to be trapped or disturbed by vessel movements, the vessel will implement appropriate measures to mitigate disturbance, including stoppage of movement until wildlife have moved away from the immediate area. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Marine Environmental Working Group (MEWG)

Project Certificate Condition No. 121 Baffinland Comments

Category Marine Environment ‐ Marine Mammal Interactions Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Environment Canada The Proponent shall immediately report any accidental contact by project vessels with marine mammals or Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure / Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring seabird colonies to regulatory authorities in accordance with legislation. The Proponent shall summarize and Objective To prevent impacts to marine mammals and seabird colonies associated with Project shipping. report annually to the NIRB regarding accidental contact by project vessels with marine mammals or seabird Term or Condition The Proponent shall immediately report any accidental contact by project vessels with marine mammals or seabird colonies in the Annual Report to NIRB. colonies to Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Environment Canada, respectively, by notifying the appropriate regional office of the: Rationale:  Date, time and location of the incident; Revisions serve to combine PC Condition No. 121 and 122 and reflect prescriptive reporting requirements already  Species of marine mammal or seabird involved; outlined in relevant legislation.  Circumstances of the incident; Proposed Revision:  Weather and sea conditions at the time; Annually.  Observed state of the marine mammal or sea bird colony after the incident; and,  Direction of travel of the marine mammal after the incident, to the extent that it can be determined. Rationale: Any accidental contacts will be summarized and reported in the Annual Report to the NIRB. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. No Change.

Stakeholder Review Marine Environment Working Group (MEWG), Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC)

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 122 Baffinland Comments

Category Marine Environment ‐ Marine Mammal Interactions Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 122.

Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure/Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Rationale: Objective To prevent impacts to marine mammals and seabird colonies associated with Project shipping. See proposed changes to PC Condition No. 121. Term or Condition The Proponent shall summarize and report annually to the NIRB regarding accidental contact by project vessels with marine mammals or seabird colonies through the applicable monitoring report. Reporting Requirement To be provided in the Annual Report to the NIRB. Stakeholder Review Marine Environment Working Group (MEWG)

Project Certificate Condition No. 123 Baffinland Comments

Category Marine Environment ‐ Marine Mammal Interactions Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 123.

Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure/Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Rationale: Objective To prevent impacts to marine mammals and seabird colonies associated with Project shipping. The intent of PC Condition 123 duplicates objectives and reporting requirements associated with PC Conditions Term or Condition The Proponent shall provide sufficient marine mammal observer coverage on project vessels to ensure that collisions 106 and 121. See proposed revisions to PC Condition No. 106 and 121. with marine mammals and seabird colonies are observed and reported through the life of the Project. The marine wildlife observer protocol shall include, but not be limited to, protocols for marine mammals, seabirds, and environmental conditions and immediate reporting of significant observations to the ship masters of other vessels along the shipping route, as part of the adaptive management program to address any items that require immediate action. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Marine Environment Working Group (MEWG)

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 124 Baffinland Comments

Category Marine Environment ‐ Marine Mammal Interactions Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent The Proponent shall prohibit non‐Inuit Project employees from recreational boating, fishing and harvesting of Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure/Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring marine wildlife in Project areas, including Steensby Inlet and Milne Inlet. Objective To prevent impacts to marine mammals and marine fish populations from increased harvesting pressures in Project areas. Rationale: Term or Condition The Proponent shall prohibit project employees from recreational boating, fishing, and harvesting of marine wildlife in As described in Article 11.4 of the IIBA, “Inuit employees shall be permitted access during their leisure hours, project areas, including Steensby Inlet and Milne Inlet. The Proponent is not directed to interfere with harvesting by the subject to Company policies, to all Project Areas for the purpose of any form of harvesting…in conformity with public in or near project areas, however, enforcement of a general prohibition on harvesting in project areas by project Subsection 5.7.17 (b) of the NLCA…”. employees during periods of active employment (i.e. while on site and between work shifts) is required. Proposed Revision: Annually

Rationale: Baffinland will provide a summary of Inuit employee use of Project areas for the purpose of harvesting during their leisure hours in their Annual Report to the NIRB.

Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister.

Stakeholder Review Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC), Qikiqtani Inuit Association (QIA), Terrestrial Environment Working Group (TEWG)

Project Certificate Condition No. 125 Baffinland Comments

Category Marine Environment ‐ Public Engagement No Change. Responsible Parties The Proponent Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure / Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Objective To assess acceptability of acoustic deterrent devices for the general public. Term or Condition Prior to use of acoustic deterrent devices, the Proponent shall carry out consultations with communities along the shipping routes and nearest to Steensby Inlet and Milne Inlet ports to assess the acceptability of these devices. Feedback received from community consultations shall be incorporated into the appropriate mitigation plan. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review N/A

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 125(a) Baffinland Comments

Category Marine Environment ‐ Public Engagement Suggested Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Add “Where it is not practicable or feasible to implement community preferred anchorage sites, the Proponent Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure / Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring shall identify such areas of disagreement to the NIRB and provide written rationale.” Objective To ensure public acceptability of project vessel anchor sites and reduce potential conflicts between project marine shipping and local harvesting. Term or Condition The Proponent shall consult with potentially‐affected communities and groups, particularly Hunters’ and Trappers’ Organizations regarding the identification of project vessel anchor sites and potential areas of temporary refuge for project vessels along the shipping routes within the Nunavut Settlement Area. Feedback received from community consultations shall be incorporated into the most appropriate mitigation or management plans. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Marine Environment Working Group

Project Certificate Condition No. 126 Baffinland Comments

Category Marine Environment ‐ Public Engagement Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 127. Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure/Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Objective To incorporate local input into monitoring data collection. Rationale: Term or Condition The Proponent shall design monitoring programs to ensure that local users of the marine area in communities along the This PC Condition is duplicative of both the objectives and reporting requirements for PC Condition No. 163 and shipping route have opportunity to be engaged throughout the life of the Project in assisting with monitoring and 164. evaluating potential project‐induced impacts and changes in marine mammal distributions. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Marine Environment Working Group (MEWG)

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 127 Baffinland Comments

Category Marine Environment ‐ Public Engagement Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 127.

Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure/Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Rationale: Objective To promote public awareness and engagement with Project shipping activities. This PC Condition is duplicative of both the objectives and reporting requirements for PC Condition No. 163 Term or Condition The Proponent shall ensure that communities and groups in Nunavik are kept informed of Project shipping activities and and 164. are provided with opportunity to participate in the continued development and refinement of shipping related monitoring and mitigation plans. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Mittimatilik Hunter and Trappers Organization, Marine Environment Working Group (MEWG)

Project Certificate Condition No. 128 Baffinland Comments

Category Marine Environment ‐ Public Engagement Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 128.

Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure/Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Rationale: Objective To ensure habitat compensation is acceptable to local communities. See revision to PC Condition No. 115 Term or Condition The Proponent shall consult with local communities as fish habitat off‐setting options are being considered and demonstrate its incorporation of input received into the design of the Fish Habitat Off‐Setting Plan required to offset the Harmful Alteration, Disruption or Destruction of Fish and Fish Habitat (HADD). Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Mittimatalik Hunter and Trapper Organization, Pisiksik Working Group

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 129 Baffinland Comments

Category Population Demographics ‐ Qikiqtaaluk Socio‐Economic Monitoring Committee No Change. Responsible Parties The Proponent, members of the QSEMC Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure / Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Objective Description of the general monitoring framework to be developed in consultation with the Qikiqtaaluk Socio‐Economic Monitoring Committee. Term or Condition The Proponent is strongly encouraged to engage in the work of the Qikiqtaaluk Socio‐Economic Monitoring Committee along with other agencies and affected communities, and it should endeavour to identify areas of mutual interest and priorities for inclusion into a collaborative monitoring framework that includes socio‐economic priorities related to the Project, communities, and the North Baffin region as a whole. Reporting Requirement To be determined following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Qikiqtaaluk Socio‐Economic Monitoring Committee (QSEMC) and Mary River Socio‐Economic Monitoring Working Group (SEMWG)

Project Certificate Condition No. 130 Baffinland Comments

Category Population Demographics ‐ Project‐specific monitoring No Change. Responsible Parties The Proponent Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure / Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Objective Recognizing that some Project‐specific socio‐economic monitoring initiatives may be best addressed in smaller more focused working groups, this is encouraged where possible. Term or Condition The Proponent should consider establishing and coordinating with smaller socio‐economic working groups to meet Project specific monitoring requirements throughout the life of the Project. Reporting Requirement To be determined following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Qikiqtaaluk Socio‐Economic Monitoring Committee (QSEMC) and Mary River Socio‐Economic Monitoring Working Group (SEMWG)

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 131 Baffinland Comments

Category Population Demographics ‐ Monitoring demographic changes Population Demographics – Monitoring of socio‐economic indicators Responsible Parties The Proponent, members of the QSEMC To monitor a broad range of socio‐economic indicators that may be affected by the Project Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure / Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring

Objective To monitor demographic changes affecting the North Baffin communities and the territory as a whole in order to The Proponent is encouraged to work with the Qikiqtaaluk Socio‐Economic Monitoring Committee and the understand changes and to evaluate the Proponent’s predictions as related to population demographics. Mary River Socio‐Economic Monitoring Working Group to monitor the following socio‐economic indicators Term or Condition The Qikiqtaaluk Socio‐Economic Monitoring Committee is encouraged to engage in the monitoring of demographic that may be affected by the Project: changes including the movement of people into and out of the North Baffin communities and the territory as a whole. a) Demographic changes, including the movement of people into and out of the North Baffin This information may be used in conjunction with monitoring data obtained by the Proponent from recent hires and/or communities and the territory as a whole to assess the potential effect the Project has on migration. out‐going employees in order to assess the potential effect the Project has on migration. b) The number of Inuit and non‐Inuit employees hired from each of the North Baffin communities, the Kitikmeot and Kivalliq regions, and other provinces/territories, specifying the number from each c) The number of non‐Canadian foreign employees hired, specifying the locations and number from each foreign point of hire. d) The level of education obtained by new employees and whether they resigned from a previous job placement or educational institution in order to take up employment with the Project. e) Barriers to employment for women, specifically with respect to childcare availability and costs. f) Project harvesting interactions and food security, which includes broad indicators of dietary habits. g) Subject to availability through the Nunavut Bureau of Statistics, the prevalence of substance abuse, gambling issues, family violence, marital problems, rates of sexually transmitted infections and other communicable diseases, rates of teenage pregnancy, high school completion rates, and others as deemed appropriate h) Pressures on existing services and costs to the health and social services provided by the Government of Nunavut as such may be impacted by Project‐related in‐migration of employees, to both the North Baffin region in general, and to the City of Iqaluit in particular. i) Increased Project‐ related pressures to community infrastructure in the Local Study Area communities, and to airport infrastructure in all point‐of‐hire communities and in Iqaluit. j) Regional and cumulative economic effects (positive and negative) associated with the Project and any proposed mitigation measures being considered necessary to mitigate the negative effects identified.

Rationale: This merges together the suggested requirements of 10 separate socio‐economic monitoring related Terms and Conditions, including 131, 134, 140, 145, 148, 154, 158, 159, 168, 169. The substance of each previous Reporting Requirement To be determined following approval of the Project by the Minister. Term and Condition remains and the composition of the annual Socio‐Economic Monitoring Report will not Stakeholder Review Qikiqtaaluk Socio‐Economic Monitoring Committee (QSEMC) and Mary River Socio‐Economic Monitoring Working Group change, however, for compliance tracking purposes this is preferred. (SEMWG)

Reported annually through the Socio‐Economic Monitoring Report

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 132 Baffinland Comments

Category Population Demographics ‐ Training programs No Change. Responsible Parties The Proponent, North Baffin Hamlets, Municipal Training Organization, Government of Nunavut Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure / Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Objective To develop training programs in ways which contribute to limiting the potential for migration to occur as North Baffin residents seek training and employment opportunities in the larger centre of Iqaluit. Term or Condition The Proponent is encouraged to partner with other agencies such as Hamlet organizations in the North Baffin region, the Municipal Training Organization, and the Government of Nunavut in order to adapt pre‐existing, or to develop new programs which encourage Inuit to continue living in their home communities while seeking ongoing and progressive training and development. Programs may include driver training programs offered within Hamlets, providing upgraded equipment to communities for use in municipal works, providing incentives for small businesses to remain operating out of their community of origin, or supplementing existing recreational facilities and programming in North Baffin communities. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Mary River Socio‐Economic Monitoring Working Group (SEMWG)

Project Certificate Condition No. 133 Baffinland Comments

Category Population Demographics ‐ Monitoring demographic changes Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent, members of QSEMC, Government of Nunavut, Nunavut Housing Corporation The Proponent is encouraged to work with the Qikiqtaaluk Socio‐Economic Monitoring Committee and in collaboration with the Government of Nunavut’s Department of Health, the Nunavut Housing Corporation and Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure / Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring other relevant stakeholders, design and implement a voluntary survey to be completed by its employees on an Objective Training programs may be developed with the goal of limiting the potential for migration to occur as North Baffin annual basis in order to identify changes of address, housing status (i.e. public/social, privately owned/rented, residents may choose to seek employment and therefore move from smaller North Baffin communities to the larger government, etc.), and migration intentions while respecting confidentiality of all persons involved. The survey centre of Iqaluit should be designed in collaboration with the Government of Nunavut’s Department of Health, the Nunavut Term or Condition The Proponent is encouraged to work with the Qikiqtaaluk Socio‐Economic Monitoring Committee and in collaboration Housing Corporation and other relevant stakeholders. Non‐confidential results of the survey are to be with the Government of Nunavut’s Department of Health and Social Services, the Nunavut Housing Corporation and reported to the Government of Nunavut and the NIRB. other relevant stakeholders, design and implement a voluntary survey to be completed by its employees on an annual basis in order to identify changes of address, housing status (i.e. public/social, privately owned/rented, government, Rationale: etc.), and migration intentions while respecting confidentiality of all persons involved. The survey should be designed in The Department of Health and Social Services is now the Department of Health. collaboration with the Government of Nunavut’s Department of Health and Social Services, the Nunavut Housing Corporation and other relevant stakeholders. Non‐confidential results of the survey are to be reported to the Government of Nunavut and the NIRB. Reporting Requirement To be determined following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Qikiqtaaluk Socio‐Economic Monitoring Committee (QSEMC) and Mary River Socio‐Economic Monitoring Working Group (SEMWG)

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 134 Baffinland Comments

Category Population Demographics ‐ Employee origin Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 134. Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure / Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Objective Project‐specific information regarding employee origin is important to comparing predictions of labour availability and Rationale: employment opportunities with actual levels of employment from various demographic segments over different Substance of Term and Condition is added to Term and Condition No. 131 geographic areas. Term or Condition The Proponent shall include with its annual reporting to the NIRB a summation of employee origin information as follows: a) The number of Inuit and non‐Inuit employees hired from each of the North Baffin communities, specifying the number from each b) The number of Inuit and non‐Inuit employees hired from each of the Kitikmeot and Kivalliq regions, specifying the number from each c) The number of Inuit and non‐Inuit employees hired from a southern location or other province/territory outside of Nunavut, specifying the locations and the number from each d) The number of non‐Canadian foreign employees hired, specifying the locations and number from each foreign point of hire. Reporting Requirement To be determined following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Qikiqtaaluk Socio‐Economic Monitoring Committee (QSEMC) and Mary River Socio‐Economic Monitoring Working Group (SEMWG)

Project Certificate Condition No. 135 Baffinland Comments

Category Education and Training ‐ Employee work/study programs No Change. Responsible Parties The Proponent, Qikiqtani Inuit Association Project Phase(s) Construction and Operations Objective Recognizing the 12‐hour work days inherent with work at the Project site, it is not clear how employees would successfully engage in a work/study program offered by the Proponent. Term or Condition The Proponent is encouraged to consider offering additional options for work/study programs available to Project employees (in addition to study programs at project sites that would be offered to employees when off‐shift). Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Mary River Socio‐Economic Monitoring Working Group

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2 Project Certificate Condition No. 136 Baffinland Comments

Category Education and Training ‐ Transferable skills and training No Change. Responsible Parties The Proponent, Qikiqtani Inuit Association, Government of Nunavut, Municipal Training Organization Project Phase(s) Construction and Operations Objective Offering training which results in certifications that are valid for employment at more than one site or in different fields provides an investment in the long‐term employability of Nunavummiut. Term or Condition The Proponent is encouraged to work with training organizations and/or government departments offering mine‐related or other training in order to provide additional opportunities for employees to gain meaningful and transferable skills, credentials and certifications especially where such training of employees offered by the Proponent remains valid only at the Mary River Project sites. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Mary River Socio‐Economic Monitoring Working Group

Project Certificate Condition No. 137 Baffinland Comments

Category Education and Training ‐ Transferable skills and training No Change. Responsible Parties The Proponent Project Phase(s) Construction Objective Offering training which results in certifications that are valid for employment at more than one site or in different fields provides an investment in the long‐term employability of Nunavummiut. Term or Condition Prior to construction, the Proponent shall develop an easily referenced listing of formal certificates and licences that may be acquired via on‐site training or training during employment at Mary River, such listing to indicate which of these certifications and licences would be transferable to a similar job site within Nunavut. This listing should be updated on an annual basis, and is to be provided to the NIRB upon completion and whenever it is revised. Reporting Requirement The initial listing should be provided to the NIRB at least 60 days prior to the start of construction, an annually thereafter or as may otherwise be required. Stakeholder Review Mary River Socio‐Economic Monitoring Working Group

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 138 Baffinland Comments

Category Education and Training ‐ Inuit employee training No Change. Responsible Parties The Proponent, Qikiqtani Inuit Association (QIA) Project Phase(s) Construction Objective Working together with the QIA to prepare effective training programs developed specifically for Inuit will assist in employee preparedness and may improve employee retention Term or Condition The Proponent is encouraged to work with the QIA to ensure the timely development of effective Inuit training and work‐ready programs Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister Stakeholder Review Mary River Socio‐Economic Monitoring Working Group

Project Certificate Condition No. 139 Baffinland Comments

Category Education and Training ‐ Hiring southern Canadians and foreign employees Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Suggest to remove PC No. 139 from the Project Certificate. Project Phase(s) Construction Objective With the unknown availability of labour from the North Baffin region and Nunavut as a whole to provide employment to Rationale: the Project, the need to employ southern Canadians or foreign workers may implicate the Proponent’s on‐site language, This labour market analysis was completed and submitted following approval of the ERP and an updated cross‐cultural awareness, and other programming. Having information available regarding the sourcing of labour for the analysis was submitted with the Phase 2 FEIS Addendum. A secondary labour market analysis is not required, Project is important to ensuring the Proponent and others are prepared for any influx of southern or foreign employees. unless significant changes to Project operations are considered. If this is contemplated, Baffinland will conduct Term or Condition Prior to commencing construction, the Proponent is requested to undertake and provide the results of a detailed labour supplementary baseline data collection to update the labour market analysis and share this information with market analysis which provides quantitative predictions of the number of employees that may reasonably need to be the QSEMC and SEMWG as relevant. sourced from southern Canada and from foreign markets, identifying where applicable, the country of origin for the foreign labour. Within 90 days of the issuance of the Project Certificate, the Proponent is required to submit an updated Labour Market Analysis which considers requirements of the ERP as well as hiring points within Nunavut and outside of the North Baffin region and RSA. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Qikiqtani Inuit Association, Mary River Socio‐Economic Monitoring Working Group

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 140 Baffinland Comments

Category Education and Training ‐ Survey of Nunavummiut employees Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 140. Project Phase(s) Construction and Operations Objective Monitoring the number of employees who leave previous employment in their home communities or who leave some Rationale: type of formal education in pursuit of employment with the Project is important to evaluate predictions made and the Substance of Term and Condition is added to Term and Condition No. 131. potential impacts to North Baffin communities and education rates. Term or Condition The Proponent is encouraged to survey Nunavummiut employees as they are hired and specifically note the level of education obtained and whether the incoming employee resigned from a previous job placement or educational institution in order to take up employment with the Project. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Qikiqtaaluk Socio‐Economic Monitoring Committee (QSEMC) and Mary River Socio‐Economic Monitoring Working Group (SEMWG)

Project Certificate Condition No. 141 Baffinland Comments

Category Education and Training ‐ Training of Inuit Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 141. Project Phase(s) Construction Objective To ensure that effective training is available in a timely manner. Rationale: Term or Condition The Proponent is encouraged to work with the Qikiqtani Inuit Association prior to construction in order to prioritize the This PC Condition is duplicative of both the objectives and reporting requirements for PC Condition 138. provision of training of Inuit to serve as employees in monitoring or other such capacities. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Qikiqtani Inuit Association (QIA), Mary River Socio‐Economic Monitoring Working Group (SEMWG)

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 142 Baffinland Comments

Category Livelihood and Employment ‐ Employee Cohesion No Change. Responsible Parties The Proponent Project Phase(s) Construction and Operations Objective To promote cohesion between employees on site, and between employees and their families. Term or Condition The Proponent is encouraged to address the potential direct and indirect effects that may result from Project employees’ on‐site use of various Inuktitut dialects as well as other spoken languages, specifically paying attention to the potential alienation of some employees that may occur as a result of language or other cultural barriers. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Qikiqtani Inuit Association (QIA), Mary River Socio‐Economic Monitoring Working Group (SEMWG)

Project Certificate Condition No. 143 Baffinland Comments

Category Livelihood and Employment ‐ Employee family contact No Change. Responsible Parties The Proponent Project Phase(s) Construction and Operations Objective To enable and foster connection and contact between employees and family members. Term or Condition The Proponent is encouraged to consider the use of both existing and innovative technologies (e.g. community radio station call‐in shows, cell phones, video‐conferencing, Skype, etc.) as a way to ensure Project employees are able to keep in contact with family and friends and to ward off the potential for feelings of homesickness and distance to impact on employee retention and family stability. Reporting Requirement As needed Stakeholder Review N/A

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 144 Baffinland Comments

Category Livelihood and Employment ‐ Requirements for employment No Change. Responsible Parties The Proponent Project Phase(s) Construction and Operations Objective To ensure that the prerequisites and requirements for employment are clear and well known in work readiness programs. Term or Condition The Proponent is encouraged to make requirements for employment clear in its work‐readiness and other public information programs and documentation, including but not limited to: education levels, criminal records checks, policies relating to drug and alcohol use and testing, and language abilities. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review N/A

Project Certificate Condition No. 145 Baffinland Comments

Category Livelihood and Employment ‐ Barriers to employment for women Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent, Government of Nunavut, members of QSEMC Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 145. Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure /Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Objective To monitor and understand the existence of barriers to employment for women specifically relating to childcare Rationale: availability and costs. Substance of Term and Condition is added to Term and Condition No. 131. Term or Condition The Proponent is encouraged to work with the Government of Nunavut and the Qikiqtaaluk Socio‐Economic Monitoring Committee to monitor the barriers to employment for women, specifically with respect to childcare availability and costs. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Qikiqtaaluk Socio‐Economic Monitoring Committee (QSEMC) and Mary River Socio‐Economic Monitoring Working Group (SEMWG)

Project Certificate Condition No. 146 Baffinland Comments

Category Livelihood and Employment ‐ Availability of childcare for Project Employees No Change Responsible Parties Government of Nunavut and Qikiqtani Inuit Association Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure / Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Objective To lessen the barriers to employment as relating to the availability of childcare. Term or Condition The Government of Nunavut and the Qikiqtani Inuit Association are strongly encouraged to investigate the possibility for Project revenue streams to support initiatives or programs, which offset or subsidize childcare for Project employees. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Mary River Socio‐Economic Monitoring Working Group (SEMWG)

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 147 Baffinland Comments

Category Livelihood and Employment ‐ Affordability of housing Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent, Government of Nunavut and Nunavut Housing Corporation Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 151 from the Project Certificate. Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure / Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Objective To lessen the barriers to maintaining employment as relating to the availability and costs of housing. Rationale: Term or Condition The Proponent is encouraged to work with the Government of Nunavut and the Nunavut Housing Corporation to The Government of Nunavut revised its Public Housing Rent Scale since the Project Certificate was first issued investigate options and incentives which might enable and provide incentive for employees living in social housing to to create more incentive for renters to find gainful employment. Baffinland will continue to investigate this maintain employment as well as to negotiate for and obtain manageable rental rates. subject with the Government of Nunavut through its Memorandum of Understanding, but this should not be a Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. condition of the Project Certificate. Stakeholder Review Government of Nunavut (Nunavut Housing Corporation; Community and Government Services; Economic Development and Transportation); Mary River Socio‐Economic Monitoring Working Group (SEMWG); Qikiqtani Socio‐economic Monitoring Committee (QSEMC)

Project Certificate Condition No. 148 Baffinland Comments

Category Economic Development and Self‐Reliance, and Contracting and Business Opportunities – Food security Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent, Members of the QSEMC Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 148. Project Phase(s) Construction and Operations Objective To improve understanding of the interactions between the Project and Inuit harvesting and how this relates to food Rationale: security for residents of the North Baffin. Substance of Term and Condition is added to Term and Condition No. 131. Term or Condition The Proponent is encouraged to undertake collaborative monitoring in conjunction with the Qikiqtaaluk Socio‐Economic Monitoring Committee’s monitoring program which addresses Project harvesting interactions and food security and which includes broad indicators of dietary habits. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Qikiqtaaluk Socio‐Economic Monitoring Committee (QSEMC) and Mary River Socio‐Economic Monitoring Working Group (SEMWG)

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 149 Baffinland Comments

Category Economic Development and Self‐Reliance, and Contracting and Business Opportunities – Impacts of temporary closure Proposed Revision: Closure Planning

Rationale: Updated to reflect proposed changes for objective and term and condition of PC Condition No. 149 Responsible Parties The Proponent No Change. Project Phase(s) Construction Proposed Revision: Construction and Operations

Rationale: To ensure ongoing engagement regarding mitigations for managing effects of a temporary closure on Project employees and or businesses in the North Baffin region throughout the life of the Project. Objective To further the understanding of how a temporary closure may impact on the well‐being of the residents and businesses No Change. of the North Baffin region. Term or Condition Prior to the commencement of operations, the Proponent is required to undertake an analysis of the risk of temporary Proposed Revision: mine closure, giving consideration to how communities in the North Baffin region may be affected by temporary and The Proponent shall work with the QSEMC and SEMWG throughout the life of the Project to determine best permanent closure of the mine, including economic, social and cultural effects and taking into consideration the practices for managing effects of temporary or permanent closure of the Project on communities in the North potential drop in employment between the construction and operations phases of the Project. Baffin region.

Rationale: To ensure ongoing engagement regarding mitigations for managing effects of a temporary closure on Project employees and or businesses in the North Baffin region throughout the life of the Project. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Proposed Revision: Annual updates on the efforts of the Working Group to be reported in the Annual Report to NIRB each year.

Rationale: Updated to reflect proposed establishment of Mine Closure Working Group.

Stakeholder Review Qikiqtani Inuit Association (QIA), Mary River Socio‐Economic Monitoring Working Group (SEMWG) No Change.

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 150 Baffinland Comments

Category Economic Development and Self‐Reliance, and Contracting and Business Opportunities – Impacts to visitors of Sirmilik No Change. National Park Responsible Parties The Proponent, Parks Canada Project Phase(s) Construction and Operations Objective To limit potential of Project impacts upon visitors, researchers and/or beneficiary users of the Sirmilik National Park. Term or Condition The Proponent will ensure the following: a. The Proponent will maintain, where possible, a minimum flying altitude of 2,000 feet over the park, except for approaches to land, take‐off or for safety reasons b. The Proponent will ensure that certification of noise compliance is current, where compliance is applicable c. For the purpose of briefing Park visitors, the Proponent will provide Parks Canada (1) prior to commencing the shipping season, with planned daily shipping schedules, and (2) annually, with air traffic information, and (3) to provide updates when significant variations from these are expected d. The Proponent is strongly encouraged to provide due consideration to wilderness experience during its operations in the open water season, especially during the month of August which is typically a time of high use by sea kayakers. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Parks Canada, Environment Climate Change Canada, Qikiqtani Inuit Association, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, Nunavut Impact Review Board, Parks Canada

Project Certificate Condition No. 151 Baffinland Comments

Category Economic Development and Self‐Reliance, and Contracting and Business Opportunities – Access to housing Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 151 from the Project Certificate. Project Phase(s) Construction and Operations Objective To investigate ways that economic development and self‐reliance may improve access to housing by employees. Rationale: Term or Condition The Proponent is encouraged to investigate measures and programs designed to assist Project employees with Access to affordable housing in Nunavut is the responsibility of the Government of Nunavut and the Nunavut home ownership or access to affordable housing options. Housing Corporation. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB)

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 152 Baffinland Comments

Category Economic Development and Self‐Reliance, and Contracting and Business Opportunities – IIBA contract requirements No Change. Responsible Parties The Proponent, Qikiqtani Inuit Association Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure / Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Objective To improve ability of small businesses to access Project contract and sub‐contract opportunities. Term or Condition The Qikiqtani Inuit Association is encouraged to provide the Board and the Qikiqtaaluk Socio‐Economic Monitoring Committee with information regarding the effectiveness of any provisions within the Inuit Impact and Benefit Agreement which may require that larger contracts be broken down into smaller size in order that they are reasonably managed by smaller businesses in the North Baffin region, while respecting any confidential or privileged information. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Qikiqtani Inuit Association, Mary River Socio‐Economic Monitoring Working Group (SEMWG)

Project Certificate Condition No. 153 Baffinland Comments

Category Human Health and Well‐Being ‐ Employee and family health and well‐being No Change. Responsible Parties The Proponent No Change. Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring No Change. Objective To provide adequate medical services on site, including those that contribute to the mental health and well‐being of all Proposed Revision: employees. To support programs that contribute to the mental health and well‐being of all employees and their families, as needed. Term or Condition The Proponent is encouraged to employ a mental health professional to provide counselling to Inuit and non‐Inuit Proposed Revision: employees in order to positively contribute toward employee health and well‐being. The Proponent is encouraged to provide on‐site and support off‐site community programs that contribute to the mental health and well‐being of all employees and their families as needed.

Rationale: Combines PC Condition No. 153 and 157. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. No Change. Stakeholder Review Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB) No Change.

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 154 Baffinland Comments

Category Human Health and Well‐being ‐ Indirect impacts to health and well‐being Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent, Government of Nunavut, members of the QSEMC Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 154. Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure / Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Objective To understand the indirect impacts of the Project upon health and well‐being. Rationale: Term or Condition The Proponent shall work with the Government of Nunavut and the Qikiqtaaluk Socio‐Economic Monitoring Committee Substance of Term and Condition is added to Term and Condition No. 131 to monitor potential indirect effects of the Project, including indicators such as the prevalence of substance abuse, gambling issues, family violence, marital problems, rates of sexually transmitted infections and other communicable diseases, rates of teenage pregnancy, high school completion rates, and others as deemed appropriate. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Qikiqtaaluk Socio‐Economic Monitoring Committee (QSEMC) and Mary River Socio‐Economic Monitoring Working Group (SEMWG)

Project Certificate Condition No. 155 Baffinland Comments

Category Human Health and Well‐being ‐ Employee cohesion No Change. Responsible Parties The Proponent No Change. Project Phase(s) Construction Proposed Revision: Construction, Operations and Closure.

Rationale: Ongoing efforts to minimize potential cultural conflicts on site will remain throughout the life of the Project and will be updated as needed to reflect lessons learnt and implementation of enhanced efforts or practices. Objective To encourage the on‐site cohesion of employees through cultural‐awareness and social programs. No Change. Term or Condition The Proponent is strongly encouraged to provide the NIRB with an updated report on its development of mitigation Proposed Revision: measures and plans to deal with potential cultural conflicts which may occur at site as these may become needed The Proponent is encouraged to implement measures to minimize potential cultural conflicts on site.

Rationale: Ongoing efforts to minimize potential cultural conflicts on site will remain throughout the life of the Project and will be updated as needed to reflect lessons learnt and implementation of enhanced efforts or practices. Reporting Requirement To be provided at least 60 days prior to the commencement of any construction activities Proposed Revision: Annually.

Rationale: A discussions of these efforts will be reported on each year in the Annual Report to NIRB. Stakeholder Review Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB) No Change.

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 156 Baffinland Comments

Category Human Health and Well‐Being ‐ Support Initiatives No Change. Responsible Parties The Proponent Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure / Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Objective To assist with fostering well‐being within point‐of‐hire communities Term or Condition The Proponent is encouraged to assist with the provision and/or support of recreation programs and opportunities within the potentially affected communities in order to mitigate potential impacts of employees’ absences from home and community life Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister Stakeholder Review Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB)

Project Certificate Condition No. 157 Baffinland Comments

Category Human Health and Well‐Being ‐ Counseling and treatment programs Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 157. Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure / Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Objective To make available, necessary treatment and counseling services for employee and family well‐being. Rationale: Term or Condition The Proponent should consider providing counseling and access to treatment programs for substance and gambling See Proposed Revisions to PC Condition No. 153. addictions as well as which address domestic, parenting, and marital issues that affect employees and/or their families. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB)

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 158 Baffinland Comments

Category Community Infrastructure and Public Services – Impacts to health services Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent, Government of Nunavut Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 158. Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure / Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Objective To monitor indirect Project impacts to health and social services provided by the Government of Nunavut. Rationale: Term or Condition The Proponent is encouraged to work with the Government of Nunavut and other parties as deemed relevant in order Substance of Term and Condition is added to Term and Condition No. 131 to develop a Human Health Working Group which addresses and establishes monitoring functions relating to pressures upon existing services and costs to the health and social services provided by the Government of Nunavut as such may be impacted by Project‐related in‐migration of employees, to both the North Baffin region in general, and to the City of Iqaluit in particular. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Qikiqtaaluk Socio‐Economic Monitoring Committee (QSEMC) and Mary River Socio‐Economic Monitoring Working Group (SEMWG)

Project Certificate Condition No. 159 Baffinland Comments

Category Community Infrastructure and Public Services – Impacts to infrastructure Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent, Government of Nunavut Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 159. Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure / Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Objective To monitor Project‐related impacts to infrastructure within the Local Study Area communities. Rationale: Term or Condition The Proponent is encouraged to work with the Government of Nunavut to develop an effects monitoring program that Substance of Term and Condition is added to Term and Condition No. 131 captures increased Project‐ related pressures to community infrastructure in the Local Study Area communities, and to airport infrastructure in all point‐of‐hire communities and in Iqaluit. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Qikiqtaaluk Socio‐Economic Monitoring Committee (QSEMC) and Mary River Socio‐Economic Monitoring Working Group (SEMWG)

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 160 Baffinland Comments

Category Community Infrastructure and Public Services – Distribution of benefits No Change. Responsible Parties The Proponent, Qikiqtani Inuit Association, Government of Nunavut Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure / Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Objective To ensure the distribution of benefits is done in a way that off‐sets Project‐related impacts to infrastructure or services. Term or Condition The Government of Nunavut and the Qikiqtani Inuit Association are encouraged to cooperate to ensure in a broad sense, that Project benefits are distributed across impacted communities and across various demographic groups within these communities in a manner that best offsets any Project‐related impacts to infrastructure or services. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister Stakeholder Review Qikiqtani Inuit Association (QIA) and Government of Nunavut (GN)

Project Certificate Condition No. 161 Baffinland Comments

Category Community Infrastructure and Public Services – Policing No Change. Responsible Parties The Proponent, Government of Nunavut, Royal Canadian Mounted Police Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure / Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Objective To ensure the territorial government and its policing service are adequately prepared to handle any Project‐related increases to the need for service and associated impacts. Term or Condition The Government of Nunavut should be prepared for any potential increased need for policing, and ensure that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is prepared to handle ongoing Project‐related demographic changes and subsequent crime prevention that may be needed as a result of the development, operation, and closure of the Project. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Government of Nunavut (GN)

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 162 Baffinland Comments

Category Culture, Resources and Land Use ‐ Public consultation Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent, Elders and community members of the North Baffin communities Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 162. Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure / Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Objective To ensure the ongoing and consistent involvement of Elders and community members in developing and revising Rationale: monitoring and mitigation plans. Remove duplication between PC Condition No. 162 and 163 through edits to PC No. 163. Term or Condition The Proponent should make all reasonable efforts to engage Elders and community members of the North Baffin communities in order to have community level input into its monitoring programs and mitigative measures, to ensure that these programs and measures have been informed by traditional activities, cultural resources, and land use as such may be implicated or impacted by ongoing Project activities. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Qikiqtani Inuit Association (QIA), North Baffin Communities

Project Certificate Condition No. 163 Baffinland Comments

Category Culture, Resources and Land Use ‐ Public consultation No Change. Responsible Parties The Proponent, North Baffin communities No Change. Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure / Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring No Change. Objective To involve communities in the development and evolution of management and monitoring plans. No Change. Term or Condition The Proponent shall continue to engage and consult with the communities of the North Baffin region in order to ensure Proposed Revision: that Nunavummiut are kept informed about the Project activities, and more importantly, in order that the Proponent’s The Proponent shall continue to engage and consult with the communities of the North Baffin region in order management and monitoring plans continue to evolve in an informed manner. to ensure that Nunavummiut are kept informed about the Project activities and to ensure that these programs and measures have been informed by traditional activities, cultural resources, and land use as such may be implicated or impacted by ongoing Project activities. During these consultations, it is recommended that the Proponent provide information including video, audio, and photographic representation as well as any other aids (e.g. models) that may enhance the general public’s understanding of operations, as well as all safety considerations for members of the public who may be travelling around the project area.

Rationale: The intention of establishing ongoing engagement and consultation with the North Baffin communities is to ensure opportunities for two‐way dialogue are maintained throughout the life of the Project, specifically with relation to the potential effects of the Project on traditional activities, cultural resources and land use. The term and condition description has also been updated to incorporate recommendations outlined in PC Condition No. 15 to minimize duplicative reporting requirements. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. No Change. Stakeholder Review North Baffin Communities Proposed Revision: North Baffin Communities and the QIA

Rationale: It is understood by the Proponent that consultation with the QIA on Project monitoring is representative of the interests and concerns of the Inuit communities it acts as the Designated Inuit Organization.

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 164 Baffinland Comments

Category Socio‐Economic Impacts – Shipping notification Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent, Elders and community members of the North Baffin communities Add to Reporting Requirement: “The Proponent must report to NIRB any issues identified by North Baffin Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure / Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring community members and/or community organizations with respect to potential inference of shipping activity Objective In order to inform members of North Baffin communities of planned Project shipping transits such that community with Inuit sea ice use, and any steps taken by the Proponent in response.” members’ planned travel routing may be adjusted to avoid interaction with Project ships and/or ship tracks. Term or Condition The Proponent is required to provide notification to communities regarding scheduled ship transits throughout the Rationale: regional study area including Eclipse Sound and Milne Inlet, real‐time data regarding ships in transit and any changes to To reflect resolution of QIA‐47 and QIA‐48. the proposed shipping schedule to the MEWG and agencies within Pond Inlet on a weekly basis during open water shipping, and to the RSA communities on a monthly basis. Reporting Requirement The information required shall be provided on a monthly basis at a minimum or more often as the Proponent determines necessary and is to be provided to the Proponent’s community liaison officers and those of the Qikiqtani Inuit Association as well as the Hunters and Trappers Organizations and Hamlet organizations of the North Baffin communities, Coral Harbour, and the NIRB’s Monitoring Officer. Where deviations from the proposed schedule or routing are required, this information shall be provided as soon as possible. Stakeholder Review Marine Environment Working Group (MEWG)

Project Certificate Condition No. 165 Baffinland Comments

Category Socio‐Economic Impacts ‐ Emergency shelters No Change. Responsible Parties The Proponent, Elders and community members of the North Baffin communities No Change. Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure / Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Proposed Revision: Construction, Operations, Closure.

Rationale: It is not reasonable to expect the Proponent to maintain emergency shelters if the Project site is not active. It would place an undue burden on resources where there is no Project effect this term and condition is intended to mitigate. Objective In order to provide for human safety precautions in the event of adverse weather or other emergency situations along No Change. segments of linear transportation infrastructure.

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2 Project Certificate Condition No. 165 Baffinland Comments

Term or Condition The Proponent is strongly encouraged to provide buildings along the rail line and Milne Inlet Tote Road for emergency Proposed Revision: shelter purposes, and shall make these available for all employees and any land users travelling through the Project The Proponent is strongly encouraged to provide buildings along the rail line and Milne Inlet Tote Road for area. In the event that these buildings cannot, for safety or other reasons be open to the public, the Proponent is emergency shelter purposes, and shall make these available for all employees and any land users travelling encouraged to set up another form of emergency shelters (e.g. seacans outfitted for survival purposes) every 1 through the Project area. In the event that these buildings cannot, for safety or other reasons be open to the kilometre along the rail line and Milne Inlet Tote Road. These shelters must be placed along Tote Road and rail routing public, the Proponent is encouraged to set up another form of emergency shelters (e.g. seacans outfitted for prior to operation of either piece of infrastructure, and must be maintained for the duration of project activities, survival purposes) along the rail line and Milne Inlet Tote Road. These shelters should be placed along the Milne including the closure phase. Inlet Tote Road and rail routing prior to operation of either piece of infrastructure, and must be maintained for the duration of project activities, including the closure phase.

Rationale: During active phases of the Project (i.e. construction, operations and closure), the frequency of Project personnel travelling along the Tote Road or Rail Line is frequent enough (i.e. multiple transits per day, 24 hours per day) that access to emergency services for land users interacting with the Project site is mitigated through other avenues. Therefore, establishing refuge stations every 1 km is not needed and would result in unnecessary disturbance to the land surrounding Project infrastructure. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. No Change. Stakeholder Review Qikiqtani Inuit Association, Nunavut Water Board, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, Nunavut Impact Review No Change. Board

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 166(a) and (b) Baffinland Comments

Category Socio‐Economic Impacts ‐ Public Consultation No Change. Responsible Parties The Proponent No Change. Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure / Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring No Change. Objective To ensure members of the public are able to access shipping information on an as‐required basis in order to inform Add “and to be more generally informed about potential human health and ecological risks relating to the potential users of the scheduled Project activities, which could require deviations to land users’ schedules or routing. Project.” Term or Condition (a) The Proponent should ensure through its consultation efforts and public awareness campaigns that the public have Proposed Revision: access to shipping operations personnel for transits into and out of both Steensby Inlet port and Milne Inlet port (a) The Proponent is strongly encouraged to establish a communications protocol with nearby land‐users either via telephone or internet contact, in order that any questions regarding ice conditions or ship movements to ensure that questions regarding ice conditions or ship movements to could assist users in preparing that could assist ice users in preparing for travel may be answered by Project staff in a timely fashion. for travel may be answered by Project personnel in a timely fashion. (b) The Proponent is strongly encouraged to develop a risk communication strategy in consultation with the with QIA and the Inuit Committee focused on gathering from and dissemination of information to Inuit related to human health and ecological risk assessment topics. The strategy should focus on building capacity within community groups to understand the mining process, elements of the mining process and how substances produced from the mining process move in the environment. Rationale: This requirement supports the objective of PC Condition No. 166, but is more pragmatic for management of daily operations during the shipping season. See also requirements of PC Condition No. 164. Address and resolves QIA‐08.

Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. No Change. Stakeholder Review N/A No Change.

Project Certificate Condition No. 167 Baffinland Comments

Category Benefits, Royalty and Taxation – Partnership Agreements Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent, Government of Nunavut Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 167 from the Project Certificate. Project Phase(s) Construction Objective The Proponent and the Government of Nunavut develop a formalized partnership agreement. Rationale: Term or Condition The Proponent and the Government of Nunavut are strongly encouraged to, as soon as practical following the issuance The Government of Nunavut’s Development Partnership Agreement Policy expired in 2016 and was not of the Project Certificate, enter into discussions to negotiate a Development Partnership Agreement. renewed. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review N/A

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 168 Baffinland Comments

Category Governance and Leadership ‐ Monitoring program Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent, members of the QSEMC Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 168. Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure / Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Objective Outline variables that are relevant to the Project and which should be adopted by the QSEMC’s monitoring program Rationale: Term or Condition The specific socioeconomic variables as set out in Section 8 of the Board's Report, including data regarding population Substance of Term and Condition is added to Term and Condition No. 131. movement into and out of the North Baffin Communities and Nunavut as a whole, barriers to employment for women, project harvesting interactions and food security, and indirect Project effects such as substance abuse, gambling, rates of domestic violence, and education rates that are relevant to the Project, be included in the monitoring program adopted by the Qikiqtani Socio‐Economic Monitoring Committee Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister Stakeholder Review Socio‐economic monitoring results are presented annually to the Qikiqtaaluk Socio‐Economic Monitoring Committee (QSEMC) and Mary River Socio‐Economic Monitoring Working Group (SEMWG)

Project Certificate Condition No. 169 Baffinland Comments

Category Governance and Leadership – Monitoring economic effects Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 169. Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure / Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Objective To maintain transparency inform communities in relation to economic benefits associated with the Project. Rationale: Term or Condition The Proponent provide an annual monitoring summary to the NIRB on the monitoring data related to the regional and Substance of Term and Condition is added to Term and Condition No. 131. cumulative economic effects (positive and negative) associated with the Project and any proposed mitigation measures being considered necessary to mitigate the negative effects identified. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Qikiqtaaluk Socio‐Economic Monitoring Committee (QSEMC) and Mary River Socio‐Economic Monitoring Working Group (SEMWG)

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 170 Baffinland Comments

Category Accidents and Malfunctions ‐ Terrestrial Wildlife Management and Monitoring Plan Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 170. Project Phase(s) Construction Objective Updates to plan in order to better understand the potential for, and to minimize possible caribou‐railway interactions. Rationale: Term or Condition The Proponent shall include in an updated Terrestrial Wildlife Management and Monitoring Plan, plans for increased Reduce duplication in reporting requirements that currently exists between PC Condition No. 53(d) and 170. caribou monitoring efforts including weekly winter track surveying and summer and fall surveys undertaken on foot twice per month. Reporting Requirement To be included in the Annual Report submitted to the NIRB. Stakeholder Review Terrestrial Environment Working Group (TEWG), Nunavut Impact Review Board

Project Certificate Condition No. 171 Baffinland Comments

Category Accidents and Malfunctions ‐ Terrestrial Wildlife Management and Monitoring Plan Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 171. Project Phase(s) Pre‐Construction Objective Updates to plan in order to minimize potential for caribou‐railway interactions. Rationale: Term or Condition The Proponent shall include within its updated Terrestrial Wildlife Management and Monitoring Plan, a commitment to Should Project monitoring identify a need for caribou deterrents along the embankments of transportation establish deterrents along the railway and Tote Road embankments at any areas where it is determined that caribou are corridor, appropriate mitigation measures will be discussed with the TEWG and implemented to minimize utilizing the embankments or transportation corridors to facilitate movement and where such movement presents a potential effects in accordance with requirements of PC Condition No. 50, 51 and 53. likelihood of caribou mortality to occur. Reporting Requirement To be included in the Annual Report submitted to the NIRB. Stakeholder Review Terrestrial Environment Working Group (TEWG)

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 172 Baffinland Comments

Category Accidents and Malfunctions – Overwintered fuel vessel No Change. Responsible Parties The Proponent Proposed revision: Project Phase(s) Construction Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 172. Objective To provide evidence that vessel to be used is fit and insured for proposed use. Term or Condition The Proponent is encouraged to provide the Government of Nunavut with evidence that the vessel that it intends to use Rationale: for the overwintering of fuel has been designed and certified for use under the conditions which it is expected to This requirement is satisfied by PC Condition No. 95. operate, and that it be required to provide copies of the vessel owners’ insurance policies. Reporting Requirement The required information is to be provided to the Government of Nunavut as soon as possible, and at a minimum, at least 60 days prior to the commencement of any construction related shipping. Stakeholder Review N/A

Project Certificate Condition No. 173 Baffinland Comments

Category Accidents and Malfunctions ‐ Use of best practices No Change. Responsible Parties The Proponent No Change. Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Closure No Change. Objective To provide additional spill contingency measures for spills in marine areas. No Change. Term or Condition The Proponent shall employ best practices and meet all regulatory requirements during all ship‐to‐shore and other No Change. marine‐based fuel transfer events. Reporting Requirement To be determined following approval of the Project by the Minister. Proposed Revision: Annually

Rationale: Baffinland provides a summary of best practices for oil spill prevention and management in the Annual Report to the NIRB. Stakeholder Review Environment and Climate Change Canada, Qikiqtani Inuit Association, Nunavut Water Board, Indigenous and Northern No Change. Affairs Canada, Nunavut Impact Review Board.

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 174 Baffinland Comments

Category Accidents and Malfunctions ‐ Community level spill response Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Suggest to remove PC Condition No. 174 from the Project Certificate. Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Closure Objective To improve community ability to assist in spill response. Rationale: In a January 29, 2015 letter from the Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) to the NIRB, the CCG noted that the Term or Condition The Proponent and the Canadian Coast Guard are required to provide spill response equipment and annual training to provision of spill response equipment and training to communities was the responsibility of CCG. Nunavut communities along the shipping route to potentially improve response times in the event of a spill. Reporting Requirement To be determined following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Environment Climate Change Canada, Qikiqtani Inuit Association, Nunavut Water Board, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, Nunavut Impact Review Board.

Project Certificate Condition No. 175 Baffinland Comments

Category Accidents and Malfunctions – Ship track markers in ice cover No Change. Responsible Parties The Proponent, Qikiqtani Inuit Association, Hunters and Trappers Organizations of the North Baffin region and Coral No Change. Harbour Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Proposed Revision: Construction, Operations and Closure.

Rationale: Shipping is not expected during the Post‐Closure phase of the Project. Objective To ensure that measures taken to mark the shipping track(s) during periods of ice cover are effective in advising ice‐ No Change. based travelers, and that, where necessary, revisions to this practice can be made to ensure public safety. Term or Condition The Proponent shall, in coordination and consultation with the Qikiqtani Inuit Association and the Hunters and Trappers No Change. Organizations of the North Baffin communities and Coral Harbour, provide updates to its Shipping and Marine Mammals Management Plan to include adaptive management measures it proposes to take should the placement of reflective markers along the ship track in winter months not prove to be a feasible method of marking the track to ensure the safety of ice‐based travelers. Reporting Requirement To be determined following approval of the Project by the Minister. Proposed Revision: Following commencement of construction for the Steensby phase of the Project.

Rationale: Reporting on updates to the SMWMP will occur as needed once winter shipping associated with the Steensby phase of the Project commences. Stakeholder Review N/A No Change.

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 176 Baffinland Comments

Category Accidents and Malfunctions ‐ Revised spill modeling Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Suggest to remove PC No. 176 from the Project Certificate.

Project Phase(s) Pre‐Construction, Construction Operations, Closure Rationale: Objective To improve community ability to assist in spill response. This PC is duplicative of PC Condition No. 97 (item b). Term or Condition The Proponent is required to revise its spill planning to include additional trajectory modeling for areas of Hudson Strait, such as Mill Island, where walrus concentrate, as well as for mid‐Hudson Strait during winter conditions as well as for the northern shipping route, including Milne Inlet, Eclipse Sound and Pond Inlet. Reporting Requirement The updated modeling shall be provided to the NIRB, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and Environment Canada for review at least 3 months prior shipment of bulk fuel to Steensby Inlet or Milne Inlet. Stakeholder Review Transport Canada, Canadian Coast Guard, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Environment and Climate Change Canada

Project Certificate Condition No. 177 Baffinland Comments

Category Accidents and Malfunctions ‐ Foreign flagged vessels Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Suggest to remove PC No. 177 from the Project Certificate.

Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Rationale: Objective To ensure foreign flagged ships operating in Canadian waters are held to the same standard as domestic ships with Ship owners / operators are responsible for enrolling their foreign flagged vessel with the appropriate regard to emergency response planning. program. Baffinland incorporates this requirement into contract terms and conditions with all vessels Term or Condition The Proponent shall enroll any foreign flagged vessels commissioned for Project‐related shipping within Canadian contracted directly by Baffinland. waters into the relevant foreign program equivalent to Transport Canada's Marine Safety Delegated Statutory Inspection Program. Reporting Requirement To be determined following approval of the Project by the Minister. Stakeholder Review Transport Canada

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 178 Baffinland Comments

Category Alternatives Analysis ‐ Mill Island shipping route consideration No Change. Responsible Parties The Proponent, Qikiqtani Inuit Association, Nunavut Impact Review Board, Marine Environment Working Group Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure /Care and Maintenance Objective To prevent disturbance to walrus and walrus habitat on the northern shore of Mill Island. Term or Condition Subject to safety considerations and the potential for conditions, as determined by the crew of transiting vessels, to result in route deviations, the Proponent shall require project vessels to maintain a route to the south of Mill Island to prevent disturbance to walrus and walrus habitat on the northern shore of Mill Island. Reporting Requirement Where project vessels are required to transit to the north of Mill Island owing to environmental or other conditions, an incident report is to be provided to the Marine Environment Working Group and the NIRB within 30 days, noting all wildlife sightings and interactions as recorded by shipboard monitors. The Proponent shall summarize all incidences of deviations from the nominal shipping route as presented in the FEIS to the NIRB annually, with corresponding discussion regarding justification for deviations and any observed environmental impacts. Stakeholder Review N/A

Project Certificate Condition No. 179 Baffinland Comments

Category Operational Variability No Change Responsible Parties The Proponent No Change. Project Phase(s) Operations No Change. Objective To apply the precautionary principle in respect of potential effects on marine wildlife and marine habitat from changes No Change. to shipping frequency that may result from a significant increase in mine production for an extended period of time. Term or Condition Baffinland shall not exceed 20 ore carrier transits to Steensby Port per month during the open water season and 242 Proposed Revision: transits per year in total. Unless otherwise approved by the NIRB, Baffinland shall not exceed 20 ore carrier transits to Steensby Port per month during the open water season and 242 transits per year in total.

Rationale: To be consistent with the conditional wording suggested for PC Conditions 179a and 179b. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval by the Minister. Proposed Revision: For each year after the Proponent commences shipping ore via Steensby Inlet under the Phase 2 Proposal, the Proponent shall include in the Annual Report to the NIRB, a summary of the total number of vessels calling on Steensby Port for the previous calendar year.

Rationale: For consistency with reporting requirements under PC Condition No. 179a and 179b. Stakeholder Review N/A No Change.

100

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 179a Baffinland Comments

Category Operational Variability/Flexibility No Change Responsible Parties The Proponent No Change Project Phase(s) Operations No Change Objective To ensure that there are appropriate limits on the Milne Inlet marine shipping component in order to limit and manage No Change likely project effects, while balancing the need for operational flexibility. Term or Condition Until December 31, 2019, the total volume of ore shipped via Milne Inlet may exceed 4.2 million tonnes per year, but Unless otherwise approved by the NIRB, the total number of ore carriers calling on Milne Port in any calendar must not exceed 6.0 million tonnes in any calendar year. After December 31, 2019 the maximum total volume or ore year, regardless of whether operational flexibility is exercised, should not exceed 176. shipped via Milne Inlet in a calendar year returns to 4.2 million tonnes per year, unless this condition has been further modified under s. 112 of Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act, S.C. 2013, c. 14, s.2. Rationale: To date the quantity limits on transport in 179(a) and 179(b) have been a) difficult to comply with as any overage, however minimal, is an immediate compliance issue, and b) not necessarily reflective of the environmental limits established through the relevant assessments (i.e. effects have been within predictions).

Further, the current approach (including specific tonnage limits as a condition) is not consistent with NuPPAA requirements regarding project modifications. Currently, any modification of the project which results in an increase in volumes shipped or transported, regardless of environmental significance, will automatically trigger the NIRB amendment environmental assessment process, which is not consistent with NuPPAA. NUPPAA states that additional environmental assessment should only be triggered where there is a “significant modification”:

145 If the carrying out of a work or activity is a project within the meaning of subsection 2(1) and modifies a project that has been approved under this Part, that work or activity is, despite paragraphs 74(a) and (b), not subject to an assessment under this Part unless that work or activity is a significant modification to the original project. 146 (1) For greater certainty, if the work or activity referred to in section 145 is a significant modification to the original project, it is subject to an assessment under this Part. (2) Any person or body exercising powers or performing duties or functions under this Part in relation to the assessment of the modifying project must consider, and may rely on, any assessment carried out under this Part in relation to the original project.

At the time the ERP amendment was issued and section 179(a) and (b) was added to the Project Certificate, there was little available guidance as to how NIRB would interpret what a "significant modification" might be. However, since that time, NIRB has provided policy guidance as to what is considered a “significant modification”, and what approaches the NIRB will pursue based on the nature and scope of the proposed modification. Whether or not a modification of the project is deemed a "significant modification" should be considered by NIRB on a case by case basis consistent with NuPPAA and NIRB policy and with the way that other projects subject to the NIRB process in Nunavut are treated.

The proposed changes would provide clarity that Baffinland may operate at a certain level without automatically requiring a project certificate reconsideration process. Baffinland believes a maximum of 176 ore

101

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2 Project Certificate Condition No. 179a Baffinland Comments

carriers will provide the operational flexibility it requires. This limit is consistent with what was assessed through the Phase 2 FEIS Addendum.

Reporting Requirement For each year after the Proponent commences shipping ore via Milne Inlet under the Early Revenue Phase Proposal, the For each year after the Proponent commences shipping ore via Milne Inlet under the Phase 2 Proposal, the Proponent shall include in the Annual Report to the NIRB, a summary of the total amount of ore shipped via Milne Inlet Proponent shall include in the Annual Report to the NIRB, a summary of the total amount of vessels calling on for the previous calendar year. Milne Port for the previous calendar year. Stakeholder Review Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB) No Change

Project Certificate Condition No. 179b Baffinland Comments

Category Operational Variability/Flexibility No Change. Responsible Parties The Proponent No Change. Project Phase(s) Operations No Change. Objective To ensure that there are appropriate limits on the Milne Inlet Tote Road land transportation component in order to limit No Change. and manage likely project effects, while balancing the need for operation flexibility. Term or Condition Until December 31, 2019, the total volume of ore transported by truck on the Milne Inlet Tote Road may not exceed 4.2 Unless otherwise approved by the NIRB, the average number of ore truck transits along the Milne Inlet million tonnes per year, but must not exceed 6.0 million tonnes in any calendar year. After December 31, 2019, the Tote Road in a 24 hour period should not exceed 280 for the duration of the Phase 2 construction period. maximum total volume of ore transported by truck on the Milne Inlet Tote Road in a calendar year returns to 4.2 million Following commencement of operation of the North Railway, unless otherwise approved by the NIRB, in tonnes per year, unless this condition has been further modified under s. 112 of the Nunavut Planning and Project any 24 hour period, the total number of ore train transits along the North Railway should not exceed 20. Assessment Act, S.C. 2013, c. 14, s. 2. Rationale: The proposed changes would provide clarity that Baffinland may operate at a certain level without automatically requiring a project certificate reconsideration process. Baffinland believes a maximum of 20 train transits per day will provide the operational flexibility it requires. This limit is consistent with what was assessed through the Phase 2 FEIS Addendum.

Revision to address resolution of QIA TC 22.

Reporting Requirement For each year after the Proponent commences transportation of ore via the Tote Road under the Early Revenue Phase For each year after the Proponent commences transportation of ore via the North Rail under the Phase 2 Proposal, the Proponent shall include in the Annual Report to the NIRB, a summary of the total amount of ore shipped Proposal, the Proponent shall include in the Annual Report to the NIRB, a summary of the total amount of ore via the Tote Road for the previous calendar year. shipped via the Tote Road for the previous calendar year. Stakeholder Review Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB) No Change.

102

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 179c Baffinland Comments

Category Operational Variability/Flexibility Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent Suggest to remove PC No. 179c from Project Certificate. Project Phase(s) Operations Rationale: Objective To ensure commitments made by the Proponent with respect to the 2018 production increase and delivery of benefits Should the Phase 2 Project be approved, any commitments related to the environmental management of the to Inuit are adhered to, and can be determined through a body of evidence. marine and terrestrial components of the Northern Transportation Corridor should be recorded and appended Term or Condition The Proponent shall be required to resource and support a third party to conduct performance audits of commitments to the Public Hearing Report, and subsequently tracked through existing annual compliance monitoring. made by the Proponent in relation to both the IIBA and every Proponent commitment and every terms or condition of the Project Certificate relating to environmental management of the Tote Road component or environmental Baffinland has completed several Performance Audit Reports required under PC Condition No. 179c. In management related to shipping. The Proponent shall file Performance Audit Reports with the NIRB on or before March 31 and September 30 of each calendar year. completing this exercise it is apparent that it is duplicative in nature to compliance tracking and reporting Reporting Requirement On a bi‐annual basis, the Proponent shall file a Performance Audit Report with the NIRB on or before March 31 and already occurring via the Annual Report to the NIRB, the Annual Operations Report to the NWB/QIA, audit September 30 of each calendar year. This report shall include the findings of the third‐party auditor, and Baffinland’s inspections and follow up conducted with other regulatory agencies and ongoing engagement and compliance commitment to addressing findings of the auditor. This term and condition will remain in force for the duration of the tracking against the IIBA with the QIA. Mary River Project, unless it is modified under the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act. Stakeholder Review N/A

Project Certificate Condition No. 180 Baffinland Comments

Category Transboundary Effects ‐ Makivik Corporation involvement in the Marine Environment Working Group (MEWG) No Change Responsible Parties The Proponent, members of the Marine Environment Working Group Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure /Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Objective To enable Makivik Corporation and Nunavik communities near shipping lanes to remain informed and involved in those shipping activities which could affect the marine environment and marine mammals. Term or Condition The Marine Environment Working Group established for this Project shall invite a representative from Makivik Corporation to be a member of the Group. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval by the Minister Stakeholder Review Marine Environment Working Group (MEWG)

103

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 181 Baffinland Comments

Category Transboundary Effects ‐ Marine Environment Working Group (MEWG) reporting No Change Responsible Parties The Proponent, members of Marine Environment Working Group Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure /Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Objective To enable Makivik Corporation and Nunavik communities near shipping lanes to remain informed and involved in those shipping activities which could affect the marine environment and marine mammals. Term or Condition Regardless of whether Makivik Corporation participates as a member of the Marine Environment Working Group, the Marine Environment Working Group will provide Makivik Corporation with regular updates regarding the activities of the Marine Environment Working Group throughout the Project life cycle. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval by the Minister Stakeholder Review Marine Environment Working Group (MEWG)

Project Certificate Condition No. 182 Baffinland Comments

Category Transboundary Effects ‐ Reporting to Marine Environment Working Group (MEWG) Proposed Revision: Responsible Parties The Proponent, Makivik Corporation Suggest to remove PC No. 182 from Project Certificate.

Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure /Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Rationale: Objective To enable Makivik Corporation and Nunavik communities near shipping lanes to remain informed and involved in those Annual reporting of any shipping route deviations in the Annual Report to the NIRB is already required under shipping activities which could affect the marine environment and marine mammals. PC No. 103. Term or Condition Baffinland shall make available to Makivik Corporation any ship route deviation reports provided to the NIRB in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in Section 4.12.4 of the Final Hearing Report. Reporting Requirement To be developed following approval by the Minister Stakeholder Review Marine Environment Working Group (MEWG)

104

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 183 Baffinland Comments

Category Project monitoring of impacts to marine mammals No Change Responsible Parties The Proponent Proposed Revision: The Proponent and Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

Rationale: Implementation of this PC requires ongoing and meaningful participation of DFO in the Project. Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure /Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring No change proposed. Objective To address concerns associated with the potential for impacts to marine mammals, and compliance and enforcement of Proposed Revision: terms and conditions in Project Certificate No. 005 relating to ship‐based observer programs, noise exposure To address concerns associated with the potential for impacts to marine mammals and the identification of assessment, and the identification of other mitigation measures that have the potential to further reduce potential other mitigation methods that have the potential to further reduce potential impacts to marine mammals. impacts to marine mammals. Rationale: See proposed revisions to the Term and Condition below. Term or Condition The Proponent shall collaborate with the Marine Environment Working Group to develop impact avoidance or Proposed Revision: mitigation strategies for the protection of the marine environment, and shall implement these strategies. The Proponent shall collaborate with the Marine Environment Working Group to develop impact avoidance or mitigation strategies for the protection of the marine environment. The Proponent shall implement any direction from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), issued in furtherance of their mandate, for any avoidance or mitigation measures, including cessation of any activity, for the protection of the The Proponent shall implement any substantiated direction from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to marine environment. mitigate impacts to marine wildlife, including cessation of any activity, consistent with their regulatory authority. The Proponent shall every six months provide to DFO a tracking table of: (i) collective recommendation of the other members of the working group, and Rationale: (ii) any directions from DFO. Revision suggested to provide a reasonable level of operational certainty. For each, the table must show the Proponent’s means of implementation. Where any direction or recommendations are not fully implemented, the Proponent shall include the rationale. Reporting Requirement Results of the observer program shall be provided in the Annual Report to the Board. Further, Baffinland shall report all No change proposed. This is already completed annually. data it generates from the implementation of monitoring of marine impacts it is required to implement pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the Project Certificate. Stakeholder Review Marine Environment Working Group (MEWG), Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) No change proposed.

105

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

Project Certificate Condition No. 184 Baffinland Comments

Category Project monitoring of impacts to marine mammals No Change Responsible Parties The Proponent The Proponent and the MEWG Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure /Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring No change proposed. Objective To address concerns associated with the potential for impacts to marine mammals, and compliance and enforcement of Proposed Revision: terms and conditions in Project Certificate No. 005 relating to ship‐based observer programs, noise exposure To address concerns associated with the potential for impacts to marine mammals and the identification of assessments, and the identification of other mitigation methods that have the potential to further reduce potential mitigation methods that have the potential to further reduce those impacts. impacts to marine mammals. Rationale: In accordance with PC No. 77, the MEWG is intended to serve as an advisory body to support monitoring of potential Project effects on marine mammals and the development of adaptive management strategies as needed. It is not intended to have any Project Certificate enforcement function. The MEWG is made up of several different Parties, some of which have an enforcement mandate on marine‐related topics under their own regulations and statutes, or private agreements with the Proponent (i.e. QIA). It is Baffinland’s understanding that under NuPPAA, CiRNAC is tasked with Project Certificate enforcement Term or Condition The Proponent shall collaborate with the Marine Environment Working Group to review the status of compliance with, The Marine Environment Working Group shall at least annually discuss the recommendations of the annual and implementation of, all of the Terms and Conditions in Project Certificate No. 005 related to marine environmental NIRB monitoring report relevant to marine topics and any actions proposed or taken by the Proponent in response. protection. Reporting Requirement Results of the observer program shall be provided in the Annual Report to the Board. Further, Baffinland shall report Proposed Revision: annually all data it generates from the implementation of monitoring of marine impacts it is required to implement Baffinland shall confirm to NIRB as part of its Annual Report that this discussion has occurred, and shall provide pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the Project Certificate. annual summary reports on all data it generates from the implementation of monitoring of marine impacts required under its marine monitoring plans required by Project Certificate 005.

Rationale: Removal of specifics and left to cover all monitoring programs conducted on an annual basis. Stakeholder Review Marine Environment Working Group (MEWG), Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) No change proposed.

106

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

NEW Project Certificate Condition No. 185 Baffinland Comments

Category Socioeconomic Responsible Parties The Proponent, QIA Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure /Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring

Objective To address concerns associated with monitoring to ensure that Project monitoring captures the Inuit experience and Inuit monitoring is used to support further operational decision making by the Proponent if monitoring results trigger the need for adaptive management actions. Term or Condition (a) The Proponent and QIA are strongly encouraged to support the development of an Inuit Social Oversight To reflect resolution of QIA‐02, QIA‐03, QIA‐04, QIA‐05, QIA‐07, QIA_09, QIA‐10, QIA‐11, QIA‐38, QIA‐49 and Committee (ISOC), to be comprised of members nominated from the North Baffin communities. The ISOC is QIA‐49 encouraged to help develop an enhanced, Inuit‐driven, social monitoring program related to the Project focused

on indicators related to community wellbeing.

(b) The Proponent and QIA are strongly encouraged to support the development of an Inuit Committee, to be comprised of members nominated from the North Baffin communities. The Inuit Committee is encouraged to help develop monitoring programs based on observations by Inuit of potential culture, resource and land use impacts from the Project and to help develop related adaptive management objectives, indicators, thresholds and responses,

The above described Programs are intended to be in addition to and to complement other monitoring required by this Project Certificate. The Proponent is strongly encouraged to use the information gathered through these monitoring programs to help support operational decision making. Reporting Requirement A summary of activities of the ISOC and Inuit Committee will be included in the Annual Report. . Stakeholder Review QIA

107

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

NEW Project Certificate Condition No. 186 Baffinland Comments

Category Freshwater Responsible Parties The Proponent, QIA, CIRNAC, ECCC, DFO Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure /Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Objective To address concerns associated with the freshwater environment Term or Condition The Proponent shall establish a Fresh Environment Working Group (FEWG). Respecting the heightened regulatory To reflect resolution of QIA‐42 oversight in relation to the freshwater oversight, which will be explicitly acknowledged in a corresponding Terms of Reference for the FEWG, the FEWG will meet on an as needed basis to discuss items to be agreed upon by members of the FEWG. In person meetings, if required, will be coordinated with the planning of Marine and Terrestrial Environment Working Group meetings, where possible. Reporting Requirement A summary of activities of the FEWG will be included in the Annual Report. . Stakeholder Review QIA

108

Draft Revised Project Certificate No. 005 for Phase 2

NEW Project Certificate Condition No. 187 Baffinland Comments

Category Public Consultation Responsible Parties The Proponent Project Phase(s) Construction, Operations, Temporary Closure /Care and Maintenance, Closure and Post‐Closure Monitoring Objective To support the maintenance of a public right of access to the Milne Inlet Tote Road Public Access Route for the purposes of use of all‐terrain vehicles to carry out traditional Inuit activities, in a manner that does not conflict with the continued safe operation of the Mary River Project. Term or Condition In consultation with the Hamlet of Pond Inlet, the MHTO, and the QIA, the Proponent shall develop a Tote Road Public Access Route Management Program to ensure safe use of the Milne Inlet Tote Road Public Access Route by Inuit for the purpose of carrying out traditional Inuit activities. The Milne Inlet Tote Road Public Access Route may take the form of the existing Milne Inlet Tote Road, a parallel trail system or service road or a combination thereof.

The Tote Road Public Access Route Management Program shall take into consideration the following, at minimum: a. safety for all users as highest priority; b. the need for the Proponent to regularly utilize the Milne Inlet Tote Road to support continued operation of the Mary River Mine; c. developing procedures which continue to support maintaining public access during the construction and operations periods; d. the need to limit interactions between mine and non‐mine traffic in vicinity of and along the Milne Inlet Tote Road; e. Posting of safety signage at appropriate locations in English and Inuktitut; f. the need for annual community meetings in Pond Inlet to explain the procedures agreed with the Hamlet of Pond Inlet, MHTO and QIA to ensure use of the Milne Inlet Tote Road and/or Milne Inlet Public Access Route (if areas other than the Milne Inlet Tote Road are developed for this purpose) is limited to safe and controlled use by all terrain vehicles for the purpose of carrying out traditional Inuit activities; g. applicable requirements set out in territorial and federal regulations, the Nunavut Agreement and agreements between the Proponent and QIA; h. A system to report any accidents or safety incidents to QIA, Hamlet of Pond Inlet and MHTO; and i. monitoring.

Reporting Requirement A Draft Tote Road Public Access Route Management Program shall be submitted to the NIRB no later than six months . after the issuance of the amended Project Certificate.

A Final Tote Road Public Access Route Management Program is to be submitted to NIRB no later than six months prior to the commencement of operation of the North Railway. Stakeholder Review Hamlet of Pond Inlet, MHTO, QIA

109 ITEM 2 - BIMC Memo – Fiscal Benefits of the Mary River Project (previously submitted to NIRB in December 2020) NTI-01

November 2020

MEMO Fiscal Benefits of the Mary River Project

Important Notes to Readers The estimations of economic benefits outlined in this memo are based from a point in time on scenarios and hypothesis taking place in future years as outlined in Technical Supporting Document 25 submitted through the Phase 2 Nunavut Impact Review Board led Environmental Assessment for Baffinland as well as from internal Baffinland records. No conclusion or inference should be made based on the content of this report regarding investment or financial decisions about the Mary River Project, Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation (Baffinland), iron ore, the mining sector in general or the Nunavut and Canadian economy.

All monetary values are expressed in Canadian Dollars (CAD) Introduction The following memo outlines the fiscal benefits of the 30 million tonnes per year Mary River Project to Inuit Organizations and Governments throughout the life of mine (2038).

Government of Nunavut 1 Fiscal revenues paid to the Government of Nunavut are paid against the following requirements: • Payroll Taxes • Petroleum (Fuel) Taxes • Corporate Income Taxes • Personal Income Tax

Baffinland has paid the following to the Government of Nunavut as of September 30, 2020: • Payroll Taxes: $32,940,658 • Petroleum (Fuel) Taxes: $20,744,900 • Total: Over $53 million

Expected payments to the Government of Nunavut over the life of mine (2038): • Corporate Income Tax: $321 million • Territorial Petroleum (Fuel) Tax: $182.5 million • Payroll Taxes: $51.3 million 2 • Other Fiscal Revenues (this includes payments to government by Baffinland suppliers, contractors, and other smaller payments): $125 million • Total: $679 million

Government of Canada Fiscal revenues paid to the Government of Canada are paid against the following requirements: • Fuel Tax • Corporate Income Tax

1 Calculations of projected payments to the Government of Nunavut have not considered the potential implications of Devolution. 2 Baffinland future payroll tax payment calculations are based on very conservative modelling scenarios to not overstate payments to Government.

2275 Upper Middle Road East, Suite 300 | Oakville, ON, L6H 0C3| Main: 416.364.8820 | Fax: 416.364.0193 | www.baffinland.com MARY RIVER PROJECT Fiscal Benefits of the Mary River Project

• Aggregate Royalties (Crown Land)

To date Baffinland has made no payments to the Government of Canada against the requirements outlined above. Phase 2 expected payments to the Government of Canada over the life of mine (2038): • Corporate Income Tax: $359.7 million • Fuel Tax: $80.2 million • Aggregate Royalties (Crown Land): $35.8 million • Other Fiscal Revenues (this includes payments to government by Baffinland suppliers, contractors, and other smaller payments): $1.2 billion • Total: Over $1.5 billion

Inuit Organizations Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated (NTI)

Deposit No. 1 is located on grandfathered federal mining leases that have been designated as Inuit surface and subsurface lands. As such, a Federal Mining Royalty (FMR) will be payable to Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (Crown Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada) under the Nunavut Mining Regulations (Territorial Lands Act), but the monies will be passed to NTI. Resources collected by NTI from FMR are placed in the “Resource Revenue Trust”. Revenues from the operating fund of the Trust are distributed to the NTI and all three Regional Inuit Associations (RIAs) according to NTI’s Resource Revenue Policy (NTI 2011). The revenue from the operating fund is distributed as follows: • 30% - NTI • 10% - Regional Inuit Organization (each) • 40% - Regional Inuit Organization (each, divided on per capita basis)

Mines in Nunavut are required to make annual royalty payments to the Crown based on the mine’s total output during the fiscal year. The royalty payable is the lesser of: • 13% of the value of the output of the mine, and • A graduated rate depending on the value of the mine’s output during the fiscal year, at prescribed percentages from 5% to 14%.

The value of the output from a mine is determined by the sum of the market value of minerals produced less deductible expenses which include transportation costs, operating costs, a depreciation allowance for capital assets (up to 100% of historical costs incurred), a development allowance (up to 100% of historical mine development costs incurred), exploration costs and contributions made to a mining reclamation trust.

As the depreciation and development allowance are deductible at a rate of up to 100% of historical costs incurred, a mine can generally recover its historical capital costs (through depreciation and development allowance) prior to paying mining royalties.

Page 2 MARY RIVER PROJECT Fiscal Benefits of the Mary River Project

To date, no payments have been made by Baffinland towards the Federal Mining Royalty. Payments towards the Federal Mining Royalty are expected to begin in 2030.

Expected payments to Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. over the life of mine (2038): • Federal Mineral Royalty3: $1.4 billion

Qikiqtani Inuit Association (QIA)

QIA is a Designated Inuit Organization as outlined in the Nunavut Agreement. Baffinland and the QIA have an Inuit Impact and Benefit Agreement (IIBA) and a Commercial Lease.

Through the IIBA, Inuit benefit financially from the Project through the provision of royalty payments to the QIA as per Article 5 of the IIBA. At present, Baffinland pays the QIA 1.19% of Net Sales Revenue as the royalty for mining at Mary River. Through the Commercial Lease with the QIA, Baffinland is required to make lease payments, tipping fees for waste disposal, quarry fees and aggregate use fees.

As of September 30, 2020 Baffinland has paid to the QIA the following in accordance with the IIBA. This does not include payments to QIA for ongoing IIBA implementation: • Advance Payments $38 million • Quarterly Royalty Payments: $3.14 million • Commercial lease: $25 million • Total: $66 million

As agreed in the Inuit Certainty Agreement (ICA), the IIBA will be amended to include significant increases in Royalty payments to the QIA over the life of the mine should Phase 2 be approved. Assuming January 1, 2021 as the date of Phase 2 approval and an assumed iron ore price of $75/ Dry Metric Tonnes, 62%Fe index, Baffinland expects it will pay the QIA over $969 million in royalties between 2021- 2038.

Expected payments to the Qikiqtani Inuit Association over life of mine (2038): • IIBA Implementation Costs: $29.25 million ($2.250 m / 13 calendar quarters) • Commercial Lease Payments: $73.1 million • Aggregate Royalties: $27.6 million • Royalties: $969 million • Total: Over $1 billion

3 The federal Mineral Royalties (FMR) calculations use several variables, including the volume of iron ore produced (tons), the revenues per ton that BIM may expect, expected operating costs per ton to extract, process and ship the ore to markets, the Total Depreciation Allowed (TDA) which takes into account the capital costs and the royalty rate. The total amount of FMR was calculated using the following formula:

FMR = ((Tons of ore produced x (Revenues per ton – Costs per ton))-Depreciation) x Royalty rate

FMR = ((391.29 MT x ($69.07-$20.63))-$8.02 B) x 13 % = $1.4 B

Page 3

ᓄᕕᐱᕆ 2020

ᑐᓴᒐᒃᓴᓕᐊᖑᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᑦ ᐃᓱᐊᓂ ᓄᓘᔮᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᑲᔫᓯᐊᕈᑎᓕᕆᔾᔪᑏᑦ

ᐅᖃᓕᒫᖅᑐᓄᑦ ᐅᔾᔨᕆᔭᐅᓪᓚᕆᒋᐊᓕᒃ ᒥᒃᓴᐅᓴᒃᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᑦ ᐃᑲᔫᓯᐊᙳᖅᑎᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᑕᕙᓂ ᑐᓴᒐᒃᓴᓕᐊᖑᔪᒥᒃ ᒪᓕᒃᓯᒪᖕᒪᑕ ᖃᖓᓂ ᐱᒋᐊᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᖓᒐᔭᕐᓂᖏᓪᓗ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᑐᖃᑦᑎᓄᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓱᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᔭᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᒡᓗ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᒥᒃ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᖢᓂ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᔭᖅᑕᐅᓂᖓᓄᑦ 25 ᑐᓂᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᑐᒡᓕᕆᓕᖅᑕᖓᓂ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖑᔪᒪᔪᒧᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᔨᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐃᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐅᑎᓂᒃ ᐹᕙᓐᓛᓐᑯᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐹᕙᓐᓛᓐᑯᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᔪᖁᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ. ᐃᓚᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᔾᔮᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᐸᒡᕕᓵᕆᔭᐅᓂᐊᕐᓇᑎᒡᓗ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᓴᖅᑭᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑕᑯᖅᑯᔾᔨᔾᔪᑕᐅᓇᓱᒃᖢᑎᒃ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓕᐅᖅᓯᒪᖕᒪᑕ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᓱᖅᑐᐃᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᑕᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᓄᓘᔮᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᐹᕙᓐᓛᓐᑯᑦ ᓴᕕᒃᓴᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ, ᓴᕕᒃᓴᖅ, ᐅᔭᕋᒃᓯᐅᕐᕕᒡᓗ ᓇᒥᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᐅᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᐅᕈᑎᖏᓐᓄᑦ.

ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᒫᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᖏᑕ ᐃᓕᓴᕆᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᒃᑰᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ (ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᖏᑎᒍ)

ᐅᓂᒃᑲᐅᓯᕆᑦᑎᐊᕐᓗᒍ

ᐊᑖᓂ ᑐᓴᒐᒃᓴᓕᐊᖑᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᒥᑦ ᐃᑲᔫᓯᐊᙳᖅᐸᒃᑐᑦ ᒪᓕᒃᖢᒍ 30 ᒥᓕᐊᓐ ᑕᓐᔅᓂᒃ ᓴᕕᒃᓴᓂᒃᕕᐅᑉ ᐊᐅᓚᓂᓕᒫᖓᓄᑦ (2038).

ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᖓᑦ 1

ᐊᕐᕌᒍᑕᒫᑦ ᐃᓯᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᔪᑦ ᐊᑭᓕᖅᓲᑕᐅᕙᒃᐳᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐅᑯᓄᖓ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᔪᒃᓴᐅᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ: • ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖅᑏᑦ ᐊᑭᓕᖅᑕᐅᔾᔪᑎᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᕈᑦᑏᑦ

• ᐅᖅᓱᐊᓗᖕᓄᑦ (ᐱᑐᕉᓕᐊᒻ) ᑖᒃᓰᔭᕈᑦᑏᑦ

• ᐹᕙᓐᓛᓐᑯᑦ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᐅᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᕈᑦᑏᑦ

• ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖅᑏᑦ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᐅᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᕈᑦᑏᑦ

ᐹᕙᓐᓛᓐᑯᑦ ᐊᑭᓖᓯᒪᓕᖅᑐᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐅᑯᓂᖓ ᓯᑎᐱᕆ 30, 2020ᒥᑦ: • ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖅᑏᑦ ᐊᑭᓕᖅᑕᐅᔾᔪᑎᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᕈᑦᑏᑦ: $32,940,658

• ᐅᖅᓱᐊᓗᖕᓄᑦ (ᐱᑐᕉᓕᐊᒻ) ᑖᒃᓰᔭᕈᑦᑏᑦ: $20,744,900

• ᑲᑎᖦᖢᒋᑦ: $53 ᒥᓕᓐᓂᐊᓐ ᐅᖓᑖᓄᑦ

ᐊᑭᓕᖅᑕᐅᓂᐊᕋᓱᒋᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐅᔭᕋᒃᓯᐅᕐᕕᐅᑉ ᐊᐅᓚᓂᓕᒫᖓᓄᑦ (2038): • ᐹᕙᓐᓛᓐᑯᑦ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᐅᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᕈᑦᑏᑦ: $321 ᒥᓕᐊᓐ

• ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᐅᖅᓱᐊᓗᖕᓄᑦ (ᐱᑐᕉᓕᐊᒻ) ᑖᒃᓰᔭᕈᑦᑏᑦ: $182.5 ᒥᓕᐊᓐ

• ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖅᑏᑦ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᐅᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᕈᑦᑏᑦ: $51.3 ᒥᓕᐊᓐ 2

1 ᒥᒃᓴᐅᓴᒃᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᑭᓕᐅᑎᒃᓴᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᕈᑕᐅᓯᒪᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᖓᓛᕐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖅᓱᓕᑳᓪᓚᖕᓂᖅᐸᑦ. 2 ᐹᕙᓐᓛᓐᑯᑦ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᑦᑎᓐᓂ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖅᑏᑦ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᐅᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᒥᒃᓴᐅᓴᒃᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᒪᓕᖕᒪᑕ ᐊᑦᑎᓛᑦᑎᐊᒥ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇᓪᓗᐊᑦᑎᐊᖅ ᐊᑭᓕᐅᑎᓄᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᓐᓄᑦ

2275 Upper Middle Road East, Suite 300 | Oakville, ON, L6H 0C3| Main: 416.364.8820 | Fax: 416.364.0193 | www.baffinland.com

ᐊᕐᕌᒍᑕᒫᑦ ᐃᑲᔫᓯᐊᖅᑖᕈᑕᐅᕙᒃᑐᑦ ᓅᓘᔮᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ

• ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᑕᒫᑦ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᑦ ᐃᓯᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ (ᐃᓚᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᑭᓕᐅᑏᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ ᐹᕙᓐᓛᓐᑯᓐᓂᒃ ᐱᖁᑎᖃᖅᑏᑦ, ᑳᓐᑐᕌᒃᐸᒃᑐᑦ, ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ ᒥᑭᓐᓂᖅᓴᓄᑦ ᐊᑭᓕᐅᑎᐅᕙᒃᑐᑦ): $125 ᒥᓕᐊᓐ

• ᑲᑎᖦᖢᒋᑦ $679 ᒥᓕᐊᓐ

ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᒐᕙᒪᖓ

ᐊᕐᕌᒍᑕᒫᑦ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᑦ ᐃᓯᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᔪᑦ ᐊᑭᓕᐅᑎᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᒐᕙᒪᖓᓄᑦ ᐊᑭᓕᐅᑎᐅᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ ᐅᑯᓄᖓ ᐊᑭᓕᕆᐊᓕᖕᓄᑦ: • ᐅᖅᓱᐊᓗᖕᒧᑦ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᕈᑦᑏᑦ

• ᐹᕙᓐᓛᓐᑯᑦ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᐅᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᕈᑦᑏᑦ

• ᑲᑎᓕᒫᖅᖢᒋᑦ ᐃᕐᓂᐅᕈᑏᑦ (ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖓ)

ᐅᓪᓗᒥᒧᑦ ᑎᑭᖦᖢᒍ ᐹᕙᓐᓛᓐᑯᑦ ᐊᑭᓕᖅᓱᐃᓯᒪᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᒐᕙᒪᖓᓄᑦ ᐊᑭᓕᕆᐊᓖᑦ ᖁᓛᓂ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓄᑦ.

ᑐᒡᓕᕆᓕᖅᑕᖓᓂ ᐊᕿᓕᐅᑎᐅᓂᐊᕋᓱᒋᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᒐᕙᒪᖓᓄᑦ ᐅᔭᕋᒃᓯᐅᕐᕕᐅᑉ ᐊᐅᓚᓂᓕᒫᖓᓄᑦ (2038): • ᐹᕙᓐᓛᓐᑯᑦ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᐅᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᕈᑦᑏᑦ: $359.7 ᒥᓕᐊᓐ

• ᐅᖅᓱᐊᓗᖕᒧᑦ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᕈᑦᑏᑦ: $80.2 ᒥᓕᐊᓐ

• ᑲᑎᓕᒫᖅᖢᒋᑦ ᐃᕐᓂᐅᕈᑏᑦ (ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖓ): $35.8 ᒥᓕᐊᓐ

• ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᑕᒫᑦ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᑦ ᐃᓯᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ (ᐃᓚᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᑭᓕᐅᑏᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ ᐹᕙᓐᓛᓐᑯᓐᓂᒃ ᐱᖁᑎᖃᖅᑏᑦ, ᑳᓐᑐᕌᒃᐸᒃᑐᑦ, ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ ᒥᑭᓐᓂᖅᓴᓂᒃ ᐊᑭᓕᐅᑎᐅᕙᒃᑐᑦ): $1.2 ᐱᓕᐊᓐ

• ᑲᑎᖦᖢᒋᑦ: ᐅᖓᑖᓄᑦ $1.5 ᐱᓕᐊᓐ

ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᖏᑦ

ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᑐᙵᕕᒃᑯᑦ (ᑐᙵᕕᒃ)

ᐅᔭᕋᒃᓯᐅᕐᕕᒃ ᓈᓴᐅᑖ 1 ᐃᓂᖃᖓ ᐋᔩᕋᕈᑕᐅᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᑐᖃᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᔭᕋᒃᓯᐅᕐᕕᐅᑉ ᓄᓇᖓᑕ ᐊᑐᖅᑐᐊᖅᑕᐅᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᑐᓂᔭᐅᓯᒪᓪᓗᓂ ᐃᓄᖕᓄᑦ ᓄᓇᖓᑕ ᖄᖓᓂ ᓄᓇᐅᓪᓗ ᐊᑎᓕᒫᖓᓄᑦ ᓄᓇᖁᑎᒋᔭᐅᓂᖓᓄᑦ. ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓐᓂᖓᓄᑦ, ᒐᕙᒪᑐᖃᑦᑯᑦ ᐅᔭᕋᒃᓯᐅᕐᕖᑦ ᐃᕐᓂᐅᕈᑎᖏᑦ ᐊᑭᓕᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᖅ ᐃᓄᓕᕆᔨᑐᖃᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ (ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑖᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓄᓪᓗ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ) ᒪᓕᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᐅᔭᕋᒃᓯᐅᕐᕕᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᓂᒃ (ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᓄᓇᖓᓂ ᐱᖁᔭᕐᔪᐊ), ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᑦ ᑐᓂᔭᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᑐᙵᕕᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ. ᑮᓇᐅᔭᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᑐᙵᕕᒃᑯᓐᓂᑦ ᐱᔭᐅᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᑦ ᐃᓄᓕᕆᔨᑐᖃᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᐃᓕᔭᐅᕙᓪᓕᐊᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ “ᑮᓇᐅᔭᑦ ᐃᓯᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᔪᑦ ᓄᐊᑦᑎᕕᖓᓄᑦ”. ᑮᓇᐅᔭᑦ ᐃᓯᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᔪᑦ ᓄᐊᑦᑎᕕᒃ ᐊᐅᓚᑕᐅᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᑐᓐᓂᖅᓴᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᖅ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᑐᙵᕕᖓᓄᑦ ᐱᖓᓱᓄᓪᓗ ᐊᕕᒃᓯᒪᔪᓄᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᒡᕕᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᒪᓕᒃᖢᒍ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᑐᙵᕕᒃᑯᑦ

Page 2

ᐊᕐᕌᒍᑕᒫᑦ ᐃᑲᔫᓯᐊᖅᑖᕈᑕᐅᕙᒃᑐᑦ ᓅᓘᔮᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ

ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓂᒃ ᐃᓯᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᔪᓂᒃ ᐊᑐᐊᒐᖅ (ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᑐᙵᕕᒃᑯᑦ 2011). ᑮᓇᐅᔭᑦ ᐃᓯᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᔪᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᑕᐅᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᓄᐊᑦᑎᕕᒃ ᐅᑯᓄᖓ ᐊᕕᒃᑐᖅᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᑐᓂᔭᐅᕙᒃᑐᑦ : • 30% - ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᑐᙵᕕᒃᑯᑦ

• 10% - ᐊᕕᒃᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᖏᑦ (ᐊᑐᓂ)

• 40% - ᐊᕕᒃᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᖏᑦ (ᐊᑐᓂ, ᐊᕕᒃᑐᖅᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᖃᔅᓯᐅᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑲᑎᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ)

ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᐅᔭᕋᒃᓯᐅᕐᕖᑦ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᑕᒫᑦ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᐅᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᔭᖓᓄᑦ ᐃᕐᓂᐅᕈᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᑕᒫᑦ ᐊᑭᓕᖅᓱᐃᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᒪᑕ ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᓄᓇᖁᑎᒋᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᒪᓕᒡᓗᒍ ᐅᔭᕋᒃᓯᐅᕐᕕᐅᑉ ᑲᑎᓕᒫᖅᖢᒋᑦ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᐊᖏᑦ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᒧᑦ. ᐃᕐᓂᐅᕈᑏᑦ ᐊᑭᓕᐅᑎᐅᕙᒃᑐᑦ ᐃᒪᐃᓕᖓᔪᓂᒃ: • 13% ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᖅᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᐅᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᔭᖏᑦ ᒪᓕᒃᖢᒋᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ

• ᖁᕝᕙᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᔪᑦ ᑭᒡᓕᖏᑦ ᒪᓕᖕᒪᑕ ᐅᔭᕋᒃᓯᐅᕐᕕᒃᐳᑦ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᐅᕈᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᒧᑦ, ᓇᓗᓇᐃᔭᕐᓗᒍ ᐳᓴᓐᑎᓂᒃ ᐅᑯᓂᖓ 5%ᒥ 14%ᒧᑦ.

ᑮᓇᐅᔭᐅᑉ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᖓᓂᖓ ᓴᖅᑭᑉᐸᓪᓕᐊᔪᑦ ᐅᔭᕋᒃᓯᐅᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᔭᐅᕙᖕᒪᑦ ᓂᐅᕕᖅᐸᒃᑐᑦ ᓴᕕᒃᓴᕐᓂᒃ ᐲᔭᐃᕝᕕᐅᓯᒪᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᑭᓕᕆᐊᓖᑦ ᐃᓚᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐅᑯᐊ ᐃᖏᕐᕋᔾᔪᑎᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᑮᑦ, ᐊᐅᓚᔾᔪᑎᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᑮᑦ, ᑲᑎᑕᐅᓕᒫᖅᖢᑎᒃ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᑦ ᖃᔅᓯᐅᖕᒪᖔᑕ ᐊᑭᑐᔫᑎᖃᐅᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐱᖁᑎᓂᒃ (100% ᐊᑐᖅᓯᒪᓕᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᑭᓕᒫᖏᑦ ᓂᐅᕕᕈᑕᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ), ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᑮᑦ (100% ᐊᑐᖅᓯᒪᓕᖅᑐᑦ ᐅᔭᕋᒃᓯᐅᕐᕕᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᑮᑦ ᓴᖅᑭᓯᒪᔪᑦ) ᐅᔭᕋᒃᓯᐅᕐᓂᕐᒧᒃ ᐊᑮᑦ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ ᐃᑲᔫᓯᐊᖅᑖᖑᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᑦ ᐅᔭᕋᒃᓯᐅᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᖅ ᒪᑐᕙᓪᓕᐊᓛᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᓄᐊᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ.

ᐱᑐᖃᙳᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒧᓪᓗ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᖅᑖᕈᑏᑦ ᐲᔭᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᑕ ᑭᒡᓕᖃᖅᖢᑎᒃ 100% ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓕᕇᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᑭᖏᓐᓂᒃ, ᐅᔭᕋᒃᓯᐅᕐᕕᒃ ᐅᑎᖅᑏᒋᐊᕈᓐᓇᖅᑑᒐᓗᐊᖅ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓕᕇᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᑭᖏᓐᓂᒃ (ᐊᑐᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᐱᑐᖃᙳᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᔪᑦ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒧᓪᓗ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᖅᑖᕈᑎᓂᒃ) ᐊᑭᓖᓚᐅᖏᓐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐅᔭᕋᒃᓯᐅᕐᕕᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᕐᓂᐅᕈᑎᓂᒃ.

ᐅᓪᓗᒥᒧᑦ ᑎᑭᖦᓗᒍ, ᐹᕙᓐᓛᓐᑯᑦ ᐊᑭᓖᓯᒪᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᑐᖃᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᔭᕋᒃᓯᐅᕐᕕᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᕐᓂᐅᕈᑎᓕᕆᔾᔪᑎᖏᓐᓄᑦ. ᐊᑭᓖᔾᔪᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᑐᖃᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ ᐅᔭᕋᒃᓯᐅᕐᕕᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᕐᓂᐅᕈᑎᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐱᒋᐊᕐᓂᐊᕋᓱᒋᔭᐅᔪᑦ 2030ᒥ.

ᐊᑭᓕᐅᑕᐅᓂᐊᕋᓱᒋᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᑐᙵᕕᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ ᐅᔭᕋᒃᓯᐅᕐᕕᐅᑉ ᐊᐅᓚᓂᓕᒫᖓᓄᑦ (2038):

• ᒐᕙᒪᑐᖃᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᕙᕋᒃᓯᐅᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᕐᓂᐅᕈᑎᖏᑦ3: $1.4 ᐱᓕᐊᓐ

3 ᒐᕙᒪᑐᖃᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᔭᕋᒃᓯᐅᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᕐᓂᐅᕈᑎᓂᒃ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓯᒪᓂᖓ ᖃᓄᑎᒋ ᐊᑭᓕᖅᑕᐅᔾᔪᑏᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᖏᑦᑐᓄᑦ, ᐃᓚᐅᑎᖦᖢᒍ ᓴᕕᒃᓴᐅᑉ ᖃᓄᑎᒋᐅᓂᖓ (ᑖᓐᔅ), ᑮᓇᐅᔭᑦ ᐃᓯᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᔪᑦ ᒪᓕᒃᖢᒍ ᑖᓐᔅ ᐹᕙᓐᓛᓐᑯᑦ ᓂᕆᐅᒋᔭᖓ, ᓂᕆᐅᒋᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᑮᑦ ᒪᓕᒃᖢᒍ ᑖᓐᔅ ᐅᔭᕋᒃᓯᐅᖅᑕᐅᔪᑦ, ᓴᕕᒃᓴᙳᐃᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᖅ ᐊᐅᓪᓚᑦᑎᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᕐᓗ ᓂᐅᕕᖅᑕᐅᔪᓂᒃ, ᑲᑎᓕᒫᖅᖢᒋᑦ ᐱᑐᖃᙳᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᑲᑎᖦᖢᒋᑦ ᐊᑭᑐᔫᑎᓄᑦ ᐊᑭᒋᔭᐅᔪᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᕐᓂᐅᕈᑎᓄᒃ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᖓᓂᐅᔪᑦ. ᑲᑎᒪᓕᓛᖅᖢᒋᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᑐᖃᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᐅᔭᕋᒃᓯᐅᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᕐᓂᐅᕈᑏᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᕗᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᖓᖕᒪᖔᑕ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᕆᔾᔪᑏᑦ:

ᒐᕙᒪᑐᖃᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᐅᔭᕋᒃᓯᐅᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᕐᓂᐅᕈᑏᑦ = (ᑖᓐᔅ ᓴᕕᒃᓴᖅx (ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᐅᕈᑕᐅᔪᖅ ᑖᓐᔅ – ᐊᑭᖓ ᑖᓐᔅ)-ᐱᑐᖃᙳᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᖓ) x ᐃᕐᓂᐅᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᖃᔅᓯᐅᓂᖓ

ᒐᕙᒪᑐᖃᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᐅᔭᕋᒃᓯᐅᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᕐᓂᐅᕈᑏᑦ = ((391.29 MT x ($69.07-$20.63))-$8.02 B) x 13 % = $1.4 B

Page 3

ᐊᕐᕌᒍᑕᒫᑦ ᐃᑲᔫᓯᐊᖅᑖᕈᑕᐅᕙᒃᑐᑦ ᓅᓘᔮᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ

ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓂ ᐃᓄᐃᒃ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᖏᑦ (ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓃᒃᑯᑦ)

ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓃᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᖑᕗᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓂᖓ ᒪᓕᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒌᒍᑎᒥ. ᐹᕙᓐᓛᓐᑯᑦ ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓃᒃᑯᓪᓗ ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒌᒍᑎᖃᖅᐴᒃ ᐃᓄᐃᒃ ᐊᒃᑐᖅᑕᐅᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᑲᔫᓯᐊᖅᑖᕈᑎᒃᓴᖏᓐᓄᓪᓗ ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒌᒍᑎᒥᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᐅᕈᑕᐅᓂᐊᕐᓗᓂ ᓄᓇᖓᓂ ᐊᑐᖅᑐᐊᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ.

ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐊᒃᑐᖅᑕᐅᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᑲᔫᓯᐊᖅᑖᕈᑎᒃᓴᖏᓐᓄᓪᓗ ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒌᒍᑎ, ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᑲᔫᓯᐊᖅᑖᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᒃᓴᐅᑕᐅᕗᑦ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᑎᒍᑦ ᓄᓘᔮᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᖢᑎᑦ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᐅᖅᑕᐅᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᑦ ᐃᕐᓂᐅᕈᑎᖏᒍᑦ ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓂ ᐃᓄᐃᒃ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᒃᑯᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒌᒍᑎ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓯᒪᓂᖓᑕ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᓂᖓ 5ᒦᑦᑐᖅ, ᒫᓐᓇ, ᐹᕙᓐᓛᓐᑯᑦ ᐊᑭᓕᖅᓱᐃᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ 1.9% ᑲᑎᓕᒫᖅᖢᒋᑦ ᓴᕕᒃᓴᖅ ᓂᐅᕕᖅᑕᐅᓂᖓᑕ ᐃᕐᓂᐅᕈᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓄᓘᔮᓂ ᐅᔭᕋᓯᐅᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ.

ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᐅᕈᑎᖃᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᓄᓇᒥ ᐊᑐᖅᑐᐊᕈᑎᖓᒍᑦ ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓂᒃᑯᓐᓂ, ᐹᕙᓐᓛᓐᑯᑦ ᐊᑭᓕᖅᓱᐃᖏᓐᓇᕆᐊᓖᑦ ᓄᓇᒥ ᐊᑐᖅᑐᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ, ᐊᑭᓕᖅᓱᐃᒃᑲᓐᓂᕆᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᒃᑕᕐᕕᖃᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ, ᑐᐊᐸᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑲᑎᓯᒪᔪᓄᓪᓗ ᐊᑐᕈᑎᓄᑦ.

ᓯᑎᐱᕆ 30, 2020ᒥ ᐱᒋᐊᖢᓂ ᐹᕙᓐᓛᓐᑯᑦ ᐊᑭᓖᓯᒪᓕᖅᑐᑦ ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓂ ᐃᓄᐃᒃ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᒃᑯᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᒃ ᐊᒃᑐᖅᑕᐅᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᑲᔫᓯᐊᖅᑖᕈᑎᓄᓪᓗ ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒌᒍᑎᒥᒃ ᒪᓕᒃᖢᑎᒃ, ᐃᓚᐅᑎᑕᐅᓇᓂ ᐊᑭᓕᐅᑏᑦ ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓃᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒌᒍᑎ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖑᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖓ: • ᐊᑭᓖᕙᒌᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ $38 ᒥᓕᐊᓐ

• ᑕᖅᑭᑦ ᐊᕕᒃᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᕐᓂᐅᕈᑎᒧᑦ ᐊᑭᓕᐅᑏᑦ: $3.14 ᒥᓕᐊᓐ

• ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᐅᕈᑕᐅᓪᓗᓂ ᓄᓇᐅᑉ ᐊᑐᑦᑐᐊᖅᑕᐅᓂᖓᓄᑦ: $25 ᒥᓕᐊᓐ

• ᑲᑎᖦᖢᒋᑦ: $66 ᒥᓕᐊᓐ

ᐊᖏᕈᑎᒋᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᒪᓕᒃᖢᒍ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᓚᐅᑎᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᑦᑎᐊᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒌᒍᑎ, ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐊᒃᑐᖅᑕᐅᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᑲᔫᓯᐊᖅᑖᕈᑎᒃᓴᓄᓪᓗ ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒌᒍᑎ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᑕᐅᓂᐊᖅᑐᖅ ᐃᓚᐅᖁᓪᓗᒍ ᐃᕐᓂᐅᕈᑎᓄᑦ ᐊᑭᓕᐅᑎᐅᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᖅ ᐊᖏᒡᓕᒋᐊᖅᓯᒪᓂᐊᓕᕐᓂᖓ ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓃᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ ᐅᔭᕋᒃᓯᐅᕐᕕᐅᑉ ᐊᐅᓚᓂᓕᒫᖓᓄᑦ ᑐᒡᓕᕆᓕᖅᑕᖓᓂ ᐱᓕᕆᔭᐅᔪᒪᔪᖅ ᑲᔪᓯᑎᑕᐅᓐᓂᖅᐸᑦ.

ᐅᖃᙳᐊᕐᓗᒍ, ᔮᓄᐊᕆ 1, 2021ᒥ ᐱᒋᐊᑳᓪᓚᖕᓂᕈᓂ ᑐᒡᓕᕆᓕᖅᑕᖓᓂ ᐱᓕᕆᔭᐅᔪᒪᔪᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓴᕕᒃᓴᐅᑉ ᐊᑭᖓ $75/ ᐸᓂᖅᑐᖅ ᐊᖏᓂᖓ ᑕᓐᔅᖑᓗᓂ, ᐹᕙᓐᓛᓐᑯᒃ ᐊᑭᓕᖅᓱᐃᓛᕋᓱᒋᔪᑦ $969 ᒥᓕᐊᓐ ᐃᕐᓂᐅᕈᑎᓂᖔᖅᑐᓂᒃ 2021- 2038 ᐊᕐᕌᒍᖏᓐᓂᒃ.

ᐊᑭᓕᖅᓱᖅᑕᐅᓂᐊᕋᓱᒋᔪᑦ ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓂ ᐃᓄᐃᒃ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐅᔭᕋᒃᓯᐅᕐᕕᐅᑉ ᐊᐅᓚᓂᓕᒫᖓᓄᑦ (2038): • ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐊᒃᑐᖅᑕᐅᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᑲᔫᓯᐊᖅᑖᕈᑎᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᓪᓗ ᐊᑭᖓ: $29.25 ᒥᓕᐊᓐ ($2.250 m / 13 ᑕᖀᑦ ᐊᕕᒃᑐᖅᓯᒪᓂᖓ ᒪᓕᒡᓗᒍ)

• ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᐅᕈᑕᐅᓪᓗᓂ ᓄᓇᐅᑉ ᐊᑐᖅᑐᐊᖅᑕᐅᓂᖓᑕ ᐊᑭᓕᐅᑏᑦ: $73.1 ᒥᓕᐊᓐ

• ᑲᑎᓕᒫᖅᖢᒋ ᐃᕐᓂᐅᕈᑎᒥᖔᖅᑐᑦ: $27.6 ᒥᓕᐊᓐ

• ᐃᕐᓂᐅᕈᑎᓕᒫᑦ: $969 ᒥᓕᐊᓐ

• ᑲᑎᖦᖢᒋᑦ: $1 ᒥᓕᐊᓐ ᐅᖓᑖᓃᑦᑐᑦ

Page 4 ITEM 3 and 6- Submission by Canada to International Maritime Organization’s Sub-Committee on Pollution Prevention and Response entitled “Development of Measures to Reduce Risks of Use and Carriage of Heavy Fuel Oil as Fuel by Ships in Arctic Waters” (December 13, 2019) ECCC-01

SUB-COMMITTEE ON POLLUTION PREVENTION AND RESPONSE

7th session

Agenda item 14

PPR 7/INF.X

13 December 2019

Original: ENGLISH

Pre-session public release

DEVELOPMENT OF MEASURES TO REDUCE RISKS OF USE AND CARRIAGE OF HEAVY FUEL OIL AS FUEL BY SHIPS IN ARCTIC WATERS

Assessment of the benefits and impacts associated with a ban on the use and carriage of heavy fuel oil as fuel by ships operating in the Arctic

Submitted by Canada

INTRODUCTION

1 This report discusses the potential environmental, economic and social impacts on, and benefits to, northern Indigenous and Inuit communities and economies in Canada of a ban on the use and carriage of heavy fuel oil (HFO) for use as fuel by ships in Arctic waters. It concludes that a ban on HFO would have positive environmental benefits, but result in economic impacts on communities, industrial exports and industrial resupply. An understanding of these impacts must be considered to inform any decision making.

Page 2

SUMMARY

Executive summary: This document contains an assessment of the expected benefits and impacts of a ban on heavy fuel oil (HFO) on Canadian northern, Indigenous and Inuit communities and economies in Canada. Canada is of the view that, when weighing action to reduce the environmental risks associated with the use and carriage for use as fuel of HFO in the Arctic, social, economic and other impacts on vulnerable Arctic communities must also be taken into account.

Strategic direction, if applicable: 6

Output: 6.11

Action to be taken: Paragraph 56

Related documents: MEPC 71/14/4, MEPC 72/11/1, MEPC 73/9, MEPC 73/9/1, MEPC 73/9/2, MEPC 73/INF.19, PPR 6/12/4, PPR 6/INF.24

BACKGROUND

Defining the scope

2 At the sixth session of the Sub-Committee on Pollution, Prevention and Response (PPR), there was agreement on a draft methodology to analyze the impacts of a ban on HFO use and carriage as fuel by ships in Arctic waters. The goal of this methodology was to allow individual Member States to fully assess the positive and negative effects of such a ban in Arctic waters on their northern, Indigenous and Inuit communities and economies, along with coastal and marine ecosystems.

3 Canada has built upon this methodology to estimate the impacts of an HFO ban on its northern, Indigenous and Inuit communities and economies. Canada is committed to enhancing the protection of the Arctic environment, which includes mitigating the risks associated with the use and carriage of all fuels, including HFO, used in the Arctic, while taking into account potential impacts of a ban on northern, Indigenous and Inuit communities and economies.

Methodology of the Impact Assessment

4 The impact assessment uses publicly available information, engagement with Indigenous and Inuit partners, and data from federal government departments and industry stakeholders to assess the potential costs and benefits of implementing an HFO ban in the Arctic. The impact assessment also includes analyses conducted by consulting firms and

Page 3

academia. It identifies environmental, social and economic impacts and benefits to communities, industrial exports and industrial resupply in Canada’s Arctic.

5 One of the challenges faced when undertaking the impact assessment is the uncertainty associated with the implementation of the 0.5% Global Sulphur Cap (the Cap), which enters into force January 1, 2020. To comply with the Cap, some ship operators (e.g., the international fleet) currently burning fuel types high in sulphur content, such as HFO, will either switch to compliant low-sulphur fuels (e.g., distillates or 0.5% low sulphur fuel blends, that could be compliant with the HFO definition to be agreed upon at PPR 6) or install scrubbers (exhaust gas cleaning systems). New fuel blends are currently being developed and marketed ahead of the enforcement of the Cap that will provide industry more options. Other ship operators (including the Canadian domestic fleet), who navigate in the North American Emissions Control Area and use HFO when operating up North, will likely move directly from HFO to distillate.

6 The industry response to the Cap (e.g., fuel switching vs. use of scrubbers) remains uncertain. The Cap will result in several changes to the fuel market in terms of prices, availability and properties of available fuels, both in terms of their use as propulsion fuels or if spilled in Arctic waters, which impacts the accuracy of our assessment (See Annex A for a more detailed analysis).

ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS

Geographic, Demographic and Environmental Snapshot of Canada’s Arctic

7 The Arctic is an important part of the Canadian landscape, encompassing 39% of Canada’s total land area at 3.5 million km2, including over 36,000 islands, and over 2.1 million km2 of maritime coverage. Home to a diversity of people, wildlife, natural resources and ecologically sensitive areas, Canada’s Arctic is culturally, economically and environmentally valuable both nationally and internationally.

8 As shown in Figure 1, the Polar Code applies to Canadian waters located above the 60th parallel north.1 Three territories – Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut – lie above 60° N and make up the vast majority of Canada’ s Arctic land. For a detailed analysis and overview of Canada’s Arctic, see PPR 6/INF.24, An overview of Canada’s Arctic and role of maritime shipping.

1 International Maritime Organization, International Code for Ships Operating in Polar Waters (Polar Code).

Page 4

Figure 1

Figure 1: Map of Canada situating the Polar Code Limit

9 Figure 2 illustrates the communities in Canada whose costs would be affected by an HFO ban. In addition to communities in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, parts of northern Quebec and northern Labrador and communities along Hudson Bay and James Bay would be affected. The majority of the population in these communities are Indigenous, primarily Inuit, Innu, and Cree. Inuit Nunangat is a term used by the Inuit to describe their homeland in Canada. It is the comprehensive area of the four Inuit Land Claim Agreements: Nunavik (northern Quebec); Nunatsiavut (northern Labrador); the territory of Nunavut; and the Inuvialuit Settlement Region (the northern Northwest Territories and Yukon North Slope). These Land Claim Agreements are protected under Canada’s constitution and generally address a broad range of issues including political and environmental rights and concerns (such as water and environmental management regimes, wildlife management, harvesting rights, public sector employment and contracting). The Government of Canada has discussed the HFO ban with many communities to understand their concerns as part of the assessment conducted and will continue consulting with the communities going forward.

Page 5

Figure 2: Map of Arctic communities in Inuit Nunangat

ENVIRONMENT

Spill Impacts

10 Banning HFO in the Arctic would bring environmental benefits. HFO has a high viscosity and density and does not evaporate quickly. It is known as a persistent fuel that can stay in the environment for a long time.

11 The persistence of HFO means that there is a higher likelihood of physical fouling and ingestion of oil by marine wildlife. An HFO spill would also present possible shoreline contamination, threatening wildlife and traditional activities of Indigenous and Inuit populations, who may become exposed to the contamination directly or indirectly.

12 At freezing temperatures, oil behavior changes, and fuels will adhere to the ice surface more readily; it will then spread underneath the ice as temperatures increase. Because HFO

Page 6

does not evaporate as quickly as other fuels, it is more likely to be trapped in ice. Recovery of oil in ice-infested waters can make mechanical recovery difficult. It has also been estimated that the clean-up costs for an HFO spill in the Arctic could be more expensive.

13 Although other, lighter fuels (e.g., marine diesel) that could replace HFO have higher toxicity to marine life, they evaporate more quickly and are less persistent in the environment. Therefore, HFO presents a greater longer-term ecological risk compared to other marine fuels that are available, such as marine diesel and other distillate fuels.

14 The changes in fuel usage brought on by the Cap, wherein demand for lighter fuels are expected to increase and demand for HFO to decrease, will also reduce the likelihood of an HFO spill, but uncertainty remains regarding the full benefit given that physico-chemical information of new and incoming blends remains limited.

Spill Response

15 Spill response capacity in the North was reviewed to establish a baseline of existing resources that could be used in the case of an HFO spill. The Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) has 20 caches of environmental response equipment designed for a small, non-persistent oil spill, as well as four depots with equipment designed for both persistent and non- persistent oil spills. Contractors in some communities also have marine spill response training and access to response equipment. Spill response equipment can be brought in from depots either by air (Hay River) or marine transit (Tuktoyaktuk, Churchill, Iqaluit).

16 If a spill occurs in a community with access to equipment suitable for that type of oil, and there are personnel with marine spill response training situated locally, then equipment could be mobilized immediately. Otherwise, depending on the proximity to an airport or marine base and availability of vessels/helicopters, it may take days to transit resources for spill response.

17 Canada has also incorporated the "polluter pays principle" in legislation and requires polluters to pay for the cost of pollution damages and of clean-up. Under recent amendments to Canada’s Marine Liability Act to modernize the Canadian Ship Source Oil Pollution Fund, the Fund’s per-incident liability cap has been lifted, meaning eligible claims are now 100% compensable, regardless of the size of the spill.

18 Finally, in 2016, the Government of Canada launched the $1.5 billion Oceans Protection Plan (OPP), to enhance marine safety. The OPP includes Arctic-specific components that involve over $175 million in investments to enhance marine safety, environmental protection, search and rescue, and emergency response services, as well as Indigenous,

Page 7

Inuit and coastal community engagement.2 These Arctic-specific measures, including land- based marine infrastructure, improved monitoring of vessel traffic, and improved hydrography and charting, are intended to strengthen the existing prevention measures, as well as spill response capability.

Air Emissions

19 In light of the changes anticipated from the Cap, and based on the assumption that ships will comply with the new sulphur requirements, Environment and Climate Change Canada undertook an analysis to estimate the incremental impact of an HFO ban in the Arctic on air pollutant emissions for the year 2020.

20 This particular assessment of air emission impacts assumes that ships will be in compliance with the Cap, and considers the incremental benefits to the environment of a switch to distillate fuels under an HFO ban.3 The analysis covers waters within the 200 nautical mile Canadian Exclusive Economic Zone above 60°N latitude and Hudson Bay. It captures emissions from all vessels, including merchant bulk vessels for mining and community resupply, which typically use HFO and therefore would be directly impacted by the HFO ban. Note that the assessment assumes that these vessel would comply with the sulphur cap by using 0.5% sulphur Very Low Sulphur Fuel Oil (VLSFO). Under an HFO ban it is assumed that these sulphur cap compliant merchant bulk vessels would need to switch from VLSFO to distillate fuel.

21 The assessment also includes tugs, cruise, and CCG ships, which typically already use distillate fuels and therefore would not be impacted by the HFO ban. These vessels are assumed to continue to use distillate fuels under the HFO ban, with no associated air emission reduction impacts. Emissions of other key pollutants from marine fuels, such as

carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) are not considered, as the reduction in these pollutants due to a switch from HFO to distillate fuels is not estimated to be significant.

22 It is estimated that, in addition to reductions gained through the Cap with the expected use of VLSFO, a transition to distillate fuels under the HFO ban could further reduce emissions of sulphur oxides (SOx), black carbon (BC), and fine particulate matter by up to (PM2.5) by 80%, 23% and 31% respectively. The following paragraphs provide a summary of the incremental impact an HFO ban could have on each of these air pollutants.

Sulphur oxides emissions

2 Government of Canada, Transport Canada, Government of Canada Introduces New Measures to Protect the Marine Environment and Coastal Communities in Canada’s Arctic. 3 For a detailed description of the Global Sulphur Cap please refer to Annex A.

Page 8

23 An HFO ban could result in an 80% reduction in SOx emissions compared to emissions under the Cap only. Sulphur oxides are emitted from ship engines when marine fuels containing sulphur, like HFO and other fuels derived from crude oil, are combusted. Once in the atmosphere, SOx can lead to acid rain, with associated acidification and eutrophication impacts on sensitive Arctic aquatic and terrestrial systems.

Black Carbon (BC) emissions

24 Black Carbon is a component of particulate matter, with emission levels highly dependent upon fuels, engines, and operations. HFO is associated with roughly two thirds of BC emissions from shipping in the Arctic in 2015.4 As the second most important atmospheric climate forcer, after CO2, BC in the Arctic is of particular concern, due to its enhanced atmospheric and surface warming impacts. BC emitted within the Arctic has been estimated to have an almost five times larger surface temperature response (per unit of emitted mass) compared to emissions at midlatitudes.5 In the absence of an HFO ban, BC deposition to ice and snow is expected to roughly double from 2010 levels by 2030.

25 Under an HFO ban, BC emissions from all shipping in Canada’s Arctic (including vessels currently using distillate fuels) are estimated to be 23% lower than emissions under just the Cap, with an average reduction of 31% for vessels switching from HFO to distillate fuels.

26 Research by the National Research Council of Canada supports these estimates. In this research, BC emissions were higher when fuels contained a fraction of residual fuel6 compared to purely distillate fuels.

27 Although there is some uncertainty as to the exact mix of new cap-compliant fuels that will become available in 2020, it is expected that the majority of new cap-compliant VLSFO entering the market will meet the specifications of a residual fuel as opposed to a distillate fuel. As such, uptake of these fuels will not lead to a decrease in BC emissions under the Global Sulphur Cap. In the absence of an HFO ban, reductions of BC emissions in the Arctic could be dependent upon the development of additional control measures for fuels.

Particulate matter emissions

4 Comer, B.; Olmer, N.; Mao, X.; Roy, B.; Rutherford, D. “Prevalence of Heavy Fuel Oil and Black Carbon in Arctic Shipping, 2015 to 2025.” International Council on Clean Transportation. May 2017. 5 Sand, M., T. K. Berntsen, Ø. Seland, and J. E. Kristjansson (2013), “Arctic surface temperature change to emissions of black carbon within Arctic or midlatitudes,” Journalof Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 118, 7788–7798, doi:10.1002/jgrd.50613. 6 Residual fuels are the remaining fraction of crude oil that cannot be distilled (boiled off into lighter fuel products) at the refinery. They contain heavy, non-volatile carbon-based compounds, as well as high fractions of ash.

Page 9

28 PM2.5 is a complex and variable mixture of very small particles and liquid droplets that can contain BC, organic compounds, metals and acids such as sulphates. PM2.5 is released in primary emissions from many combustion sources, including marine vessels, and it is formed secondarily in the atmosphere from other air pollutant emissions. Particulate matter in the atmosphere contributes to local haze, and has both direct (atmospheric forcing) and indirect (through clouds and precipitation) radiative effects. While the indirect effects are mostly thought to be cooling, the direct effects can be either warming or cooling, depending on the optical properties of the particles.

29 Under an HFO ban, it is estimated that reductions in PM2.5 emissions from all shipping in Canada’s Arctic would be 31%, with an average reduction for vessels switching from HFO to distillate of 39%. These reductions are in addition to reductions in PM2.5 emissions from the Cap.

Health Impacts

30 Marine vessel emissions of sulphur oxides (primarily sulphur dioxide) can have direct effects on human health, especially for those with pre-existing respiratory diseases (e.g., asthma). Sulphur dioxide is also transformed in the atmosphere to sulphate, which, like BC, is an important component of fine particulate matter (PM2.5). PM2.5 causes multiple adverse human health effects that are well recognized internationally. Health Canada has concluded that exposure to PM2.5 increases the risk of cardiorespiratory mortality, asthma exacerbation and adverse cardiovascular outcomes,7 and there is evidence it may be associated with other adverse health outcomes, such as diabetes and pre-term birth. About 8 9,700 premature deaths a year in Canada are attributable to PM2.5 exposure. Importantly, the evidence indicates that there is no exposure threshold: that is, any incremental reduction in exposure is associated with a reduction in risk. Canada’s Air Quality Management System recognizes the importance of the principle of continuous improvement in air quality, given that there is no “safe” level of exposure.

31 An HFO ban could reduce the air pollution health risks of Arctic populations in areas with improved air quality resulting from the ban.

ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS

7 http://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/447367/publication.html 8 http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2019/sc-hc/H144-51-2019-eng.pdf

Page 10

32 A ban on HFO in the Arctic would result in higher shipping costs, which, if passed through to end consumers by the shippers, will lead to higher prices at the consumer level. The higher shipping costs have two components:

.1 a fuel switch from HFO to lighter distillates, which cost more; and

.2 de-bunkering 9 and cleaning fuel tanks to eliminate HFO may be required, given that ships serving the Arctic also serve other regions for parts of the year.

33 In order to understand the financial impacts of an HFO ban on the Arctic sealift program, it is important to understand the pricing of the community resupply program. Figure 3 illustrates how increase in fuel prices flow through to cost impacts on the sealift communities.

Figure 3 – Flow through of Fuel Price increases to Change in Commodity Prices

34 In the sealift program, yearly freight rates are established for communities that vary depending on the remoteness and accessibility of the community. Table 1 illustrates the freight rates that were in effect for the 2019 sealift season and vary based on distance.

Table 1 – Shipping Rates to Arctic Communities (2019 data)

Destinations Northbound Rate per Northbound 20’ Revenue Ton Merchant Container

Nunavik $418 $6,432

9 De-bunkering includes the shipboard logistics of unloading fuel from available tanks on ships, known as bunker tanks.

Page 11

Destinations Northbound Rate per Northbound 20’ Revenue Ton Merchant Container

Iqaluit $275 $4,230

High Arctic $359 $5,536

Foxe Basin $360 $5,545

South Baffin $305 $4,702

Nunavut Kivalliq $335 $5,158

Kugaaruk $417 $6,416

Kitikmeot $446 $6,870

Sanikiluaq $342 $5,268

Kivalliq (loading in Churchill) $242 $3,727

35 Table 2 provides the current breakdown of the distribution of costs that make up the shipping rates, normalized to 100 for the base case of using current HFO fuel. It shows the forecasted changes in the cost distribution resulting from the implementation of the 2020 Global Sulphur Cap through to the forecast with an HFO Ban in place.

Table 2 - Estimated distribution of costs that make up the shipping rates – normalized to 100 in considering projected use of fuels

Type of Crewing Repairs, Fuel for Management Other Overall fuel used Maintenance, Propulsion Cost

Capital Costs, Index Insurance

Current Current 37 37 13 10 3 100 Marine

Fuels, including HFO

0.5% 37 37 22 10 3 109 sulphur Projected content Marine Fuels with Global – low price Sulphur Cap in estimate Place

Page 12

Type of Crewing Repairs, Fuel for Management Other Overall fuel used Maintenance, Propulsion Cost

Capital Costs, Index Insurance

0.5% 37 37 25 10 3 112 sulphur content

– high price estimate

Low price 37 37 26 10 3 113 estimate

High price 37 37 33 10 3 120 Projected estimate Marine Fuels (Distillate) with HFO Ban in place

Note: Cost distribution information based on interviews and then normalized.

36 For example, a Northbound 20’ Merchant Container currently costing $5,000 to ship could costs $5,450-$5,600 after the implementation of the 2020 Global Sulphur Cap , and could cost approximately $5,650-$6,000 under an HFO ban.

37 Based on interviews, including with retailers in the Arctic communities, and using the cost pass-through model as illustrated by Figure 3, the price increases from an HFO ban could result in additional product price increases for community resupply products in the range of 0.7% to 1.9%, as shown in Table 3. Extrapolating from household expenditure tables published by Statistics Canada for Nunavut and assuming a 100% pass-through of fuel cost increases, these fuel price increases could increase household expenditures by CAD$248- CAD$679 per household per year (see Table 3)10. These estimates are based on the two distillate pricing scenarios shown in Table 2 (in green).

38 In the short term, we expect the Global Sulphur Cap to drive distillate prices up, as demand increases. As the fuel supply chain adapts, and those fuels become more readily available

10 The median annual household income for Nunavut Inuit is approximately CAD$24,768.

Page 13

over a few years, these prices should moderate and be closer to the lower range of our estimates, as outlined in Table 2.

Table 3 - Estimated Annual End User Price Effects based on Use of Distillates – Nunavut with 2020 Sulphur Cap estimates as baseline

Range of Community Estimated End User Increased End Annual Increase in Estimate Resupply Cost Retail Effects – User Prices - End User Prices per Increase Community Resupply Nunavut Household

Low Range 4% 0.7% $2.2M $248

High Range 11% 1.9% $6.1M $679

39 As noted above, there is some uncertainty in predicting the incremental impact of the HFO ban, given uncertainties in fuel prices for both distillate and HFO, as a result of the 2020 Global Sulphur Cap.

De-bunkering Costs

40 A ban on HFO in the Arctic would also require de-bunkering and cleaning of fuel tanks prior to the shipping season in the Arctic for those ships that use HFO fuel when sailing in non- Arctic waters outside of the Arctic shipping season. The costs of de- bunkering and fuel tank cleaning (including time costs) have not been included in the estimates above, as there is a significant variability in costs ($50,000-$100,000 per vessel per instance).

SOCIO-ECONOMIC (COMMUNITIES) – Impacts

41 Canadian Arctic communities are highly dependent on marine shipping for almost all commodities. In the Canadian Arctic, food security is an ongoing challenge for a population with a lower income compared with the rest of Canada. Furthermore, costs for food and other consumer goods are already high in the Arctic region relative to the rest of the country.

42 A pattern of income disparity exists for Indigenous and Inuit peoples living in the Arctic, who have lower average total incomes in all regions. As an example, the median income for Nunavut Inuit aged 15 years and over was CAD$24,768 compared with CAD$84,139 for non-Inuit living in Nunavut and CAD$53,625 for the average Canadian.

Page 14

43 The combination of higher living costs, lower incomes and higher unemployment levels helps explain why many regions in the Arctic are experiencing a food security crisis. For example, 55% of adults aged 25 and over in Nunavik and Nunavut live in a household experiencing food insecurity. For Nunatsiavut and the Inuvialuit Settlement Region, the percentages are 42% and 33%, respectively.11 Any increase in consumer goods costs (Table 3), even as low as 4%, will impact the purchasing power of already vulnerable communities.

44 In this context, a ban on HFO in the Arctic resulting in higher shipping costs passed on to the consumer would have a significant impact on households and communities. This could include direct and indirect effects on the health and quality of life of Indigenous and Inuit peoples living in the Arctic. For example:

• Food security would be impacted by an increase in shipping costs.

• Costs of all household items (e.g., furniture, refrigerators, and stoves) would increase.

• Food harvesting could also be impacted due to the increased cost of shipping non- food items (e.g., firearms, ammunition, fuel and camping supplies). Many harvesters do not have additional sources of income, making them even more susceptible to increases in prices.

• The cost of housing would increase due to higher construction and material costs, which could lead to a reduction in the number of housing projects developed to address the current housing crisis in the Arctic.

• There would be increased costs to territorial governments, which import medical equipment along with other goods to meet the needs of communities.

• There would be an increase in electricity rates. For example, estimates based on the expected increase in fuel costs due to the Global Sulphur Cap suggest an increase of about 1% at the consumer level. An increase in fuel costs of a similar magnitude due to an HFO ban could be expected to increase rates even further.

• Perishable products delivered by air would be impacted. The air resupply of perishable foods, in its current form, could not exist without the community resupply. For example, perishable foods are reliant on the cost of refrigerators, generators and low-sulphur diesel, all of which are delivered by sea due to the lack of road access in these communities.

45 It is also important to note that impacts on the mining sector (see below) could also affect the communities through the provisions of the Impacts and Benefits Agreements.12 Any

11 Statistics Canada, Food Insecurity among Inuit Living in Inuit Nunangat, 1. 12 Agreements signed between natural resource development companies and regional Indigenous or Inuit organizations. These agreements help ensure local surrounding communities benefit from operations. [Original wording means the organizations help ensure…]

Page 15

increase in freight costs that would impact mine sales revenues would have an adverse impact on the amount of the royalty payments paid to Indigenous and Inuit organizations. In addition, mining companies contribute support to, for example, youth recreation, cultural activities, day care centers, food banks and community programming. Such support could be affected by an increase in operating costs to the companies.

SOCIO-ECONOMIC (COMMUNITIES) - Benefits

46 In addition to the environmental benefits noted above, an HFO ban in the Canadian Arctic could contribute to socio-economic (community) benefits through:

• the avoidance of loss of marine and coastal natural resources important to food security;

• the avoidance of loss of culturally important subsistence activities; and

• the avoidance of adverse impacts to Arctic marine and coastal ecosystems resulting from an HFO spill.

MINING AND AGRICULTURAL EXPORTS - Impacts

47 Mining activity in the Arctic could also be directly and indirectly affected by an HFO ban. Mines located in the Canadian Arctic are important for local economic development and for international markets that import these materials. The natural resources sector is one of the largest employers of Indigenous and Inuit peoples in Canada’s Arctic, and accounts for one-sixth of all jobs in the North.

48 A proposed HFO ban, with a switch to the use of distillate fuels, would increase fuel costs and could translate into an increase cost of shipping ore by an estimated CAD$0.75 -CAD$1 per tonne of ore shipped, above any impacts from the 2020 Global Sulphur Cap. This calculation does not take into consideration additional costs associated with increased costs of shipping equipment or material to the mine site, nor does it include costs associated with any de-bunkering and tank cleaning that might be required. As mining is a global industry, projects that are currently at the exploratory phase could become less attractive, and projects in operation may face a reduction in the number of vessels available for chartering purposes.

49 Assuming cost increases are passed on to resource companies by shipping companies, this could affect the competitiveness of Canadian mining companies. Furthermore, when the de-bunkering costs and impacts on equipment and materials, along with the increased life costs for communities are added, this may make some mining projects at the exploratory stage less attractive than similar projects based in the south.

Page 16

50 Although the focus of the impact assessment was on the Arctic region, the Port of Churchill would also be impacted. This is because vessels transiting to and from the Port of Churchill must transit north of 60⁰ N through the Hudson Strait. This implies that all vessels transiting to and from Churchill would be subject to the HFO ban. This could potentially impact the economic viability of the newly re-opened port by increasing shipping costs.

51 The Arctic Gateway Group is currently owned by First Nations and communities, Fairfax and AGT Foods. It reopened the Port of Churchill in 2018 and has started shipping grain and specialty crops to both Europe (Antwerp and Murmansk) and Asia (Beijing). However, increased fuel rates passed through to the shippers of grain could threaten profitability of shipping grain via the Port of Churchill as an Arctic gateway, as other ports in Canada located south of 60⁰ N (and not requiring a transit through Arctic waters and not impacted by the HFO ban) could allow shippers to ship grain at more competitive rates.

INDUSTRIAL RESUPPY - Impacts

52 Currently, data specific to industrial resupply is not collected, making a detailed analysis difficult. The information collected as part of Canada’s impact assessment suggests, however, that there would be increased fuel costs for the industrial sector, translating into extra costs for materials and equipment, along with additional costs for electricity. In addition to dedicated supply ships, material and equipment for the industrial sector are sometimes carried on the same ships carrying cargo for community resupply. It can therefore be assumed that the cost increase impacts estimated for communities with respect to resupply cargo and commodities would also be felt by the industrial sector.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

53 The impact assessment of the impact of an HFO ban on Canada’s Arctic communities and economies shows both positive and negative impacts. A switch to distillates means any oil spill would be less persistent than an HFO spill (though possibility more toxicity for fish and other marine life). There are also estimated health benefits from a reduction in air pollutant emissions as a result of a shift from HFO to distillate fuel.

54 There are, however, also potentially significant economic impacts of banning HFO for use and carriage for use as fuel by ships, as the majority of northern coastal communities rely on marine transportation for community resupply. The size of these impacts depends of transitions that are happening in the coming years and linked to the 2020 Global Sulphur Cap. Any projected increase in fuel prices that would result from a ban will be transferred to consumers, who already face very high prices for goods and store-bought foods.

Page 17

55 In addition to the community impacts, the impact assessment suggests that the increased costs associated with the proposed HFO ban could impact the competitiveness of Canada’s mining sector and Canada’s only northern port shipping grain overseas.

ACTION REQUESTED OF THE SUB-COMMITTEE

56 The Sub-Committee is invited to note the information in this document.

Page 18

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Comer, B., Olmer, N., Mao, X., Roy, B., Rutherford, D. “Prevalence of Heavy Fuel Oil and Black Carbon in Arctic Shipping, 2015 to 2025.” International Council on Clean Transportation. May 2017. https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/HFO- Arctic_ICCT_Report_01052017_vF.pdf.

Government of Canada, Health Canada. “Canadian smog science assessment. Volume 2: Health effects.” July 2013. http://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/447367/publication.html

Government of Canada, Health Canada. “Health Impacts of Air Pollution in Canada: Estimates of morbidity and premature mortality outcomes – 2019 Report.” June 2019. http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2019/sc-hc/H144-51-2019- eng.pdf

Government of Canada, Transport Canada. “Government of Canada introduces new measures to protect the marine environment and coastal communities in Canada’s Arctic.” Last modified August 27, 2017. https://www.canada.ca/en/transport- canada/news/2017/08/government_of_canadaintroducesnewmeasurestoprotectthe marineenvir.html

IHS Markit. “World Fleet Statistics 2018: A composition of the world fleet developments as of 31st December 2018.” 2019. https://cdn.ihs.com/www/prot/pdf/0719/WorldFleetStatistics2018Report- LoRes.pdf .

International Maritime Organization. International Code for Ships Operating in Polar Waters (Polar Code), 2014. Resolution MSC.385(94).

Jiang, Y., Yang, J., Gagné, S., Chan, T.W., Thomson, K., Fofie, E., Cary, R.A., Rutherford, D., Comer, B., Swanson, J., Lin, Y., Van Rooy, P., Asa-Awuku, Akua, Jung, H., Barsanti, K., Karavalakis, G., Cocker, D., Durbin, T.D., Miller, J.W., Johnson, K.C.: “Sources of variance in BC mass measurements from a small marine engine: Influence of the instruments, fuels and loads.” Atmospheric Environment, 182 (March 9, 2018): 128-137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2018.03.008

Miron, Kahlan. “Canada invests in Nunavut’s coasts.” Nunatsiaq News. August 2019. Accessed August 20, 2019. https://nunatsiaq.com/stories/article/canada-invests-in- nunavuts-coasts/.

Mishra, Baibhav. “Sulphur Cap 2020: Global Impact & Market Trends.” Sea News. January 2019. Accessed August 20, 2019. https://seanews.co.uk/features/sulphur-cap-2020- global-impact-market-trends/.

Page 19

Sand, M., T. K. Berntsen, Ø. Seland, and J. E. Kristjansson. “Arctic surface temperature change to emissions of black carbon within Arctic or midlatitudes.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 118 (July 30, 2013): 7788–7798. DOI:10.1002/jgrd.50613.

University of Ottawa. Mapping Characterization of the Arctic: Shipping trends and Inuit- identified culturally significant marine areas. Prepared for Transport Canada by Jackie Dawson, Alison Cook, Nicolien van Luijk, and Natalie Carter. 2019.

Webster, Jamie et al. Just How Disruptive Will IMO 2020 Be? Boston Consulting Group. May 2019. Accessed August 20, 2019. http://image-src.bcg.com/Images/BCG-Just How-Disruptive-Will-IMO- 2020-Be-May-2019_tcm38-220210.pdf.

Page 20

ANNEX A - GLOBAL 2020 SULPHUR CAP – IMPACTS

1 On January 1, 2020, the IMO’s Global Sulphur Cap will enter into force. This global measure, which aims to reduce the sulphur content of marine fuels from 3.5% to 0.5%, will result in several changes to the fuel market in terms of prices, availability and properties of the fuels available. To meet these requirements, vessel owners can either switch to more expensive lower-sulphur fuel (i.e., marine diesel or new blends that are currently entering the market for which limited information is available) or continue to use HFO but use emission abatement technology (e.g., scrubbers) on each ship.

2 Table A-1 below presents the projected increase in average fuel prices (all fuels combined) for carriers immediately following the adoption of the 2020 Global Sulphur Cap.

Table A-1 - Estimated Average Fuel Price (all fuels combined) paid by Carriers per metric tonne

Average Fuel Prices (all fuels combined) in metric tonnes

Before the Global Sulphur Cap CAD$591 (per metric tonne)

Following the implementation of the Global CAD$985 - 1,115 (per metric tonne) Sulphur Cap

3 Although difficult to predict accurately ahead of implementation, estimated price increases to freight rates in the Canadian Arctic resulting from the coming into force of the 0.5% Global Sulphur Cap are estimated to increase community resupply costs by 9% to 12%, factoring the relationship between fuel prices and community resupply discussed in the body of the impact assessment paper. These estimates are based on an assumption that distillate fuel will be used to meet the cap. Table A-2 illustrates the corresponding impacts on households, which are estimated to range from CAN$535 to CAN$713 per household per year.

Table A-2 - Estimated Annual End User Price Impacts of the 0.5% Global Sulphur Cap – Nunavut

Community Estimated End User Increased End User Prices - Annual Increase in Resupply Cost Retail Effects – Nunavut End User Prices per Increase Community Resupply Household

9% 1.5% CAD$4.8M CAD$535

12% 2.0% CAD$6.4M CAD$713

4 Globally, recent surveys13 of plans to comply with the sulphur cap indicate that less than 10% of the deep sea fleet plan to have scrubbers in place by January 2020, suggesting the majority will switch to lighter distillates, at least for the time being until

13 Vessels over 100 GRT: see https://cdn.ihs.com/www/prot/pdf/0719/WorldFleetStatistics2018Report-LoRes.pdf .

Page 21

there is more market certainty regarding fuel availability and pricing. While many are deferring final decisions on how to comply, it is clear that the cap is driving a major shift to use lighter fuels instead of focusing on scrubbers only, due not only to the purchase and installation costs, but also operation and maintenance costs, including availability of spare parts. In addition, several port areas have started to ban washwater discharges from open-loop scrubbers because of environmental concerns, creating uncertainty for vessels operating globally, leaving hybrid and closed loop systems as the favoured options.

5 Trend analysis of fuel prices over the next four years, based on world fuel markets, suggests an increase in price of nearly 30% for HFO between now and January 2023, while alternate diesel fuels will decrease in price by nearly 8%. This trend supports the idea that, with the implementation of the Global Sulphur Cap, ship owners will initially pay more overall for fuel. However, over time, the price of distillate will decrease, while the price of HFO will increase as the demand for HFO decreases and the fuel becomes scarce.

Table 2 below demonstrates price increases of HFO and alternate diesel fuels resulting from the Global Sulphur Cap.

Table 2 – Price Increases of HFO and Alternate Diesel Fuels – Global Sulphur Cap

Heavy Fuel Oil (High Ultra-Low Sulphur Diesel Difference in Price Sulphur Fuel Oil) (CAD$ per metric tonne) (CAD$ per metric (CAD$ per metric tonne) tonne)

November 2019 $387 $919 $532

January 2023 $505 $848 $343

Price change +30.7% -7.7%

These figure are based on market and futures data, not actual prices paid by shipping companies.

ITEM 4 - COSEWIC Assessment and Update Status Report on Narwhal, 2004 DFO-05

COSEWIC Assessment and Update Status Report

on the

Narwhal Monodon monoceros

in Canada

SPECIAL CONCERN 2004

COSEWIC COSEPAC COMMITTEE ON THE STATUS OF COMITÉ SUR LA SITUATION DES ENDANGERED WILDLIFE IN ESPÈCES EN PÉRIL CANADA AU CANADA COSEWIC status reports are working documents used in assigning the status of wildlife species suspected of being at risk. This report may be cited as follows:

COSEWIC 2004. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the narwhal Monodon monoceros in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 50 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm)

Previous Report

Campbell, R.R., P. Richard and J.T. Strong. 1986. COSEWIC status report on the narwhal Monodon monoceros in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 60 pp.

Strong, J.T. 1987. Update COSEWIC status report on the narwhal Monodon monoceros in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 25 pp.

Production note: COSEWIC would like to acknowledge D.B. Stewart for writing the update status report on the narwhal Monodon monoceros prepared under contract with Environment Canada, overseen and edited by Andrew Trites, the COSEWIC Marine Mammals Species Specialist Subcommittee Co-chair.

For additional copies contact:

COSEWIC Secretariat c/o Canadian Wildlife Service Environment Canada Ottawa, ON K1A 0H3

Tel.: (819) 997-4991 / (819) 953-3215 Fax: (819) 994-3684 E-mail: COSEWIC/[email protected] http://www.cosewic.gc.ca

Ếgalement disponible en français sous le titre Ếvaluation et Rapport de situation du COSEPAC sur la situation du narval (Monodon monoceros) au Canada – Mise à jour.

Cover illustration: Narwhal — Drawing of an adult male narwhal (Monodon monoceros). Artist Ray Phillips; © Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada reproduced with permission.

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada 2004 Catalogue No. CW69-14/420-2005E-PDF ISBN 0-662-39838-6 HTML: CW69-14/420-2005E-HTML 0-662-39839-4

Recycled paper COSEWIC Assessment Summary

Assessment Summary – November 2004

Common name Narwhal

Scientific name Monodon monoceros

Status Special Concern

Reason for designation The Baffin Bay population appears to be large (~45,000), although there is uncertainty about numbers, trends, life history parameters, and levels of sustainable hunting. There is similar uncertainty about the much smaller Hudson Bay population (~2,100 mature individuals). Hunting for maktak and the commercially valuable tusk ivory represents the most consistent threat to narwhals. Potential effects of changes in ice coverage caused by climate trends are unknown. The Hudson Bay population could decline by 30% in 30 years if hunting is not closely regulated. Similarly, the Baffin Bay population could be affected if hunting in Greenland is not effectively managed. Numbers removed by hunting increased during the 1990s. Community-based management is monitoring hunting and is attempting to regulate removals. Reliable information about numbers that are killed and not recovered is difficult to obtain.

Occurrence Arctic Ocean

Status history Designated Not at Risk in April 1986 and April 1987. Status re-examined and designated Special Concern in November 2004. Last assessment based on an update status report.

iii COSEWIC Executive Summary

Narwhal Monodon monoceros

Species information

Narwhals (Monodon monoceros) are medium-sized toothed whales that lack a dorsal fin. They are about 1.60 m long at birth (80 kg). Males can grow to 5.40 m (~1935 kg) and females to 4.94 m (~1552 kg). Adult narwhals have only two teeth. In most males, the right tooth remains embedded in the skull and the left forms a magnificent spiral tusk that can extend straight forward over 3 m.

Distribution

Two of three recognized populations of narwhals occur in Canada (Baffin Bay and Hudson Bay). The third occurs in East Greenland. The populations are distinguished by their summering distributions, which may not reflect the degree of interchange between them. The East Greenland population is not thought to enter Canadian waters. Narwhals from the Baffin Bay population summer in the waters of West Greenland and the Canadian High Arctic, and winter in Baffin Bay and Davis Strait. They range over an area of at least 1.25 million km². The degree of site fidelity within this shared population is unknown and it may in fact consist of several populations. Narwhals that summer in northwest Hudson Bay are believed to winter in eastern Hudson Strait and range over an area of roughly 250,000 km². The population affinity of animals that summer north of Baffin Bay and along the eastern and southern coasts of Baffin Island is unknown. Biologists have not identified any large-scale changes in the seasonal distribution of narwhals, but Inuit have observed local changes.

Habitat

Narwhals inhabit a vast area of the Arctic, but little is known of their actual habitat requirements. In summer, they prefer coastal areas that offer deep water and shelter from the wind. During their fall migrations, and later while wintering in the pack ice, narwhals prefer deep fjords and the continental slope, where depths range from 1000 to 1500 m and upwellings may increase biological productivity. The quality of the ice habitat, particularly the presence of leads in fast ice and the density of broken pack ice, appears to influence habitat selection.

iv Biology

The vital rates of narwhals are uncertain because there is no accurate method to determine their ages. Females are believed to mature at 5 to 8 years and produce their first young at 7 to 13 years. Mating peaks in mid-April, and most calves are produced in July and August after a gestation period of 14 to 15.3 months. While more frequent reproduction is possible, mature females produce a single calf about every three years on average until perhaps 23 years of age. Longevity may be about 50 years, but most animals probably do not reach the age of 30. Generation times and net recruitment rates for narwhals are unknown. Rates of mortality from hunting are imprecise because numbers that are struck and losses is uncertain, and rates of predation by killer whales and polar bears are unknown. Little is known of the diseases of narwhals and their response to pathogens. The potential for large-scale mortality due to entrapment by ice or to disease is also unpredictable.

Narwhals generally travel in small groups in summer (<10 individuals), but gather in concentrations of many hundreds of animals during migrations in the spring and fall. Their diving ability enables them to move long distances under water and makes it difficult to obtain accurate population estimates. Narwhals eat a variety of fishes and invertebrates. Little is known about the physiological requirements of narwhals or their ability to adapt to environmental change or shifts in prey availability.

Population sizes and trends

A good estimate of the initial size of the Baffin Bay and Hudson Bay narwhal populations cannot be generated from historical harvest data. Estimates of population size have generally been limited to methods that only estimate a portion of the population. Past surveys based on aerial surveys of areas of aggregation seldom accounted for narwhals that were submerged beyond view, missed by observers because of ice or poor visibility, or were outside the survey area.

In 1996, a systematic aerial survey of Prince Regent Inlet, Barrow Strait and Peel Sound estimated 45,358 narwhals (95% CI = 23,397-87,932). This estimate was corrected for submerged animals and those missed by observers. It compares well with estimates from surveys conducted in the mid-1980s, but the statistical power to detect a trend is low. Between 45,000 and 50,000 narwhals from the Baffin Bay population may summer in Canadian waters.

The narwhal population in Hudson Bay was estimated at 1,355 (90%CI = 1000-1900) animals in 1984 and 1,780 (90%CI = 1212-2492) animals in 2000. Neither estimate corrected for submerged animals or weather conditions, and the latter included northern Lyon Inlet and Foxe Channel. The Hudson Bay population may be about 3,500 animals in summer.

v Limiting factors and threats

Narwhal populations in Canada may be limited or threatened by hunting, environmental contaminants, climate change, and industrial activities such as commercial fishing. The effects of climate change on ice habitats used by narwhals are uncertain, as is the species’ capacity to adapt. The effects of the other factors are mitigated by the species’ deepwater habits and widespread geographical distribution, much of which is outside normal hunting areas in offshore pack ice and in isolated areas of the Arctic. This remote distribution protects many narwhals from hunters as well as isolated oil spills or other events. However, under exceptional circumstances, such as large ice entrapments or when killer whales drive narwhals into shallow water, many animals can be taken at once from a single locality. Hunting probably represents the most consistent limiting factor to narwhal populations in Canada.

Special significance of the species

Narwhals historically provided important staples in the traditional subsistence economy of the eastern Canadian Arctic and Greenland. Hunting and sharing of its proceeds continue to be of great social and cultural significance for some communities. Narwhals are harvested mainly for their maqtaq and ivory. The ivory commands high prices and is marketed internationally, while the maqtaq is consumed locally or traded to other Inuit communities. It is a highly-valued food and demand often exceeds supply. Ecologically, the narwhal is important as it is the only species in its genus and is an apex predator in the Arctic food chain. It generates avid public interest because of its unique “unicorn” tusk and the remoteness of its habitat, but has not been successfully displayed in captivity.

Existing protection or other status designations

Protection for narwhals in Canada is limited to measures that manage the hunt, live capture, and movement of narwhal products. The Nunavut Wildlife Management Board is the main instrument of wildlife management in Nunavut. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is a co-management partner who provides scientific advice and regulatory support. Other co-management partners are the Hunters and Trappers organizations and the Regional Wildlife organizations. Only Inuit can hunt narwhals and limits are placed on the number of animals each community can land. The species is listed in Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Canada cooperates with Greenland in the conservation of shared narwhal populations. The Joint Commission on Conservation and Management of Narwhal and Beluga has not been able to determine the status of narwhal populations using the data available and Canada and Greenland are conducting surveys to collect new data.

vi COSEWIC HISTORY

The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) was created in 1977 as a result of a recommendation at the Federal-Provincial Wildlife Conference held in 1976. It arose from the need for a single, official, scientifically sound, national listing of wildlife species at risk. In 1978, COSEWIC designated its first species and produced its first list of Canadian species at risk. Species designated at meetings of the full committee are added to the list. On June 5th 2003, the Species at Risk Act (SARA) was proclaimed. SARA establishes COSEWIC as an advisory body ensuring that species will continue to be assessed under a rigorous and independent scientific process.

COSEWIC MANDATE

The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) assesses the national status of wild species, subspecies, varieties, or other designatable units that are considered to be at risk in Canada. Designations are made on native species for the following taxonomic groups: mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fishes, arthropods, molluscs, vascular plants, mosses, and lichens.

COSEWIC MEMBERSHIP

COSEWIC comprises members from each provincial and territorial government wildlife agency, four federal agencies (Canadian Wildlife Service, Parks Canada Agency, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and the Federal Biodiversity Information Partnership, chaired by the Canadian Museum of Nature), three non-government members and the co- chairs of the species specialist and the Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge subcommittees. The Committee meets to consider status reports on candidate species.

DEFINITIONS (NOVEMBER 2004)

Wildlife Species A species, subspecies, variety, or geographically or genetically distinct population of animal, plant or other organism, other than a bacterium or virus, that is wild by nature and it is either native to Canada or has extended its range into Canada without human intervention and has been present in Canada for atleast 50 years. Extinct (X) A wildlife species that no longer exists. Extirpated (XT) A wildlife species no longer existing in the wild in Canada, but occurring elsewhere. Endangered (E) A wildlife species facing imminent extirpation or extinction. Threatened (T) A wildlife species likely to become endangered if limiting factors are not reversed. Special Concern (SC)* A wildlife species that may become a threatened or an endangered species because of a combination of biological characteristics and identified threats. Not at Risk (NAR)** A wildlife species that has been evaluated and found to be not at risk of extinction given the current circumstances. Data Deficient (DD)*** A wildlife species for which there is inadequate information to make a direct, or indirect, assessment of its risk of extinction.

* Formerly described as “Vulnerable” from 1990 to 1999, or “Rare” prior to 1990. ** Formerly described as “Not In Any Category”, or “No Designation Required.” *** Formerly described as “Indeterminate” from 1994 to 1999 or “ISIBD” (insufficient scientific information on which to base a designation) prior to 1994.

Environment Environnement Canada Canada Canada Canadian Wildlife Service canadien Service de la faune

The Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, provides full administrative and financial support to the COSEWIC Secretariat.

vii

Update COSEWIC Status Report

on the

Narwhal Monodon monoceros

in Canada

2004

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SPECIES INFORMATION...... 4 Name and classification...... 4 Description...... 4 DISTRIBUTION...... 5 Global range ...... 5 Canadian range ...... 8 HABITAT ...... 11 Habitat requirements ...... 11 Trends ...... 12 BIOLOGY ...... 12 General...... 12 Reproduction ...... 12 Survival...... 13 Physiology ...... 15 Movements/dispersal...... 15 Nutrition and interspecific interactions ...... 17 Behaviour/adaptability ...... 18 Adaptation to captivity...... 20 POPULATION SIZES AND TRENDS...... 20 Baffin Bay Population ...... 21 Hudson Bay Population ...... 23 LIMITING FACTORS AND THREATS ...... 23 Hunting ...... 27 Contaminants ...... 29 Industrial development...... 29 Climate change...... 30 SPECIAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SPECIES ...... 31 EXISTING PROTECTION OR OTHER STATUS ...... 32 Canadian harvest quotas and protection ...... 32 International trade and cooperation ...... 33 Status designations ...... 34 SUMMARY OF STATUS REPORT...... 35 TECHNICAL SUMMARY...... 36 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... 38 INFORMATION SOURCES ...... 38 BIOGRAPHICAL SUMMARY OF REPORT WRITER ...... 49 PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS/AUTHORITIES CONTACTED ...... 49

List of figures Figure 1. Drawing of an adult male narwhal (Monodon monoceros) ...... 4 Figure 2. Map referencing the names of locations used within the report ...... 6 Figure 3. Narwhal distribution as modified from Reeves (1992a) using reference material cited in text ...... 7

Figure 4. Distribution of narwhals in Canada...... 9 Figure 5. Landed harvests of Baffin Bay narwhals by Canada and Greenland from 1977 to 2001 ...... 25 Figure 6. Canadian landed harvests of narwhals from the Hudson Bay and Baffin Bay populations, 1977 to 2001...... 26

List of tables Table 1. Landed harvests of narwhals from communities* in Canada and from Greenland, 1977-2001...... 24 Table 2. Landed harvest and loss and mortality estimates from communities with Community-Based management of the narwhal harvest in 1999-2001 ...... 20

SPECIES INFORMATION

Name and classification

Narwhals (Monodon monoceros Linnaeus, 1758) are mammals belonging to the genus Monodon (Linnaeus, 1758), family Monodontidae (Gray, 1821– white whales), suborder (Odontoceti Flower, 1867– toothed whales), and order Cetacea (Brisson, 1762– cetaceans, whales). They are the only species in the genus Monodon. No subspecies have been identified. Common names for the species include narwhal, sea unicorn, narwhale, narval (French, Swedish, Spanish), narhval (Danish, Norwegian), itsu-keku (Japanese), rogozub (Russian), and enhorned hortand (Swedish). Inuit use a variety of descriptive words in Inuktitut to identify narwhal (J. Kilabuk, pers. comm. 2002). These include tuugaalik (with tusk), qirniqtaq qilalugaq (black whale), and Allanguaq (with black and white dots). The latter is commonly used in different regions of the Arctic.

Description

Narwhals are medium-sized toothed whales that lack a dorsal fin and have convex- shaped tail flukes (Figure 1). Like their close relatives, the beluga (Delphinapterus leucas), the colour of narwhals changes with age. The skin of newborn narwhals is an uneven grey or bluish grey, which changes to a uniform black or bluish black soon after weaning (Arvy 1978; Reeves and Tracey 1980). As the animal matures, white streaks and patches begin to develop around the anus, genital slit and navel, and spread over the entire ventral surface and onto the flanks. Adults are white to creamy yellow on the belly and mottled grey to black on the back. Very old animals, especially males, are almost completely white.

Figure 1. Drawing of an adult male narwhal (Monodon monoceros) (Artist Ray Phillips; ©Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, reproduced with permission).

Adult narwhals are unique among toothed whales in having only two teeth (Eales 1950). These teeth are embedded horizontally in the maxilla of the upper jaw, one on each side. In most adult males, the left tooth forms a very long straight ivory tusk that

spirals to the left along its long axis (Dow and Hollenberg 1977). Females with a tusk, males without a tusk, and males and females with two tusks are rare (Hay and Sergeant 1976; Reeves and Tracey 1980; Reeves and Mitchell 1981).

Adult male narwhals are larger on average than adult female narwhals. Males taken at Arctic Bay in 1986-89 averaged 4.58 m (range 3.96-5.40 m, SD 0.203 m, n = 56) and females averaged 4.13 m (range 3.56-4.94 m, SD 0.331 m, n = 20) (Roberge and Dunn 1990). These individuals were significantly larger (P<0.001) on average than male (mean 4.35 m, range 3.90-4.86 m, SD 0.226 cm, n = 37) and female (mean 3.81 m, range 3.48-4.20 cm, SD 0.216 m, n = 17) narwhals taken at Pond Inlet in 1982-83 (Weaver and Walker 1988). Newborn calves are typically about 1.60 m long (Hay 1984; Neve 1995a).

DISTRIBUTION

Global range

Narwhals inhabit Arctic waters and are seldom seen south of 61°N (Figures 2 and 3). They are common in the waters of Nunavut, west Greenland and the European Arctic but are rare in the East Siberian, Bering, Chukchi and Beaufort seas. This distribution appears to be unchanged from historical reports.

Two populations of narwhals have been recognized for the purpose of hunt management in Canada (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 1998a, 1998b). This tentative separation into Baffin Bay and Hudson Bay populations is based largely on summering distribution and may not reflect the degree of interchange between populations Narwhals from the Baffin Bay population summer in the waters of West Greenland and the Canadian High Arctic and winter in Baffin Bay and Davis Strait (Koski and Davis 1994; Dietz et al. 2001; Heide-Jørgensen et al. 2003). They range over an area of at least 1.25 million km². The degree of site fidelity within this shared population is unknown and it may in fact consist of several populations (JCNB/NAMMCO 2001). Narwhals that summer in northwest Hudson Bay are believed to winter in eastern Hudson Strait (Richard 1991). They range over an area of roughly 250,000 km². Animals that summer in East Greenland waters are believed to winter in the pack ice between eastern Greenland and Svalbard (Dietz et al. 1994). They are not thought to enter Canadian waters.

Physical and behavioural observations suggest that different narwhal populations exist within the Baffin Region. Hunters from Qikiqtarjuaq, Clyde River, and Resolute recognize two different types of narwhals — one that is relatively large and dark with a long tusk and another that is smaller and lighter in colour with a smaller and more twisted tusk (Remnant and Thomas 1992). Narwhals in the Jones Sound area are more likely to seek deep water when threatened by hunters than those in the Pond Inlet area (Reeves 1992a), and are not alarmed by the sight of hunters at the ice edge (Stewart et al. 1995).

Figure 2. Map referencing the names of locations used within the report.

Figure 3. Narwhal distribution as modified from Reeves (1992a) using reference material cited in text. Stippling indicates the species’ general distribution and the dots indicate extralimital reports.

Studies of molecular genetics from narwhals taken in Canada and Greenland have yet to find strong, consistent differences that would lead to better population definition (Palsbøll et al. 1997; de March et al. 2001, 2003). Genetic differences were observed by these studies, but their interpretation is confounded by the fact that samples from a particular area are typically small and non-random. However, narwhals from Repulse

Bay were significantly differentiated from most high Arctic locations for both microsatellite alleles and mitochondrial DNA (de March et al. 2003). Comparison of contaminant composition may be more useful for the delineation of narwhal populations (JCNB/NAMMCO 2001; de March et al. 2003). Whales taken from the Repulse Bay, Pond Inlet, Grise Fiord, and Broughton Island areas have different organochlorine contaminant profiles, with those from Repulse Bay being the most distinct (de March and Stern 2003).

Canadian range

The seasonal range of narwhals in Canada extends throughout the eastern Canadian Arctic south to northwest Hudson Bay, west to Viscount Melville Sound and north to the northern tip of Ellesmere Island (Figure 4). Animals from the Baffin Bay population occupy the northern portion of this range; those from the Hudson Bay population occupy the south. The population affinity of animals that may summer north of Baffin Bay and along the eastern and southern coasts of Baffin Island is unknown. Inuit have described changes in the species’ seasonal distribution.

Baffin Bay Population

In summer, narwhals from the Baffin Bay population probably move into waters of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago as far north and west as ice conditions permit (Figure 4). Their range certainly extends from southern Baffin Island north into Hall Basin (Greeley 1886; Peary 1907; Borup 1911; Vibe 1950), and probably into the Lincoln Sea, and it extends west into Viscount Melville Sound (Strong 1988; Richard et al. 2001). Lancaster Sound is an important migration route in the spring and fall for Baffin Bay narwhals moving to and from summering grounds in Barrow Strait, Peel Sound, Prince Regent Inlet, Admiralty Inlet and the Eclipse Sound area (Read and Stephansson 1976; Richard et al. 1994). The area of these summering grounds could be close to 300,000 km². Many animals spend the summer in these areas, but some may enter northern Foxe Basin via Fury and Hecla Strait (Stewart et al. 1995). Little is known of their distribution in the interior channels of Queen Elizabeth Islands, but narwhals have been seen in Queens Channel and in McLean Strait between King Christian and Lougheed islands (Roe and Stephen 1977). They are rare to the southwest in waters surrounding Victoria and Banks Islands but there are incidental reports of their occurrence in the Beaufort and Bering seas (Huey 1952; Geist et al. 1960; Smith 1977) and at Bell Island, Newfoundland (Mercer 1973). In summer, concentrations of narwhals from the Baffin Bay population are also found at Melville and Inglefield bays in West Greenland (Born 1986, Born et al. 1994; Heide-Jørgensen 1994).

Figure 4. Distribution of narwhals in Canada. Modified from Strong (1988) to include material from literature cited in text. Summer concentrations in solid black include: A. Eclipse Sound/Navy Board Inlet, B. Admiralty Inlet, C. Prince Regent Inlet, D. Peel Sound, E. Foxe Channel, F. Melville Bay, and G. Inglefield Bredning. Wintering concentrations are shown in medium grey and known range in pale grey. Question marks indicate areas where the extent of the narwhal’s distribution is uncertain.

Narwhals from the Baffin Bay population that summer in Canada and Greenland winter together in Baffin Bay and Davis Strait (Dietz et al. 2001). Observations from aerial surveys in the late winter and early spring (mid-March to late May) suggest that they are distributed throughout the close pack ice in Davis Strait and southern Baffin Bay south to 64°N (Turl 1987; Heide-Jørgensen et al. 1993; Koski and Davis 1994). Narwhals are more numerous in winter south of 64°N, and are found at least as far north as Smith Sound in winter. Recent satellite tracking studies suggest that they may tend to concentrate along the edges of the continental shelf near the southern tip of the deep trough that extends down the middle of Baffin Bay and Davis Strait, midway between Canada and Greenland (Dietz et al. 2001; Heide-Jørgensen et al. 2002). Narwhals also overwinter in leads and polynyas of the “North Water” of Baffin Bay (Finley and Renaud 1980; Richard et al. 1998).

Hudson Bay Population

The summer range of the Hudson Bay narwhal population includes the waters surrounding Southampton Island, with the largest aggregations in Repulse Bay, Frozen Strait, western Foxe Channel and Lyon Inlet (Richard 1991; Gaston and Ouellet 1997; DFO 1998a; Gonzalez 2001; P. Richard, pers. comm. 2002). The area of these summering grounds is roughly 17,000 km². Whales from this population also summer, typically in smaller numbers, in Wager Bay or Duke of York Bay. There are no indications of large summer aggregations elsewhere in Hudson Bay or in James Bay, Hudson Strait or southern Foxe Basin. Sightings of narwhals to the south near Arviat and east near Cape Dorset are unusual and have been attributed to the presence of killer whales (Orcinus orca) (Higgins 1968; W. Angalik, pers comm. in Stewart et al. 1991). Narwhals were not seen in central or eastern Foxe Channel during a visual aerial reconnaissance survey of Foxe Channel on 8 August 2000 (P. Richard, pers. comm. 2002). Thorough searches of the historical literature for the Quebec coast of Hudson Bay and James Bay have not found reports of narwhals (Reeves and Mitchell 1987). Three narwhal carcasses have been found along the Ontario coast of Hudson Bay (Johnston 1961).

Hudson Strait appears to be an important migration route for this population in the spring and fall, but there is no evidence of movement northward into Foxe Basin (Richard 1991; Gonzalez 2001). Most animals follow the east coast of Southampton Island on their way to and from Hudson Strait, but some occasionally visit Coral Harbour. The population is believed to winter mainly in eastern Hudson Strait where hundreds of narwhals were seen during aerial surveys in March 1981 (McLaren and Davis 1982; Richard 1991; Koski and Davis 1994). Some animals also winter in open leads and polynyas of northern Hudson Bay and western Hudson Strait (Sutton and Hamilton 1932; Richard 1991). Narwhals are only seen during late spring or early summer, May or June, in the Kangiqsujuaq area (Fleming 2002).

Narwhals of unknown population affinity

Narwhals may also summer north of Baffin Bay, in the Smith Sound-Kane Basin area, and in the fiords of eastern and southern Baffin Island. The population affinity of these whales is unknown. On 5 July 1979, 1216 narwhals were counted at the ice edge in northern Smith Sound (Koski and Davis 1994) before they dispersed to their summering grounds (Born 1986). The presence of narwhals in Hall Basin (81°30’N, 63°00’W) suggests that these whales may move northward as the ice deteriorates. Studies have not been conducted to confirm their summer destination.

Summer use of the Home Bay area of eastern Baffin Island is supported by the observations of Inuit hunters (Haller 1967; Brody 1976; Remnant and Thomas 1992), and by the sighting of 300 narwhals east of Kekertal Island on 1 August 1985 (68°38’N, 67°36’W; Guinn and Stewart 1988). These animals were moving northward and no correction was made for submerged animals. Narwhals may also summer in the fiords of southern Baffin Island where over 400 animals were seen in Totnes Road (66°22’N, 62°20’W) on 18 July 1985, 50 on 22 July in Sunneshine Fiord (66°34’N, 61°39’W), and

>100 in Totnes Road on 23 July (Guinn and Stewart 1988). On the 23 of July, hunters also harvested 3 narwhals at Delight Harbour (67°02’N, 62°44’W). These sightings are well past the typical entry date of narwhals from the Baffin Bay population into Lancaster Sound (Greendale and Brousseau-Greendale 1976; Koski 1980a) or from the Hudson Bay population into the Repulse Bay area (Gonzalez 2001).

Changes in Seasonal Distribution

Scientific studies have not identified any large-scale changes in the seasonal distribution of narwhals, but Inuit have observed local changes. In the late 1970s, narwhals stopped frequenting the areas around Kivitoo and Padloping Island, but began to appear near Qikiqtarjuaq and Canso Channel (67°15’N, 63°35’W) and in the fiords in between (Remnant and Thomas 1992). Until the 1970s, narwhals in the Clyde River area were mainly transients migrating south in the fall. Since then they have remained in the area from spring to fall. Since the 1970s, narwhals have been seen more often in the sounds and bays south of Eclipse Sound. They have been seen since the 1980s in the Coutts Inlet area and further south towards Clyde River. Since the 1960s, narwhals have become less common near Pond Inlet and tend to travel down the middle of the inlet. Hunters attribute this change to an increase in the number of people hunting and traveling with motorboats and snowmobiles near the community. Hunters at Resolute, Arctic Bay, and Repulse Bay have made similar observations (Remnant and Thomas 1992; Stewart et al. 1995; Gonzalez 2001). In the Arctic Bay area, some hunters report that narwhals now make less use of the inlets off Admiralty Inlet and arrive later in the year when the ice is unsafe for travel (Stewart et al. 1995).

HABITAT

Habitat requirements

Narwhals inhabit a vast area of the Arctic, but little is known of their actual habitat requirements. In summer, they show preference for coastal areas that offer deep water and shelter from the wind (Finley 1976; Kingsley et al. 1994; Richard et al. 1994). Remote sensing studies suggest that they may prefer to locate near thermal boundaries that are created by upwellings and frontal areas where water masses meet (Barber 1989). However, blubber loss by female narwhals suggests that their summer habitat selection may be related more to calving requirements than feeding opportunities (Finley and Gibb 1982). During their fall migrations, and later while wintering in the pack, narwhals show preference for deep fjords and the continental slope, where depths range from 1000 to 1500 m and upwellings may increase biological productivity (Dietz and Heide-Jørgensen 1995; Dietz et al. 2001). The quality of the ice habitat, particularly the presence of leads in fast ice and the density of broken pack ice, appears to be a key aspect of their habitat selection (Koski and Davis 1994). The ice may also provide refuge from predation by killer whales.

Trends

The potential effects on narwhal populations of changes in ice habitat resulting from climate change have not been evaluated. This is an important question since the species’ range and distribution may be directly related to long-term temperature fluctuations and the resultant ice cover (Vibe 1967).

BIOLOGY

General

Age determination of narwhals continues to be a source of debate and a problem for population biologists. Layers of periosteal bone and tooth dentine and cementum are deposited throughout most of the animal’s life as it continues to grow. These growth layer groups (GLGs) provide a record of the animal’s growth and longevity. Unfortunately, mark-recapture experiments have not been conducted to confirm the rate of layer deposition, which may vary with age (Hay 1980). Young fast-growing animals may deposit three growth layers annually, while adult females may only deposit one in the tooth and mandible annually. As females approach physical maturity, they appear to resorb layers as fast as they deposit them. For population management purposes, narwhals in Canada are assumed to deposit one layer of periosteal bone on the mandible and one dentinal layer on the unerupted tooth annually (Hay 1984). The maximum number of mandibular periosteal growth layers that have been recorded is about 50 in males and 30 in females. Based on aspartic acid racemization in narwhal teeth, this may underestimate the actual age of narwhals (Bada et al. 1983). While the species’ longevity may be about 50 years, most animals probably do not reach the age of 30 (Bada et al. 1983; Hay 1984). Recent studies by Neve (1995b) suggest that two growth layer groups may be deposited annually on the mandible and tooth cementum of male narwhals. The function of the male narwhal’s spectacular ivory tusk, which has long been sought after by humans, continues to be a matter for speculation.

Reproduction

Narwhals are seasonal breeders (Best and Fisher 1974; Hay 1984; Hay and Mansfield 1989). The females are polyoestrous and experience up to four consecutive ovulations during the breeding season (Hay 1984).

Conception occurs between 20 March and 19 May, peaking in mid-April (Hay 1984). The gestation period has been estimated at between 14 (Best and Fisher 1974) and 15.3 months (Hay 1984). Two foetal length classes are found in narwhals that are hunted during the summer, one that is very small (10-40 cm) and another that is near term (140-170 cm) (Hay and Mansfield 1989; Stewart et al. 1995; Gonzalez 2001). Neonates are typically about 160 cm and 80 kg (Hay 1984; Neve 1995a). Most calves are born in July and August (Mansfield et al. 1975; Hay 1984; Hay and Mansfield 1989). However, the presence of newborn narwhals in Lancaster Sound on 27 May, and regularly thereafter during the spring of 1986 (Cosens and Dueck 1990), suggests that the breeding and calving periods are either broader than reported or vary significantly

between years and/or locations. There are few newborn calves at the Repulse Bay ice edge in July (Gonzalez 2001).

Mature females produce a calf about once every three years on average (Hay and Mansfield 1989; Kingsley 1989). About 20% of mature females calve every 2 years (Hay 1984). The proportion of females becoming pregnant in any one year is between 0.30 and 0.38. The crude birth rate is about 0.07 for Lancaster Sound (Hay and Mansfield 1989). Calves are weaned at 1 to 2 years of age (Hay 1984).

Lacking accurate information on the true age of narwhals beyond the age of sexual maturity, population biologists must assume that they live, grow and reproduce much like belugas and have used data from the beluga as estimates for the biological traits of narwhals (JCNB/NAMMCO 2001).

Vital rates for narwhals are uncertain due to the lack of a proven method to estimate age. The available data suggest that females mature at 5 to 8 years (Braham 1984; Kingsley 1989)—possibly 4 to 9 years (Neve 1995a), and produce their first young at 7 to 13 years (Kingsley 1989). Reproductive senescence in females may begin at about 23 years (Hay 1984). Male narwhals are believed to mature at 11 to 13 years (Hay 1984; Kingsley 1989)—possibly 12 to 16 years (Neve 1995a).

Lacking reliable age estimates, generation time cannot be calculated accurately using discrete age classes. Braham (1984) estimated the generation time of narwhals at about 10 years, which seems low. Assuming ages of maturity (α) of 7 y and reproductive senescence (ω) of 23 y, a simplistic calculation of generation time (T), where T =(α+ω)/2, yields an estimate of 15 years. This calculation ignores the fact that many females die before reaching reproductive senescence. However the effect of this omission may be more than offset by uncertainty in the estimate of reproductive longevity, which may be conservative. Instantaneous adult mortality and net recruitment rates for narwhals are unknown.

There is disagreement between biologists and Inuit as to the reproductive rate of narwhals (Remnant and Thomas 1992; Stewart et al. 1995; Gonzalez 2001). Scientific reproductive rates are based on examination of the ovaries and uterus. Because the gestation period of narwhals is greater than 12 months, as demonstrated by the presence of two foetal age classes in summer, narwhals cannot breed annually. Based on the proportion of the mature females in the population that are pregnant at any one time, narwhals appear to breed about every three years on average. Many Inuit believe that narwhals give birth more frequently because they have seen females accompanied by more than one calf, sometimes by a neonate, yearling, and two-year-old. Their assumption that the female gave birth to each of these calves has not been tested.

Survival

There are no direct estimates of survival rates for narwhals, only reasonable guesses based on analogies to other odontocetes. In modeling narwhal population

dynamics, Kingsley (1989) found that uncertainty in the values of survival rates of adults and young contributes twice as much to the uncertainty in population growth rates as does uncertainty in reproductive rates. Removal by humans is perhaps the greatest and most consistent cause of mortality among narwhals. The rate of mortality from predation by killer whales and polar bear (Ursus maritimus) is unknown and may vary significantly depending on the annual presence of killer whales and ice. The potential for large-scale mortality due to entrapment by ice or disease is unpredictable.

Ice entrapment

Reports of narwhals being entrapped by ice come from a number of sites. Whales from the Baffin Bay population have been trapped by ice in Eclipse Sound (Munn 1932); at Moffet Inlet and near Pond Inlet (Degerbøl and Freuchen 1935); in Adams Sound (Remnant and Thomas 1992; Stewart et al. 1995); at Dundee Bight (76°04’N, 100°10’W) of May Inlet, Bathurst Island; in Agu Bay and near Pond Inlet (Mitchell and Reeves 1981); and in the vicinity of Fury and Hecla Strait (Stewart et al. 1995). Narwhals from the Hudson Bay population have been trapped by ice in Lyon Inlet (Degerbøl and Freuchen 1935), near White Island, and in Ross Bay (66°52’N, 85°00’W) (Gonzalez 2001). Few large entrapments have been reported from Canadian waters. The largest on record was at Moffet Inlet in March 1924, when at least 600 narwhals were entrapped (Degerbøl and Freuchen 1935; Mitchell and Reeves 1981). About 400 whales were killed, some drowned, and the remainder escaped when a lead formed in the ice.

When these entrapments occur early in the winter the mortality rate is likely high but the survival rate of animals trapped later in the season may be better, provided they are not hunted or found by bears. These catastrophic events are a significant and unpredictable cause of mortality for the species.

Predation

The rate of predation on narwhals by killer whales and polar bears is unknown but may be significant. When killer whales are present narwhals hide in broken pack ice or shallow nearshore waters (Freuchen and Salomonsen 1958; Steltner et al. 1984; Campbell et al. 1988; Reeves and Mitchell 1988; Gonzalez 2001). They breathe quietly to avoid detection and stop vocalizing instantly when killer whales approach (Ford 1987). Their fear is such that they will ignore humans. Killer whales appear to prefer non-tusked narwhals (Gonzalez 2001).

Hunters in the Repulse Bay area see killer whales more frequently now than in the past and have expressed concern about killer whale predation on narwhals (Gonzalez 2001). The frequency of seasonal visits by killer whales to Hudson Bay, and their effect on the narwhals is unknown (Reeves and Mitchell 1988; DFO 1998a; Stewart et al. 1991). Killer whales may have driven narwhals close to Cape Dorset in the 1960s (Higgins 1968), south to Arviat in 1988 (W. Angalik, pers. comm. in Stewart et al. 1991), and into shallow water in the Repulse Bay area in 1999 (Gonzalez 2001). The latter resulted in an unusually large harvest of narwhals by Repulse Bay (Tables 1 and 2).

Killer whales also made hunting narwhals easier in the Repulse Bay area in 1998, and in the Lyon Inlet area in 2000.

Polar bears will kill narwhal calves (Kingsley 1990) and prey upon stranded narwhals (Smith and Sjare 1990). Hunters have described parallel claw scars from unsuccessful bear attacks on the backs, sides, and tails of narwhals (Kingsley 1990; Stewart et al. 1995). Greenland shark (Somniosus microcephalus) scavenge dead narwhals, but it is not known whether they also prey upon narwhals (Beck and Mansfield 1969; Stewart et al. 1995). Walrus have been found eating dead narwhals (Gray 1939 in Hay and Mansfield 1989).

Diseases and parasites

Little is known of the diseases of narwhals and their response to pathogens (Murray et al. 1995; Nielsen et al. 2000).

The skin fold at the base of the tusk and wounds on the body of narwhals are frequently infested by the amphipod whale lice Cyamus nodosus Lütken and C. monodontis Lütken (Porsild 1922; Hay and Mansfield 1989). Five species of endoparasites have been found in narwhals (Hay and Mansfield 1989).

Physiology

Little is known of the physiological requirements of narwhals or of the species’ ability to adapt to changes in its environment.

Movements/dispersal

Narwhals display a pronounced seasonal migratory cycle, the timing of which can vary by a month or more from year to year, depending upon ice conditions. They generally travel in groups (pods) of <10 animals that are dispersed during localized movements in summer, but gather into concentrations of many hundreds of animals during directed migrations in the spring and fall (Silverman 1979; Koski 1980a; Guinn and Stewart 1988; Cosens and Dueck 1991; Koski and Davis 1994; Richard et al. 1994). Most travelling to new areas occurs at the surface and their swimming speed averages 5.0 km/h whether they are travelling horizontally or diving vertically (Heide- Jørgensen et al. 2001). Narwhals can reach peak speeds of 20 km/hr (Richard 2001).

There is good agreement between scientific (e.g. Finley 1976; Koski and Davis 1994; Richard et al. 1994; Dietz et al. 2001; Heide-Jørgensen et al. 2003) and traditional knowledge (e.g. Remnant and Thomas 1992; Stewart et al. 1995) of the general timing and progression of the Baffin Bay populations’ migrations. Narwhals from this population move northward along the ice edge offshore the east coast of Baffin Island in April and May (Remnant and Thomas 1992; Stewart et al. 1995; Stewart 2001; Heide-Jørgensen et al. 2003). They then move westward into the sounds of eastern Baffin Island and into Lancaster Sound and adjoining waters as the ice permits,

following cracks and leads, typically during June and July, to reach their summering habitats in the Eclipse Sound area, Admiralty Inlet, Prince Regent Inlet, Barrow Strait and Peel Sound. Some animals may travel south out of Prince Regent Inlet through Fury and Hecla Strait and into Foxe Basin (Brody 1976; Stewart et al. 1995). When landfast ice begins to form, typically in September or October, the whales begin to move out of the sounds and inlets adjoining Lancaster Sound and the sounds of eastern Baffin Island. Some of the animals from the Lancaster Sound region continue eastward, moving offshore from southeastern Devon Island towards Baffin Bay (Koski and Davis 1994). Most of them move eastward out of Lancaster Sound and then south along the east coast of Baffin Island, visiting many of the fiords on their way to wintering areas in southern Baffin Bay and northern Davis Strait. The narwhals that visit Fury and Hecla Strait may retrace their route to exit via Lancaster Sound, or they may continue southward through Foxe Basin and Hudson Strait to complete the circle.

Thirteen narwhals tagged in August at Tremblay Sound remained in Eclipse Sound and its tributaries until they moved south in late September (Dietz et al. 2001; Heide- Jørgensen et al. 2002). However, three animals travelled west into southern Admiralty Inlet and to Creswell Bay area of Prince Regent Sound in late August and early September before moving east and south. They visited many fiords along the east coast of Baffin Island on their way, passing Cape Adair in late September or early October and reaching their wintering grounds in the pack ice of southern Baffin Bay and Davis Strait in late October or early November. The speed and range of their movements declined from 85 km/day enroute to the wintering grounds to 29 km/day once the wintering ground was reached. Their late summer and winter kernel home ranges were about 3,417 km² (SD 3,900, range 874-11,275 km²) and about 12,000 km², respectively (Heide-Jørgensen et al. 2002). At least three of the animals tagged at Tremblay Sound wintered in the same general area of Davis Strait as narwhals tagged at Melville Bay, Greenland (Dietz and Heide-Jørgensen 1995).

Sixteen female narwhals tagged at Creswell Bay (72°45’N, 94°05’W) in August 2000 and 2001 were also tracked by satellite (Heide-Jørgensen et al. 2003). They remained within <200 km of the tagging site during August and followed specific migration corridors east and south in the fall to their wintering grounds in the consolidated pack ice of Baffin Bay. They remained there from November through April but in a different area than the animals from Tremblay Sound. In May through July they followed the receding ice edge back into Lancaster Sound. The areas of their summering and wintering grounds were 9,464 km² (7 whales, 95% common kernel range, SD = 4718) and about 25,846 km² (3 whales), respectively. Two of the animals were followed for a complete migratory cycle and returned to the summering grounds they occupied in Peel Sound the previous year.

The degree of site fidelity shown by narwhals, particularly those of the Baffin Bay population, is an important unanswered question. Only two narwhals have been followed for an entire migratory cycle and both returned to Peel Sound in two consecutive years (Heide-Jørgensen et al. 2003). This demonstrates strong site fidelity on the part of at least some female narwhals. It does not confirm whether this behaviour is widespread

among narwhals or consistent over the life of individual animals. Likewise, while none of the Tremblay Sound and Melville Bay narwhals traveled to another area of aggregation after they were tagged, it is not known whether there was exchange between the summering aggregations earlier in the season or between years (Dietz et al. 2001). Narwhals that summer in Eclipse Sound are vulnerable to being killed by hunters from Pond Inlet in the summer and by hunters from Clyde River in the fall. It is not known whether other animals that summer in Canadian waters are also vulnerable to hunting by hunters from several Canadian communities (JCNB/NAMMCO 2001).

The seasonal movement patterns of the Hudson Bay narwhals are not well known. In the spring, they likely migrate westward from putative wintering grounds in eastern Hudson Strait (Richard 1991; Koski and Davis 1994), traveling offshore through Hudson Strait and Foxe Channel until they reach the floe edge east of Repulse Bay in late June (Gonzalez 2001). They move into their summering grounds in western Foxe Channel, Frozen Strait, Lyon Inlet and Repulse Bay as ice conditions permit and typically remain until late August or early September, when they travel southeastward out of the area through Frozen Strait, following the east coast of Southampton Island. Narwhals are seldom seen west of Southampton Island or along the west coast of Hudson Bay unless killer whales are present, but they are seen on occasion at the floe edge near Coral Harbour in late June or early July, and in late August or early September.

Narwhals from the Hudson Bay population are not known to move north of Lyon Inlet (Richard 1991; Gonzalez 2001), but observations of whales passing east of Igloolik Island on their way north to Fury and Hecla Strait (Stewart et al. 1995) suggest that there may be some northward movement of narwhals into the region. It is also possible that these whales are resident in the region or are members of the Baffin Bay population returning northward. Tagging studies have not followed whales from the Hudson Bay population between their summer and winter habitats or whales from the Igloolik area to their wintering habitat.

Nutrition and interspecific interactions

Narwhals eat a small variety of fishes and invertebrates. The composition of their diet varies with season and location, likely in response to dietary preferences and the seasonal or geographical availability of prey species (Neve 1995a). They appear to feed year-round but may increase their food intake prior to migration (Remnant and Thomas 1992; Stewart et al. 1995). Tomilin (1957) described them as “teuthophages” or squid eaters, citing their reduction in teeth, wide rostrum, coarse palatal surfaces, and deep-diving ability as adaptations for feeding on squids.

The diet of narwhals hunted from mid-June through August in the Pond Inlet area consists mostly of fish and squid (Finley and Gibb 1982). Stomach samples (n=93) pooled over two years contained: Arctic cod B. saida (51% wet wt.), turbot Reinhardtius hippoglossoides (37%), squid Gonatus fabricii (7%), and polar cod Arctogadus glacialis (6%). Small amounts (<1% wet wt.) of other fishes (dark belly skate Raja hyperborea, snailfish Liparis spp., redfish Sebastes marinus, eelpouts Lycodes spp. and sculpin

Cottidae) and invertebrates (octopus Bathypolypus arcticus, and crustaceans Boreomysis spp.) were also present. Most (61%) of these samples were taken from adult male narwhals. Narwhals had more food in their stomachs when they were taken at the ice edge or from ice cracks than from open water. The largest item found was a whole turbot weighing 2.4 kg. [Note: in Greenland B. saida is known as polar cod and A. glacialis as Arctic cod; turbot are also known as Greenland halibut].

Other scientific studies of the diet of narwhals in Canada and West Greenland have found the same prey species but in different proportions (e.g. Vibe 1950; Bruemmer 1971; Hay 1984; Hay and Mansfield 1989; Roberge and Dunn 1990; Heide- Jørgensen et al. 1994; Neve 1995a). Inuit hunters have made similar observations (Remnant and Thomas 1992; Thomsen 1993; Stewart et al. 1995). Arctic and polar cod, turbot and squid are all eaten in quantity during the open water season, and narwhals feed heavily on shrimps (Pasiphaea tarda) as they migrate through breaking fast ice of Pond Inlet, Eclipse Sound, and Admiralty Inlet in late June and July (Hay and Mansfield 1989). Inuit hunters have also found Greenland cod (Gadus ogac) in narwhal stomachs (Stewart et al. 1995) as well as Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus) (Remnant and Thomas 1992). Arctic cod are abundant under the ice edge of Admiralty Inlet in June, coincident with the presence of narwhals (Crawford and Jorgenson 1990).

Little is known of the narwhal diet from late autumn to spring. Neve (1995a) found mainly squid G. fabricii in the October-November diet of narwhals taken in West Greenland (Uummannaq) and shrimp Pandalus spp. in March-April samples from the Disko Bay area.

Little is known about the interactions between narwhals and other species for food and habitat. Their preference for deepwater habitat effectively separates them from belugas for much of the summer. They do participate with belugas, harp seals (Phoca groenlandica) and seabirds in mass feeding frenzies on Arctic cod, which they occasionally drive into shallow water in late summer (Finley and Gibb 1982; Welch et al. 1993).

Commercial fisheries in Baffin Bay, Davis Strait, and Cumberland Sound may increasingly compete with narwhals for turbot, redfish and other species (Topolniski 1993; Treble and Bowering 2002; M. Treble, pers. comm. 2002). These fisheries take place in open water or through landfast ice and are rarely, if ever, coincident with the presence of narwhals.

The question of whether food availability is a limiting factor for narwhal abundance has not been examined. While narwhals feed heavily on cod and turbot, the extent of their dependence on these species for food is unknown. A significant change in the abundance or distribution of these fishes might adversely affect narwhals.

Behaviour/adaptability

Key aspects of narwhal behaviour that may affect their population numbers and assessment include their sensitivity to noise, affinity for heavy ice cover, fear of the killer whale, and ability to dive deeply and remain under water for long periods.

Noise sensitivity

Narwhals make a variety of sounds and are sensitive to underwater noise. They appear to use click-sounds for orientation and echolocation of prey and squealing, growling, and whistling sounds for communication (Reeves 1977; Ford and Fisher 1978; Ford 1987; Miller et al. 1995). Narwhals can detect approaching ships at a distance of 80 km and show behavioural responses at distances of 55-40 km (Finley et al. 1984, 1990; Miller and Davis 1984; Cosens and Dueck 1988, 1993). Unlike beluga, which show a “flight” response by aggregating into large herds and moving rapidly away from approaching ships, narwhals show a “freeze” response similar to that seen when killer whales are present (Finley et al. 1983, 1984, 1990; Miller and Davis 1984). They return to disturbed areas and resume normal activities faster than beluga, when the noise level from ice-breaking operations is up to 120 dB. Cosens and Dueck (1988) did not observe this “freeze” reaction, perhaps due to the lack of an ice edge in the survey area or habituation to ship traffic. They did observe an increase in slow directed movements. Inuit hunters have observed that narwhals are sensitive to, and avoid, noise from machines and explosions (Remnant and Thomas 1992; Stewart et al. 1995; Gonzalez 2001).

Diving behaviour

The narwhal’s ability to dive deeply and hold their breaths for long periods enables them to move long distances under water to avoid hunters and to locate areas where they can surface to breathe. In the deep waters of Baffin Bay, narwhals dive to at least 1500 m and daily make dives to depths of over 500 m (Heide-Jørgensen and Dietz 1995; Heide-Jørgensen et al. 2002). They can remain under water for at least 26.2 minutes when foraging (Laidre et al. 2002) and up to 30 minutes when pursued by Inuit (Gonzalez 2001). Their diving ability makes it difficult to obtain accurate population estimates. Variations in narwhal diving behaviour related to season, location, and sex of the animal complicate the correction of population survey data for animals that were submerged deeply enough to be invisible to the survey. Instead of using a single general correction factor, specific values may have to be determined for each locale and season (Heide-Jørgensen et al. 2001).

Ice

Narwhals frequent heavy pack ice for much of the year and follow leads in the ice to their summering grounds. They can be entraped in the ice, and their use of narrow leads also makes them vulnerable to hunting. Narwhals will explore tracks in the ice created by icebreakers (Finley et al. 1984; P. Richard, pers. comm. 2002). The effects on narwhals of shipping activities that alter ice habitats are unknown.

Avoidance of killer whale

Narwhals normally avoid people but will ignore them in the presence of killer whale (DFO 1998a; Gonzalez 2001). They seek shallow water and remain immobile, making them easy targets for Inuit who take advantage of this behaviour to hunt the frightened

whales. This behaviour contributed to the unusually large number of narwhals killed by Repulse Bay hunters in 1999 (Table 2) and made hunting easier in 1998 and in the Lyon Inlet area in 2000.

Table 2. Landed harvest and loss and mortality estimates from communities with Community-Based management of the narwhal harvest in 1999-2001 (DFO unpubl. data). Loss estimate Mortality estimate Loss rate

Narwhals (# of animals) (# of animals) (% of landed harvest) Community Year landed Killed and Wounded and (#) minimum maximum minimum maximum lost escaped BAFFIN BAY NARWHAL

Arctic Bay (Tununirusiq) 2001 134 12 12 146 158 9 18

Pelly Bay (Kugaaruk) 2001 37 8 18 45 63 22 70

Pond Inlet (Mittimatalik) 1999 130 16 14 146 160 12 23 2000 166 10 21 176 197 6 19 2001 63 27 5 90 95 43 51

Qikiqtarjuaq (Broughton Island) 1999 81 25 30 106 136 31 68 2000 137 40 79 177 256 29 87 2001 87 10 9 97 106 11 22

HUDSON BAY NARWHAL

Repulse Bay (Naujaat) 1999 156 30 68 186 254 19 63 2000 49 5 9 54 63 10 29 2001 100 21 38 121 159 21 59

Adaptation to captivity

Narwhals have not been held successfully in captivity. Six whales were captured in 1969-70 for exhibit in public aquaria and all died within four months, likely of pneumonia (Newman 1970; Reeves 1977). In 1987, an attempt to capture narwhals at Pond Inlet for on-site assessment in a large holding tank was unsuccessful (P. Hall, pers. comm. 2002). Animals that are captured for tagging are restrained in the water and released immediately after the tag has been attached (Dietz et al. 2001; Laidre et al. 2002; Heide-Jørgensen et al. 2002).

POPULATION SIZES AND TRENDS

A good estimate of the initial size of the Baffin Bay and Hudson Bay narwhal populations cannot be generated from historical harvest data (Mitchell and Reeves 1981; Reeves 1992a). Consequently, it is not possible to assess whether historical hunting activities have depleted population sizes, and estimates or indices of

abundance from surveys after 1975 are the only benchmarks for future population assessments.

Until 1996, estimates of population size were limited to methods that only estimated a portion of the population (Innes et al. 1996). They were based on aerial surveys of areas of aggregation and seldom accounted for narwhals that were submerged beyond view (availability bias), missed by observers because of ice or poor visibility (perception bias), or simply outside the survey area (DFO 1998a, 1998b). They also did not distinguish between mature and immature animals, so changes in the population structure cannot be assessed, and may significantly underestimate young-of-the-year which are more difficult to see and identify from the air (Richard et al. 1994). Estimates from the aerial photographic surveys are typically higher than those obtained from simultaneous visual observations (Innes et al. 2002; P. Richard, pers. comm. 2002).

More data are required before survey estimates can be accurately corrected for diving animals. Recently, Heide-Jørgensen et al. (2001) and Innes et al. (2002) applied correction factors for availability and perception bias but noted the need to develop more precise correction factors for availability bias. Land-based observations (Born et al. 1994) and dive data from small samples of tagged whales suggest that less than 50% of the animals in a population may be visible at the surface at any one time (Heide- Jørgensen and Dietz 1995; Heide-Jørgensen et al. 2001; Laidre et al. 2002). Survey estimates are sensitive to violation of the assumption that narwhals are visible and recognizable to a particular depth, typically 5 m.

Baffin Bay Population

Aerial surveys of the pack ice of western Baffin Bay in May 1979 estimated that there were 34,363 (±SE 8282) narwhals at the surface (Koski and Davis 1994). This survey covered about 2/3 of Baffin Bay but missed West Greenland waters and Smith Sound where narwhals also occur in May. The population estimate did not correct for perception bias. If narwhal wintering in Baffin Bay show preference for the edge of the coastal shelf, as recent work by Dietz et al. (2001) suggests, it may be worthwhile to revisit these data and recalculate these estimates.

In August 1984, an aerial photographic survey of Eclipse Sound, Admiralty Inlet, Prince Regent Inlet and Peel Sound estimated that there were 17,991 (90%CI 14,724- 21,258) narwhals at the surface (Richard et al. 1994). This survey covered important areas of summer aggregation for narwhals, but did not cover the entire known summer range of the Baffin Bay population in Canadian waters (Figure 4). The number of Baffin Bay narwhals that summered in the waters of West Greenland in 1984 is unknown, but land-based observers counted 4,043 narwhals passing their observation point in Inglefield Bay on 18 August (Born 1986).

A systematic aerial survey of belugas in Prince Regent Inlet, Barrow Strait and Peel Sound was conducted from 31 July to 3 August 1996 (Innes et al. 2002). Visual observations were made in the offshore areas and aerial photographs were taken in the

concentration areas. Narwhals were also counted during the same survey. The visual estimates were corrected for animals missed by the observers, sightings without distance estimates, and for submerged animals to produce an estimate of 45,358 narwhals (95% CI = 23,397-87,932). The submergence correction was obtained from retrievable time- depth-recorders deployed on four narwhals in Creswell Bay and Tremblay Sound (Laidre et al. 2002) and assumed that narwhals were visible to a depth of 5 m.

Estimates by Innes et al. (2002) of the number of narwhals at the surface of Barrow Strait and Prince Regent Inlet (14,474, CV = 0.24) compare well with those obtained by Smith et al. (1985) (11,142, CV = 0.09), considering that the latter was not corrected for animals missed by the observers (perception bias). Likewise, estimates of the number of narwhals at the surface of Prince Regent Inlet (12,324, CV = 0.25) and central Peel Sound (1,891, CV = 0.55) compare well with those obtained by Richard et al. (1994) (Prince Regent Inlet 9,754, CV = 0.18; Peel Sound 1,701, CV = 0.17; CV from Innes et al. 2002), considering that the latter was not corrected for perception bias. Nevertheless, the statistical power to detect a trend, if there is one, is low given the large variance in the estimates.

Several other systematic surveys have covered smaller portions of the summer aggregation areas (Fallis et al. 1983; Smith et al. 1985; Dueck and Riewe 1986; Dueck 1989) but these data are not useful for estimating the overall population size or trend (DFO 1998a). The same is true for a number of systematic aerial surveys of migrants in the spring (Finley 1976; Johnson et al. 1976; Davis et al. 1978; Koski 1980a, 1980b), fall (Stepney and Wooley 1976; Koski 1980b; Koski and Davis 1980), and winter (Heide- Jørgensen et al. 2002); of non-systematic surveys (Hay and McLung 1976); and of land- based observations in the spring (Tuck 1957; Greendale and Brousseau-Greendale 1976).

Without recent and complete survey information, and with uncertainty about hunting mortality and natural mortality, it is not possible to provide a quantitative estimate of the size of the Baffin Bay narwhal population, or of that portion of the population that enters Canadian waters. Earlier reports concluded that there was no evidence of population decline (Strong 1988; Remnant and Thomas 1992; Thomsen 1993) and that the “narwhal hunt may be sustainable” (SWG 1997). In fact, although the Canadian population is obviously still large as evidenced by the 1996 survey (Innes et al. 2002), the true size and trend of the Baffin Bay narwhal population are unknown. There has been concern about the summering grounds of narwhals hunted in the fall in West Greenland, but recent information suggests that they are not from Canada. Removals due to hunting appear to have risen in recent years (Table 1; Figures 5 and 6), and have increased the urgency of improving knowledge of the Baffin Bay population (JCNB/NAMMCO 2001). To address this need, DFO undertook surveys of the population’s summering grounds in Arctic Canada in August 2002 and 2003 (P. Richard pers. comm. 2004).

There is no clear consensus among Inuit hunters of a population trend in the Baffin Bay population (Stewart 2001). In 1992, most hunters from Qikiqtarjuaq and Clyde River believed that, despite year-to-year variation, the narwhal population in their area

had increased since the 1960s or 1970s (Remnant and Thomas 1992). Most hunters from Pond Inlet, Arctic Bay, Resolute, Igloolik, Hall Beach, and Grise Fiord believed the narwhal population in their area to be stable despite year-to-year variations and changes in local seasonal distributions (Remnant and Thomas 1992; Stewart et al. 1995). However, interpretation of this information is confounded by changes in the local seasonal distribution of narwhals.

Hudson Bay Population

Richard (1991) conducted systematic visual and photographic aerial surveys of narwhals in the Repulse Bay area between Roes Welcome Sound and Lyon Inlet, north of Southampton Island in March 1983 and July of 1982, 1983, and 1984. These surveys included the major known summering concentrations of the Hudson Bay narwhal population. The July 1984 photographic survey was repeated in August 2000, with the addition of northern Lyon Inlet and Foxe Channel (P. Richard, pers. comm. 2002). Without correcting the results of either survey for submerged animals, or the latter survey for persistent fog or animals that may have occupied Wager Bay (Gonzalez 2001), the narwhal population was estimated at 1355 (90%CI = 1000-1900) animals in 1984 and 1780 (90%CI = 1212-2492) animals in 2000.

At least 50% of the whales seen in Hudson Bay are believed to be submerged when surveyed. In North Baffin Bay the correction factor may be 2.6 times the number counted based on the proportion seen at the surface (38%, SE = 9%, Innes et al. 2002). The current Hudson Bay population likely numbers about 3,500 animals in summer after correcting for submerged individuals. While the 2000 survey result is preliminary, it suggests that the population has not decreased between surveys (1984 and 2000), despite concern over heavy exploitation of the population in 1999 (Table 2; Figure 6). These hunting levels are not believed to reflect ongoing harvest levels, and should not be interpreted to have been sustainable.

LIMITING FACTORS AND THREATS

Narwhal populations in Canada may be limited or threatened by hunting activities, environmental contaminants, industrial activities such as commercial fishing, and climate change. The effects of these factors are mitigated by the species’ deepwater habits and widespread geographical distribution, much of which is outside normal hunting areas in offshore pack ice and in isolated areas of the Arctic. This remote distribution protects large numbers of narwhals from hunters as well as isolated oil spills or other events. However, under exceptional circumstances, such as large ice entrapments or when killer whales drive narwhals into shallow water, many animals can be hunted at once from a single locality. The question of whether narwhals that summer in isolated areas serve as a reserve for those in more accessible areas, where they are more vulnerable to extirpation, remains unanswered. Narwhals are not seen as direct competitors with humans for resources, or as a physical threat.

Table 1. Landed harvests of narwhals from communities* in Canada and from Greenland, 1977-2001.

Historical 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Total Average Quota BAFFIN BAY NARWHAL Arctic Bay 100** 42 65 33 100 100 90 100 93 100 100 25 86 99 67 114 102 85 99 46 99 66 103 101 101 134 2150 86 Qikiqtarjuaq 50** 35 26 21 49 50 50 20 36 49 7 47 26 46 50 50 40 52 50 50 23 50 50 81 135 87 1180 47 (Broughton I.)* Clyde River 50 42 4 9 35 37 19 46 49 5 5 19 44 36 26 35 33 34 25 26 10 15 27 4 48 28 661 26 Gjoa Haven 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 nr 0 0 1 27 1 Grise Fiord 20 0 0 12 0 0 28 3 2 8 2 2 7 5 19 20 1 9 12 9 1 1 10 16 24 191 8 Hall Beach 10 13 0 2 11 17 7 1 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 6 0 1 2 10 0 0 7 83 3 Igloolik 25 0 0 108 14 36 25 18 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 25 27 25 18 5 3 29 4 2 6 350 14 Iqaluit (Frobisher Bay) 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 6 0 Pangnirtung 40 3 2 28 19 44 49 2 32 18 31 0 2 40 2 8 4 24 33 6 19 2 2 41 50 461 19 Kugaaruk (Pelly Bay) 10** nr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 7 15 8 0 30 41 118 5 Pond Inlet 100** 107 150 94 96 82 100 104 45 98 100 52 53 77 69 100 99 79 91 73 100 75 108 130 166 63 2311 92 Resolute and Creswell 32 3 14 2 nr nr 14 11 0 2 1 0 12 19 22 21 0 8 3 4 2 7 9 1 12 11 178 8 Bay Taloyoak (Spence Bay) 10 nr 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 nr 0 3 13 29 1 Canada 207 245 261 309 324 366 382 333 258 298 247 145 234 326 258 355 305 318 344 237 267 236 357 378 547 415 7745 310 Greenland 387 612 377 462 609 461 439 666 256 237 505 500 312 1057 ? ? 614 995 485 691 745 775 372 ? ? 13340 550 BAFFIN BAY TOTAL 632 873 686 786 975 843 772 924 554 484 650 734 638 1315 ? ? 932 1339 722 958 981 1132 750 ? ? 21085 842 HUDSON BAY (HB) NARWHAL Cape Dorset 10 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 nr 0 0 0 1 0 0 16 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 23 1 Chesterfield In. 5 nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 3 2 13 1 Coral Harbour 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 10 10 9 4 0 0 0 46 2 Kimmirut (Lake 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 nr 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 Harbour) Repulse Bay 25** nr 4 30 25 29 21 11 25 15 7 16 25 16 17 3 20 13 5 4 10 35 18 156 49 100 654 27 Rankin Inlet 10 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 7 0 7 3 31 1 Whale Cove 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 4 0 HB TOTAL 50 0 6 31 26 34 22 11 27 16 7 35 26 16 17 19 20 14 6 20 27 45 25 161 59 108 778 31 CANADIAN HARVEST 245 273 371 376 434 426 355 312 330 261 215 286 358 292 393 345 346 356 277 321 326 407 700 665 631 9301 372

Source material: Canadian harvests 1977-87 (Strong 1989), 1988 (DFO1991), 1989 (DFO1992a), 1990 (DFO 1992b), 1991 (DFO 1993), 1992 (DFO 1994), 1993 (DFO 1995), 1994 DFO1996), 1995 (DFO 1997), 1996 (DFO 1999), 1997-2001 (DFO unpubl. data); Greenland harvests (JCNB/NAMMCO 2001). *Community names that were used in the past are enclosed in brackets. **Harvest limits in these communities are now set by pilot community-based management programs. In 2002, hunters from Arctic Bay were permitted to take 101 narwhals, Kugaaruk 17, Pond Inlet 108, Qikiqtarjuaq 50, and Repulse Bay 72. nr = no report, blank space= report may be forthcoming.

1200 Canadian harvest Greenland harvest 1000

800

600

Narwhal landed (#) landed Narwhal 400

200

0 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 Harvest year

Figure 5. Landed harvests of Baffin Bay narwhals by Canada and Greenland from 1977 to 2001. Source material for the data is provided in Table 1.

600

Baffin Bay Stock 500 Hudson Bay Stock

400

300

Narwhals landed (#) landed Narwhals 200

100

0 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 Harvest year

Figure 6. Canadian landed harvests of narwhals from the Hudson Bay and Baffin Bay populations, 1977 to 2001. Source materials for the data are provided in Table 1.

Hunting

Hunting activities probably represent the most consistent limiting factor and threat to narwhal populations in Canada. Inuit residents of 13 communities hunt animals from the Baffin Bay population, while the Hudson Bay narwhals are hunted mainly by residents of Repulse Bay and sometimes by residents of 6 other communities (Table 1). Narwhal are also hunted by the Kugaaruk community following the community-based management system, while Taloyoak and Gjoa Haven have a yearly limit of 10 narwhals each.

Most narwhals are harvested in July and August (Donaldson 1988; Gamble 1988; Guin and Stewart 1988; J. Pattimore, pers. comm. 1986). The hunts begin earlier in the year in Pangnirtung (April), Pond Inlet and Arctic Bay (May) and end later in the year in Clyde River and Qikiqtardjuak (October). The actual number of narwhals killed during these hunts is higher than the number landed, but unknown because few data were collected on the number of animals that were killed and lost. These losses vary depending upon the location, weather, hunter experience, and type of hunt (e.g. floe edge, ice crack, open water). They also vary from year to year. Thus loss rates cannot be extrapolated from one season to another or from one community to another (Weaver and Walker 1988; Roberge and Dunn 1990).

Loss rates are typically highest at the floe edge and lowest during the open water hunt (Roberge and Dunn 1990). Comparison of these rates between studies is confounded by the fact that some studies considered only whales killed and lost, while others also considered whales that were wounded and escaped. The former method tends to underestimate the total kill, and the latter to overestimate it. These two extremes provide a range within which the actual loss rates should lie. Loss estimates from the community-based management hunts in 2001 suggest that on average at least 19 (SD 11; killed and lost only) and perhaps as many as 46 (SD 5; killed and lost plus struck and escaped) animals are lost for every 100 landed (Table 2). These crude annual loss rate estimates are comparable to those from earlier studies, most of which were for portions of the annual hunt (e.g. Hay and Sergeant 1976; Finley et al. 1980; Kemper 1980; Finley and Miller 1982; Weaver and Walker 1988; Roberge and Dunn 1990). The collection of struck and lost data is a key contribution of the community- based management program to improving estimates of hunting mortality.

Losses result in part from the fact that narwhals are often shot before they are harpooned (Bruemmer 1971; Stewart et al. 1995). Loss rates are greater among animals that are not harpooned (Gonzalez 2001). In 1979, Pond Inlet hunters tried using harpoon guns to reduce loss rates. This technology proved to be much less practical than .303 calibre rifles and hand-thrown harpoons for killing and securing narwhals (Finley and Miller 1982). In the Pond Inlet area, a high proportion of harvested animals have old bullet wounds (42% Finley et al. 1980; 23% Finley and Miller 1982). Many of the communities participating in community-based management require hunters to use harpoons as a means of reducing the number of whales that are struck and lost (M. Wheatley, pers. comm. 2003).

There is strong economic pressure to land tusked males despite a preference for the maqtaq of juvenile narwhals (Reeves 1992a). This selection is more successful during on-ice hunts in the spring when the narwhals are shot at close range and the tusk is clearly visible, than during open-water hunts (Reeves 1976). Hunter preference for large-tusked males likely leads to underestimates of numbers of females killed, given that hunters may expend more effort to retrieve male carcasses (Weaver and Walker 1988; Roberge and Dunn 1990).

Lack of reliable age data for narwhals prevents accurate prediction of reproductive and survival rates and thereby sustainable hunts. Sergeant (1981) assumed the sustainable annual hunting rate for narwhals was 5% based on studies of beluga. A more reasonable estimate is probably 3-4% given that the 5% estimate did not incorporate natural mortality (Kingsley 1989). The latter assumes that an equal proportion of male and female narwhals are killed. A bias towards males as seen at Pond Inlet (2:1 Weaver and Walker 1988) and Arctic Bay (3:1 Roberge and Dunn 1990), might increase the sustainable hunting rate, but a bias towards females should reduce it. The extent or direction of this bias over time will likely reflect trends in the price of tusk ivory and, to a lesser extent, maqtaq. Given the uncertainties related to reproductive and survival rates, and the species’ vulnerability to unpredictable mass mortality from entrapment in the ice, a more precautionary hunting rate would be 2% (DFO 1998a).

Over the period 1988 through 2001, Canadians landed an average of 327 (SD 85; range 234-547) narwhals annually from the Baffin Bay population, and 40 (SD 43; range 6-161) from the Hudson Bay population. The number of narwhals landed annually from the Baffin Bay population fluctuates widely each year, but removals due to hunting have likely increased recently in both Canada and Greenland (Figure 5; JCNB/NAMMCO 2001). However, Greenland kills may not be relevant based on recent information that suggests that Canadian populations of narwhal do travel to Greenland.

Landings from the Hudson Bay population increased from an average of 22 (SD 9.7) whales per year over the period 1979-1998 to an average of 109 (SD 51) whales per year over the period 1999-2001(Table 1). Unusually large numbers killed by Repulse Bay hunters are responsible for this increase. Repulse Bay may have removed between 5.2 and 6.9% of the Hudson Bay narwhal population in 1999 based on the 2000 survey estimate of 1780 narwhals in the Hudson Bay population (P. Richard, pers. comm. 2002), assuming that at least 50% of the whales may have been submerged and therefore missed by the survey, assuming an annual rate of increase of 4%, and using the community-based mortality estimates (186-254 narwhals; Table 2). Indeed, population mortality in 1999 may have been higher given that predation by killer whales contributed to the hunters’ success. The effects on population structure of this simultaneous removal by hunters, who prefer tusked males, and killer whales, that appear to prefer non-tusked narwhals, are unknown. Hunters from the community may also have removed between 3.6 and 4.7% of the population in 2001, when they filled the community-based management hunting limit of 100 narwhals.

The Hudson Bay narwhal population is unlikely to support the rates of removal seen in 1999 and 2001 over the long term, unless the natural rate of increase is greater than 5% per year. In 2002, the community-based management program responded to this concern by reducing the annual harvest limit for Repulse Bay from 100 to 72 narwhals. If the population is smaller than the estimate (i.e. including a correction for submerged animals), or if the natural rate of increase is less than 4%, then the population would be at risk if communities that hunt narwhals from the Hudson Bay population approach their annual limits on a regular basis. Past experience suggests this is unlikely to occur, but it must be monitored (Table 1). Evidence of unusually high mortality from causes other than hunting, such as killer whale predation or ice entrapment, must also be considered when hunting limits are adjusted.

Contaminants

Elevated concentrations of cadmium and mercury have been found in the tissues of narwhals taken in Canada and Greenland (Wagemann et al. 1983, 1996, 1998; Hansen et al. 1990). These metals accumulate in soft tissue as the animal grows but the lack of age data and small sample sizes make it difficult to identify trends in their accumulation over time and space. Within these limitations, the tissue concentrations of cadmium in narwhals taken at Pond Inlet do not appear to have changed over the period 1978-79 to 1992-94, but total mercury concentrations in the muscle, liver, and kidney may have increased (Wagemann et al. 1996). The effects of age and dietary differences and the contribution of anthropogenic mercury could not be quantified. Concern has been raised about the potential for kidney damage in narwhals from elevated cadmium levels and about the risk to human health from consuming narwhal maqtaq and meat containing elevated mercury concentrations (Wagemann et al. 1996; 1998).

In 1982-83, the blubber and liver of narwhals collected at Pond Inlet were analyzed for organochlorine pesticides (DDT, chlordane, polychlorinated camphenes [PCCs], dieldrin, hexachlorocyclohexanes [∑HCH], mirex), polychlorinated biphenyl congeners (PCBs), and chlorobenzenes (∑CBz) (Muir et al. 1992). Their mean ∑PCB concentrations were 6- to 15- fold lower than in dolphins from the Canadian east coast and belugas from the St. Lawrence River estuary, respectively, while PCC levels were from 4- to 2- fold lower, and ∑HCH, dieldrin and ∑CBz differed by <2-fold. The pattern of these contaminants in their tissues suggests that narwhals are exposed to proportionally more volatile compounds, likely by long range transport, and may have less capacity to metabolize some of these compounds than do odontocetes living nearer sources of these contaminants. No temporal trends have been identified in the accumulation of organochlorine contaminants in narwhal.

Industrial development

Recent development of the turbot (Greenland halibut) fishery in Baffin Bay has raised concern among narwhal researchers (Heide-Jørgensen et al. 2002). This fishery takes place during the open water season in the same area where narwhals winter.

While it is not coincident with narwhal occupation, it is targeting fish that narwhals eat at depths of 1000 to 1300 m where they feed. The total allowable catch (TAC) rose from 300 tonnes annually from NAFO Div. OA in 1996 to 2000 (Treble 1999), to 4,000 tonnes for NAFO Div. OA and 1A (offshore) in 2001 (Treble and Bowering 2002), and is expected to increase to 8,000 tonnes in 2003 (M. Treble, pers. comm. 2002). The effects of this new competition for food resources on wintering narwhals are unknown and worthy of study. Narwhals have been captured in fishing nets (Mitchell 1981), but this is not common and of lesser concern than the effects of competition for food.

Large quantities of turbot are also caught in the spring through the landfast ice in Cumberland Sound (Topolniski 1993; Stewart 1994) when narwhals are on their wintering grounds. This longline fishery began in 1986 and targets fish at depths of 600 to 1125 m. Catches have exceeded 430 tonnes but have been in the 250 tonne range in recent years (M. Treble, pers. comm. 2002). Their effect on narwhals is unknown. Exploratory turbot fisheries have been conducted by a number of other communities in the Baffin region but they have not identified populations that will support a commercial harvest (Stewart 1994).

Threats posed to narwhals in Canadian waters by hydrocarbon and mineral development and exploration are low at present. Indeed, there is less hydrocarbon exploration ongoing in the High Arctic today than there was in the 1970s and 1980s (D.G. Wright, pers. comm. 2002), and both of Canada’s High Arctic metal mines closed in September 2002 (M. Wheatley, pers. comm. 2003). This will reduce the effects of ice breaking activities on narwhals entering Lancaster Sound in the spring. It will also reduce seismic and noise disturbances related to mining activities and the risk of hydrocarbon and heavy metal pollution. Future developments could reverse this trend.

Climate change

The potential effects of climate change on the narwhal have not been examined in detail but given the species’ close association with consolidated pack ice and dependence on small leads and cracks, such analysis should be a priority. Climate change has the potential to alter the distribution, duration, and quality of seasonal ice cover in the Arctic and thereby the density of ice-associated prey species of marine mammals, such as Arctic cod and sympagic (with ice) amphipods (Tynan and DeMaster 1997).

In the long term, global warming may result in increased visitor numbers and activities in the Arctic (such as whale watching) that may disturb and affect narwhals. It is also possible that reduced ice coverage may make narwhals more susceptible to predation by killer whales. Overall, the effects of climate change on sea ice in areas presently inhabited by narwhals are uncertain (Maxwell 1999). Indeed, the duration of ice cover in Baffin Bay and Davis Strait increased between 1979 and 1996 (Parkinson 2000). The capacity of the narwhal to adapt to changes in pack ice is also unknown (Heide-Jørgensen et al. 2002). Given this uncertainty and the fact that changes in ice cover and dynamics might alter the species’ seasonal distribution, geographical range,

migration patterns, nutritional status, reproductive success, and ultimately the abundance and stock structure, the narwhal’s vulnerability to climate change deserves attention.

SPECIAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SPECIES

Narwhals historically provided important staples in the traditional subsistence economy of the eastern Canadian Arctic and Greenland, and the hunt itself and the sharing of its proceeds continue to be of great nutritional, social and cultural significance for some communities (Brody 1976; Reeves 1992a, 1992b, 1993a; Remnant and Thomas 1992; Thomsen 1993; Reeves and Heide-Jørgensen 1994; Stewart et al. 1995; Gonzalez 2001; Richard 2001). The large quantities of edible skin (10%), meat (25%), and oil (30-35% blubber) could sustain people and dogs in good health for a relatively long period (Mansfield et al. 1975; Reeves 1992a, 1992b, 1993a). Sinews were used for sewing thread, skin for laces, and tusks for tent poles, walking sticks, and the manufacture of hunting implements.

Today narwhals are hunted mainly for their ivory and skin (known variously as maqtaq, maktaq, muktaaq, and muktuk); the meat is seldom eaten if other meat is available, but is fed to dogs (Reeves 1992a, 1992b, 1993a, 1993b; Stewart et al. 1995; Gonzalez 2001; Richard 2001). Maqtaq is a highly valued food that in addition to its protein and caloric value is rich in vitamin C, zinc, retinol, and other essential nutrients (Geraci and Smith 1979; Kinloch et al. 1992; Wagemann et al. 1996). It is consumed locally or traded to other Inuit communities (Reeves 1993a, 1993b). Inuit prefer the maqtaq from young (black) narwhals, but all maqtaq is eaten (Reeves 1992a).

The ivory tusk of males is a valuable economic commodity and an important source of cash income for some coastal communities (Reeves 1992a, 1992b; Gonzalez 2001). The international value of the tusk gives hunters a strong incentive to hunt males with large tusks. This can strongly influence the nature and intensity of the hunt. A ban on the importation of narwhal ivory by the European Economic Community (EEC) caused the price of narwhal ivory to plummet in 1983/84, but it has since recovered due to the strong demand for narwhal ivory in Japan. Market interventions and price instability have had serious ramifications for Inuit communities in the past and are likely to affect the cost and rewards of narwhal hunting in the future as well (Reeves 1992b).

Prices paid to Arctic Bay hunters for both maqtaq and ivory approximately doubled between 1975 and 1990 (Reeves 1992a, 1993a). This price surge appears to have been driven by export demand in Iqaluit, where local hunting cannot satisfy the demand for maqtaq, and by the willingness of Arctic Bay residents to buy maqtaq rather than rely on traditional caching and sharing arrangements. If it is correct to assume, as the Government of Canada has done, that narwhal hunting is primarily a food quest and that ivory is only a by-product (Yaremchuk and Wong 1989), then the demand for maqtaq may ultimately be a more critical factor when considering narwhal conservation (Reeves 1993b).

The narwhal also has special significance to the broader world community. Ecologically it is important as the only species in its’ genus, as a key link in the Arctic food chain between Arctic cod and humans or killer whales, and for its ability to inhabit frigid Arctic waters and dive to great depths. It generates avid public interest because of its unique “unicorn” tusk and remote habit, particularly as it has not been successfully displayed in captivity. Its tusk has also been used to make handicrafts and, in the orient, for traditional medicine.

EXISTING PROTECTION OR OTHER STATUS

Protection for narwhal in Canada is limited to measures that manage the hunt, live capture, and movement of narwhal products. As yet there are no Arctic marine parks or protected areas that protect narwhals in Canadian waters from hunting or other activities (F. Mercier, pers. comm. 2002). However, there are protected marine areas within the Nunavut National Parks, although they are not National Marine Conservation Areas. No protection exists outside of the parks, and no protected area (terrestrial or marine) prevents harvest by Inuit in the Nunavut Settlement area — where restrictions and quotas are established the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board under the Nunavut Land Claims Act. Visitor use of the National Parks is minimal, and there is no evidence that they are a threat to narwhal populations.

International trade in narwhal products is regulated by a number of laws and conventions. These include the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which is embodied in Canadian legislation (Bill C-42, the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act — WAPPRITA); the Marine Mammal Protection Act in the United States; and Council Regulation EC 338/97 in the European Union.

International organizations have been unable to determine the status of the narwhal using the data available.

Canadian harvest quotas and protection

Narwhal hunting in Canada is managed by the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board (NWMB), which is charged under Bill C-133 with making all decisions about wildlife management in Nunavut. The board consists of four Inuit and four Government representatives, plus a Chairperson. Canada’s Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), and the Hunters and Trappers organizations and the Regional Wildlife organizations are co-management partners. DFO advises the NWMB and hunting communities on sustainable hunting levels, who in turn use this information to manage community hunts (Richard and Pike 1993; DFO 1998a, 1998b).

Hunting regulations are implemented under the Fisheries Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Regulations by DFO. Under these regulations, only Inuit can hunt narwhals and there is a quota on the number of animals that can be harvested by each

community. These quotas were originally set through negotiation with the communities and based on historic harvesting levels (Strong 1988). Tags were allocated to hunters from the settlement quota to be attached to harvested animals. For many years, the hunters have requested changes to the management system for narwhals, with the result that community-based management of the hunt is now being tried at Repulse Bay, Pond Inlet, Qikiqtarjuaq (formerly Broughton Island), Arctic Bay and Kugaaruk (formerly Pelly Bay) (Table 2) (DFO1998a, 1998b; Gonzalez 2001).

Under the community-based management system, the quota has been lifted and the local Hunters and Trappers Organizations (HTOs) manage the hunt and have placed harvest limits in communities using a set of rules or by-laws (Gonzalez 2001). These rules are developed by the local HTO and address the conservation and management of the narwhal population, the reduction of waste, hunter education, and safety. The HTOs have also agreed to collect information on the number of narwhals wounded, killed, and not landed. In 1999, an unusually large harvest of 158 narwhals by Repulse Bay raised concerns about the effectiveness of community-based management. In 2002, the NWMB reduced the annual community harvest limit by Repulse Bay from 100 to 72 narwhals. While this limit is not likely to be taken every year, the potential remains for Repulse Bay to significantly increase its harvest from an average of 17.3 (range 3-35; SD 9.1) narwhals per year in the 20 years (1979-98) prior to the community-based management program (Table 1). This 3-year pilot program was reviewed in 2003 and and found to have not been long enough for assessment. It has been extended with a revised approach for a further 5 years, and an integrated management plan is being developed (M. Wheatley, pers. comm. 2003).

Protection for live-captured narwhals is afforded on largely moral rather than legal grounds unlike narwhal hunts and the trade in narwhal products, which are controlled by laws and conventions (Lien 1999). Notwithstanding the Marine Mammal Protection Regulations, the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board has the authority to approve or not approve live captures. Under the Marine Mammal Protection Regulations of the Fisheries Act, DFO has the authority to issue live capture permits. In practice, the department has not issued such a permit since 1987 (P. Hall, pers. comm. 2002). DFO can attach conditions to live-capture permits but it does not have enforcement authority for animals maintained in captivity (Lien 1999). Animal welfare is governed in Canada under Section 446 of the Criminal Code, which forbids imposing unnecessary suffering for animals and provides penalties for abuses. It does not provide for routine inspections of animal care or enforcement of maintenance standards. To fill these regulatory gaps, additions have been proposed to the Marine Mammal Regulations (Lien 1999). They include authorizations for clinical interventions and would require a holding permit for captive maintenance to be issued on an annual basis.

International trade and cooperation

Regulation of international trade in narwhal products began in 1972, when the US Marine Mammal Protection Act banned the importation of marine mammal products, including narwhal ivory, into the United States (Reeves 1992a, 1992b). In 1979, the

narwhal was listed in Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). This designation is reserved for species that could be threatened with extinction if trade is not controlled and monitored. It means that a CITES export permit is required for narwhal products that cross international boundaries. In Canada, these permits are administered by DFO, which manages narwhal under the Fisheries Act. CITES is embodied in Canadian legislation in Bill C-42 (1992), the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act (WAPPRITA) (Lien 1999).

In 1985, a proposal to list the narwhal in CITES Appendix I was defeated (Kingsley 1989; Yaremchuk and Wong 1989; Reeves 1992a, 1992b). Had it passed, the narwhal would have been designated as a species threatened with extinction and special permits would have been required from both the importing and exporting country. In 1984, the European Economic Community (EEC; Regulation 3626/82) required member countries to control commerce as if all cetaceans, including the narwhal, were on CITES Appendix I - despite the fact that they are not. This regulation, which effectively bans the importation of narwhal ivory, does not apply to products originating in Greenland (Reeves and Heide-Jørgensen 1994). In 1997, the European Union replaced it with Council Regulation EC 338/97, which maintains this stricter control of Canadian narwhal exports.

The narwhal is also listed under Appendix II of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS or Bonn Convention), which promotes international cooperation in the management of migratory species. Appendix II lists migratory species that require or would benefit significantly from international cooperative agreements under CMS. Canada cooperates with Greenland in the conservation of shared narwhal populations through participation in the Canada/Greenland Joint Commission on Conservation and Management of Narwhal and Beluga (JCNB).

Status designations

In 1996, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) assessed the population status of the narwhal (Hilton-Taylor 2000). It concluded that the threat of extinction could not be adequately assessed with the data available and listed narwhal in the data deficient (DD) category in The 2000 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.

In 2001, a joint meeting of scientific working groups from the JCNB and NAMMCO also concluded that existing information was insufficient to assess the status of narwhals in the Baffin Bay area (JCNB/NAMMCO 2001). While the overall population was not believed to face an immediate threat from unsustainable hunting, concern was expressed that some population units may be over-hunted. Focussed and intensive research efforts were recommended to improve knowledge of narwhals and thereby strengthen the basis for advice on the conservation and management of the species.

SUMMARY OF STATUS REPORT

Similar uncertainties exist for the Hudson Bay population, which likely numbers several thousand animals. Hunters from Repulse Bay may have removed between 5.2 and 6.7% of the Hudson Bay narwhal population in 1999, and 3.6 to 4.7% in 2001. This population is unlikely to support these rates of removal over the long term. Consequently, the annual harvesting limit for Repulse Bay was reduced in 2002 from 100 to 72 narwhals. An integrated management plan is being developed for the Hudson Bay population.

TECHNICAL SUMMARY

Monodon monoceros Narwhal Narval Baffin Bay & Hudson Bay Populations Range of Occurrence in Canada: Eastern Arctic

Extent and Area Information • Extent of occurrence (EO)(km²) Baffin Bay ~1,250,000 km² Hudson Bay ~250,000 km² • Specify trend in EO unknown • Are there extreme fluctuations in EO? unknown • Area of occupancy (AO) (km²) summer aggregations Baffin Bay ~60,000 km² Likely smaller more concentrated home ranges in summer Hudson Bay ~17,000 km² • Specify trend in AO unknown • Are there extreme fluctuations in AO? unknown • Number of known or inferred locations: are migratory & widespread many • Specify trend in # unknown • Are there extreme fluctuations in number of locations? no • Specify trend in area, extent or quality of habitat unknown Population Information • Generation time (average age of parents in the population) ~15 y • Number of mature individuals (~60% of total population) Baffin Bay 27,000 Hudson Bay 2,100 • Total population trend: unknown • % decline over last/next 10 years or 3 generations. – • Are there extreme fluctuations in number of mature individuals? no • Is the total population severely fragmented? no • Specify trend in number of populations – • Are there extreme fluctuations in number of populations? – • List populations with number of mature individuals in each – Threats (actual or imminent threats to populations or habitats) - Hunting: Numbers removed by hunting appear to have increased over the past decade from the Baffin Bay population, and since 1977 from the Hudson Bay population. Reliable information is not available for numbers that are killed and not landed. The ability of the population to sustain hunting is uncertain. Better knowledge of population size, movements and vital rates are needed. - Climate change: potential effects of reduced ice coverage are unknown, but may make narwhals more vulnerable to hunting and predation by killer whales. Rescue Effect (immigration from an outside source) • Status of outside population(s)? Greenland: unknown • Is immigration known or possible? possible • Would immigrants be adapted to survive in Canada? likely • Is there sufficient habitat for immigrants in Canada? likely • Is rescue from outside populations likely? unknown Quantitative Analysis None undertaken Current Status: Narwhal Not at Risk (COSEWIC, April 1987)

Status and Reasons for Designation

Status: Special Concern Alpha-numeric code: N/A Reasons for Designation: The Baffin Bay population appears to be large (~45,000), although there is uncertainty about numbers, trends, life history parameters, and levels of sustainable hunting. There is similar uncertainty about the much smaller Hudson Bay population (~2,100 mature individuals). Hunting for maktak and the commercially valuable tusk ivory represents the most consistent threat to narwhals. Potential effects of changes in ice coverage caused by climate trends are unknown. The Hudson Bay population could decline by 30% in 30 years if hunting is not closely regulated. Similarly, the Baffin Bay population could be affected if hunting in Greenland is not effectively managed. Numbers removed by hunting increased during the 1990s. Community-based management is monitoring hunting and is attempting to regulate removals. Reliable information about numbers that are killed and not recovered is difficult to obtain. Applicability of Criteria

Criterion A (Declining Total Population): The Baffin Bay population is large (~45,000 all ages), although the trend is not known. The Hudson Bay population numbers about 2,100 mature individuals, but there is considerable uncertainty about its trend, and levels of sustainable hunting are not known. The Hudson Bay population could decline by 30% over the next 30 years if hunting is not closely monitored and effectively regulated Criterion B (Small Distribution, and Decline or Fluctuation): Does not apply as the extent of occurrence for both populations is >20,000 km2 Criterion C (Small Total Population Size and Decline): Does not apply given that the number of mature individuals in the Baffin Bay population is >10,000. However, continued hunting at the 2002 level would cause the small Hudson Bay population to decline (Criterion C1, Threatened). Community-based management is monitoring the hunt and appears to be regulating removal levels in Canada. The Baffin Bay population, however, is also hunted in Greenland at levels that may not be sustainable. Criterion D (Very Small Population or Restricted Distribution): Both populations are >1,000, and their distributions are not restricted. Criterion E (Quantitative Analysis): No quantitative analysis has been undertaken.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Information and advice was gratefully received from Holly Cleator, Larry Dueck, Sue Cosens, Brigitte de March, Karen Ditz, Pat Hall, Lois Harwood, Derek Muir, Leesee Papatsie, Pierre Richard, Patrice Simon, Gary Stern, Sam Stevenson, Rob Stewart, Marg Treble, and Dennis Wright of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO); Peter Achuff of the Ecological Integrity Branch of Parks Canada; Randall Reeves of Okapi Wildlife Associates; Lesley White of the World Wildife Fund; Francine Mercier and Vicki Sahanatien of Parks Canada; Nicole Gougeon of the Hunting, Fishing and Trapping Committee; Ed McLean of the Fisheries Joint Management Committee; Josée Galipeau, Jim Noble and Michelle Wheatley of the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board (NWMB); Miriam Fleming of the Environment Committee of Sanikiluaq; Jonah Kilabuk of Iqaluit; Jon Lien of Memorial University; Suzanne Carrière of the Government of the Northwest Territories; Tom Dooley of the Government of Newfoundland/Labrador; and Michel Lepage of the Government of Quebec. Many others helped plan this work by participating in the initial teleconference on the inclusion of Traditional Knowledge that was organized by COSEWIC. Dale McGowan of DFO provided us with the narwhal drawing. Holly Cleator, Sue Cosens, Mike Hammill, Pierre Richard and Rob Stewart of DFO; Andrew Trites (Co-Chair) and members of the COSEWIC Marine Mammal Specialist Subcommittee; Michelle Wheatley of the NWMB; and Cecile Stewart of Arctic Biological Consultants provided constructive reviews of the manuscript.

Funding for the preparation of this status report provided by the Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada.

INFORMATION SOURCES

Arvy, L. 1978. Le Narval (Monodon monoceros L.). Acta Zoologica et Pathologica Antverpiensia 73: 43-118. [Translated to English in 1988. Available as Can. Transl. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 5342: iii + 89 p.] Bada, J.L., E. Mitchell, and B. Kemper. 1983. Aspartic acid racemization in narwhal teeth. Nature 303: 418-419. Barber, D.G. 1989. Narwhal distribution relative to thermal sea surface temperature boundaries. M.Sc. Thesis, Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba. vii + 70 p. Beck, B. and A.W. Mansfield. 1969. Observations on the Greenland shark, Somniosus microcephalus, in northern Baffin Island. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 26: 143-145. Best, R.C. and H.D. Fisher. 1974. Seasonal breeding of the narwhal (Monodon monoceros L.). Can. J. Zool. 52: 429-431. Born, E.W. 1986. Observations of the narwhal (Monodon monoceros) in the Thule area (NW Greenland), August 1984. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. 36: 387-392. Born, E.W., M.P. Heide-Jørgensen, F. Larsen, and A.R. Martin. 1994. Abundance and population composition of narwhals (Monodon monoceros) in Inglefield Bredning (NW Greenland). Medd. Grønl. Biosci. 39: 51-68.

Borup, G. 1911. A tenderfoot with Peary. Frederick A. Stokes Company, New York. 317 p. + map. Braham, H.W. 1984. Review of reproduction in the white whale, Delphinapterus leucas, narwhal, Monodon monoceros, and Irrawaddy dolphin, Orcaella brevirostris, with comments on population assessment. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. Spec. Iss. 6: 81-89. Brody, H. 1976. Inuit land use in northern Baffin Island and northern Foxe Basin, p. 153-172. In M.M.R. Freeman (ed.) Inuit land use and occupancy study, Vol. 1. Canada Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, Ottawa. Bruemmer, F. 1971. Notes on sea mammals - Thule District, Greenland, 1971. Unpublished MS, Montreal, Quebec. 29 typed pages. Campbell, R.R., P. Richard and J.T. Strong. 1986. COSEWIC status report on the narwhal Monodon monoceros in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 60 pp. Campbell, R.R., D.B. Yurick, and N.B. Snow. 1988. Predation on narwhals, Monodon monoceros, by killer whales, Orcinus orca, in the eastern Canadian Arctic. Can. Field-Nat. 102: 689-696. Cosens, S.E. and L.P. Dueck. 1988. Responses of migrating narwhal and beluga to icebreaker traffic at the Admiralty Inlet ice-edge, N.W.T., p. 39-54. In W.M. Sackinger and M.O. Jeffries (eds.) Port and ocean engineering under Arctic conditions, Vol. 2. University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska. Cosens, S.E. and L.P. Dueck. 1990. Spring sightings of narwhal and beluga calves in Lancaster Sound, N.W.T. Arctic 43: 127-128. Cosens, S.E. and L.P. Dueck. 1991. Group size and activity patterns of belugas (Delphinapterus leucas) and narwhals (Monodon monoceros) during spring migration in Lancaster Sound. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 69: 1630-1635. Cosens, S.E. and L.P. Dueck. 1993. Icebreaker noise in Lancaster Sound, N.W.T., Canada: implications for marine mammal behaviour. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 9: 285-300. Crawford, R.E. and J. Jorgenson. 1990. Density distribution of fish in the presence of whales at the Admiralty Inlet landfast ice edge. Arctic 43: 215-222. Davis, R.A., W.J. Richardson, S.R. Johnson, and W.E. Renaud. 1978. Status of the Lancaster Sound narwhal population in 1976. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. 28: 209-215. Degerbøl, M. and P. Freuchen. 1935. Mammals. Report of the Fifth Thule Expedition 1921-24. Gyldendalske Boghandel, Nordisk Forlag. 2(4-5): 1-278, Copenhagen. de March, B.G.E., L.D. Maiers, and D. Tenkula. 2001. A preliminary analysis of the molecular genetics of narwhal (Monodon monoceros) samples collected from Canadian and adjacent waters from 1982 to 2000. Canada/Greenland Joint Commission on the Management and Conservation of Narwhal and Beluga (JCNB), Scientific Working Group, Quqetarsuaq, Greenland, May 9-13, 2001. Document No. SWG-2001-10. de March, B.G.E., and G. Stern. 2003. Stock separation of narwhal (Monodon monoceros) in Canada based on organochlorine contaminants. Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Research Document 2003/079: 21 p.

de March, B.G.E., D.A. Tenkula, and L.D. Postma. 2003. Molecular genetics of narwhal (Monodon monoceros) from Canada and West Greenland (1982-2001). Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Research Document 2003/080: 23 p. DFO [Canada. Department of Fisheries and Oceans]. 1991. Annual summary of fish and marine mammal harvest data for the Northwest Territories, 1988-1989, Volume 1: v + 59 p. [Freshwater Institute, Central and Arctic Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3T 2N6]. DFO [Canada. Department of Fisheries and Oceans]. 1992a. Annual summary of fish and marine mammal harvest data for the Northwest Territories, 1989-1990, Volume 2: xiv + 61 p. [Freshwater Institute, Central and Arctic Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3T 2N6]. DFO [Canada. Department of Fisheries and Oceans]. 1992b. Annual summary of fish and marine mammal harvest data for the Northwest Territories, 1990-1991, Volume 3: xiv + 67 p. [Freshwater Institute, Central and Arctic Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3T 2N6]. DFO [Canada. Department of Fisheries and Oceans]. 1993. Annual summary of fish and marine mammal harvest data for the Northwest Territories, 1991-1992, Volume 4: xiv + 69 p. [Freshwater Institute, Central and Arctic Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3T 2N6]. DFO [Canada. Department of Fisheries and Oceans]. 1994. Annual summary of fish and marine mammal harvest data for the Northwest Territories, 1992-1993, Volume 5: xvii + 104 p. [Freshwater Institute, Central and Arctic Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3T 2N6]. DFO [Canada. Department of Fisheries and Oceans]. 1995. Annual summary of fish and marine mammal harvest data for the Northwest Territories, 1993-1994, Volume 6: xv + 86 p. [Freshwater Institute, Central and Arctic Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3T 2N6]. DFO [Canada. Department of Fisheries and Oceans]. 1996. Annual summary of fish and marine mammal harvest data for the Northwest Territories, 1994-1995, Volume 7: xiii + 85 p. [Freshwater Institute, Central and Arctic Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3T 2N6]. DFO [Canada. Department of Fisheries and Oceans]. 1997. Annual summary of fish and marine mammal harvest data for the Northwest Territories, 1995-1996, Volume 8: xii + 80 p. [Freshwater Institute, Central and Arctic Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3T 2N6]. DFO [Canada. Department of Fisheries and Oceans]. 1998a. Hudson Bay narwhal. Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Central and Arctic Region, DFO Sci. Stock Status Rep. E5-44: 5 p. DFO [Canada. Department of Fisheries and Oceans]. 1998b. Baffin Bay narwhal. Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Central and Arctic Region, DFO Sci. Stock Status Rep. E5-43: 5 p. DFO [Canada. Department of Fisheries and Oceans]. 1999. Annual summary of fish and marine mammal harvest data for the Northwest Territories, 1996-1997, Volume 9: xii+ 72 p. [Freshwater Institute, Central and Arctic Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3T 2N6].

Dietz, R. and M.P. Heide-Jørgensen. 1995. Movements and swimming speed of narwhals (Monodon monoceros ) equipped with satellite transmitters in Melville Bay, northwest Greenland. Can. J. Zool. 73: 2106-2119. Dietz, R., M.P. Heide-Jørgensen, E. Born, and C.M. Glahder. 1994. Occurrence of narwhals (Monodon monoceros) and white whales (Delphinapterus leucas) in East Greenland. Medd. Grønl. Biosci. 39: 69-86. Dietz, R., M.P. Heide-Jørgensen, P.R. Richard, and M. Acquarone. 2001. Summer and fall movements of narwhals (Monodon monoceros) from northeastern Baffin Island towards northern Davis Strait. Arctic 54: 244-261. Donaldson, J. 1988. The economic ecology of hunting, a case study of the Canadian Inuit. Ph.D. Thesis, department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. ix + 241 p. Dow, P.R. and M.J. Hollenberg. 1977. The tuskal pulp of the narwhal, Monodon monoceros. Oral Surg. 44: 135-146. Dueck, L. and R.R. Riewe. 1986. Distribution and abundance of narwhal (Monodon monoceros L.) in Admiralty Inlet 1983 - 1985. Final Progress Report for World Wildlife Fund Canada's "Whales Beneath the Ice" Project, prepared by Department of Zoology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba. 52 p. Dueck, L.P. 1989. The abundance of narwhal (Monodon monoceros L.) in Admiralty Inlet, Northwest Territories, Canada, and implications of behaviour for survey estimates. M.Sc. Thesis, Department of Zoology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba. viii + 82 p. Eales, N.B. 1950. The skull of the foetal narwhal, Monodon monoceros L. Royal Society of London Philosophical Transactions 235: 1-33. Fallis, B.W., W.E. Klenner, and J.B. Kemper. 1983. Narwhal surveys and associated marine mammal observations in Admiralty Inlet, Navy Board Inlet, and Eclipse Sound, Baffin Island, N.W.T., during 1974-1976. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1211: iv + 20 p. Finley, K.J. 1976. Studies of the status of marine mammals in the central District of Franklin: N.W.T. June-August, 1975. Unpublished report by LGL Limited, Toronto, ON for Polar Gas Project, Toronto, ON. xii + 183 p. Finley, K.J., R.A. Davis, and H.B. Silverman. 1980. Aspects of the narwhal hunt in the eastern Canadian Arctic . Rep. Int. Whaling Comm. 30: 459-464. Finley, K.J. and E.J. Gibb. 1982. Summer diet of the narwhal (Monodon monoceros) in Pond Inlet, northern Baffin Island. Can. J. Zool. 60: 3353-3363. Finley, K.J., C.R. Greene, and R.A. Davis. 1983. A study of ambient noise, ship noise, and the reactions of narwhals and belugas to the MV Arctic breaking ice in Admiralty Inlet N.W.T. In LGL Limited. 1986. Reactions of beluga whales and narwhals to ship traffic and ice-breaking along ice edges in the eastern Canadian Arctic. Canada Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, Environmental Studies No. 37: 108 p. Finley, K.J. and G.W. Miller. 1982. The 1979 hunt for narwhals (Monodon monoceros) and an examination of harpoon gun technology near Pond Inlet, northern Baffin Island. Rep. Int. Whaling Comm. 32: 449-460. Finley, K.J., G.W. Miller, R.A. Davis, and C.R. Greene. 1984. Responses of narwhals (Monodon monoceros) and belugas (Delphinapterus leucas) to ice-breaking ships

in Lancaster Sound - 1983. In LGL Limited. 1986. Reactions of beluga whales and narwhals to ship traffic and ice-breaking along ice edges in the eastern Canadian Arctic. Canada Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, Environmental Studies No. 37: xi + 117 p. Finley, K.J., G.W. Miller, R.A. Davis, and C.R. Greene. 1990. Reactions of belugas, Delphinapterus leucas, and narwhals, Monodon monoceros, to ice-breaking ships in the Canadian High Arctic, p. 97-117. In T. G. Smith, D.J. St Aubin, and J.R. Geraci (ed.) Advances in research on the beluga whale, Delphinapterus leucas. Can. Bull. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 224. Finley, K.J. and W.E. Renaud. 1980. Marine mammals inhabiting the Baffin Bay north water in winter. Arctic 33: 724-738. Fleming, M. (compiler). 2002. Voices from the Bay: a Hudson Bay traditional ecological knowledge and management systems summary report on narwhals. Unpublished report prepared for consideration in the update COSEWIC status report on narwhal. Sanikiluaq, Nunavut. 5 typed MS pages. Ford, J.K.B. and H.D. Fisher. 1978. Underwater acoustic signals of the narwhal (Monodon monoceros). Can. J. Zool. 56: 552-560. Ford, J. 1987. Sound under the ice. Waters 10: 20-24. Freuchen, P. and F. Salomonsen. 1958. The Arctic year. G.P. Putnam's Sons, New York. 438 p. Gamble, R.L. 1988. Native harvest of wildlife in the Keewatin Region, Northwest Territories for the period October 1985 to March 1986 and a summary for the entire period of the harvest study from October 1981 to March 1986. Can. Data Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 688: v + 85 p. Gaston, A.J. and H. Ouellet. 1997. Birds and mammals of Coats Island, N.W.T. Arctic 50: 101-118. Geist, O.W., J.L. Buckley, and R.H. Manville. 1960. Alaskan records of the narwhal. J. Mammal. 41: 250-253. Geraci, J.R. and T.G. Smith. 1979. Vitamin C in the diet of Inuit hunters from Holman, Northwest Territories. Arctic 32: 135-139. Gonzalez, N. 2001. Inuit traditional ecological knowledge of the Hudson Bay narwhal (Tuugaalik) population. Prepared for Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Iqaluit, Nunavut. 26 p. Greely, A.W. 1886. Natural history notes. Appendix VII, p. 359-371. In A.W. Greely Three years of Arctic service; an account of the Lady Franklin Bay Expedition of 1881-84 and the attainment of the farthest north. Vol. 2. Richard Bentley and Son, London. Greendale, R.G. and C. Brousseau-Greendale. 1976. Observations of marine mammal migrations at Cape Hay, Bylot Island, during the summer of 1976. Can. Fish. Mar. Serv. Tech. Rep. 680: 25 p. Guinn, B. and D.B. Stewart. 1988. Marine mammals of central Baffin Island, Northwest Territories. Lands Directorate of Environment Canada and Northern Environment Directorate of Indian and Northern Affairs, Northern Land Use Information Series, Background Report No. 6: ii + 65 p. + map.

Haller, A.A. 1967. A human geographical study of the hunting economy of Cumberland Sound, Baffin Island, N.W.T. M.A. thesis, McGill University, Montreal, PQ. ix + 162 leaves. Hansen, C.T., C.O. Nielsen, R. Dietz, and M.M. Hansen. 1990. Zinc, cadmium, mercury and selenium in minke whales, belugas, and narwhals from West Greenland. Polar. Biol. 10: 529-539. Hay, K. and R. McClung. 1976. Observations on beluga and narwhal in the Canadian high Arctic summer 1974. Can. Manuscr. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1385: 55 p. Hay, K. and D.E. Sergeant. 1976. Interim technical report Arctic whale project. Unpublished report prepared for Environmental-Social Program Northern Pipelines (Arctic Islands Pipeline) by Marine Sciences Centre, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec. ii + 41 p. Hay, K.A. 1980. Age determination of the narwhal, Monodon monoceros L. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. Spec. Iss. 3: 119-132. Hay, K.A. 1984. The life history of the narwhal (Monodon monoceros L.) in the eastern Canadian Arctic. Ph. D. Thesis, Institute of Oceanography, McGill University, Montreal, QC. xvi + 254 p. Hay, K.A. and A.W. Mansfield. 1989. Narwhal, Monodon monoceros Linnaeus, 1758, p. 145-176. In S.H. Ridgway and R.J. Richardson (ed.) Handbook of marine mammals, Vol. 4. River dolphins and the larger toothed whales. Academic Press, London, UK. Heide-Jørgensen, M.P. 1994. Distribution, exploitation and population status of white whales (Delphinapterus leucas) and narwhals (Monodon monoceros) in West Greenland. Medd. Grønl. Biosci. 39: 135-149. Heide-Jørgensen, M.P. and R. Dietz. 1995. Some characteristics of narwhal, Monodon monoceros, diving behaviour in Baffin Bay. Can. J. Zool.. 73: 2120-2132. Heide-Jørgensen, M.P., R. Dietz, K.L. Laidre, and P.R. Richard. 2002. Autumn movements, home ranges, and winter density of narwhals (Monodon monoceros) tagged in Tremblay Sound, Baffin Island. Polar Biol. 25: 331-341. Heide-Jørgensen, M.P., R. Dietz, K.L. Laidre, P.R. Richard, J. Orr, and H.C. Schmidt. 2003. The migratory behaviour of narwhals (Monodon monoceros). Can. J. Zool. 81: 1298-1305. Heide-Jørgensen, M.P., R. Dietz, and S. Leatherwood. 1994. A note on the diet of narwhals (Monodon monoceros) in Inglefield Bredning (NW Greenland). Medd. Grønl. Biosci. 39: 213-216. Heide-Jørgensen, M.P., N. Hammeken, R. Dietz, J. Orr, and P.R. Richard. 2001. Surfacing times and dive rates for narwhals (Monodon monoceros) and belugas (Delphinapterus leucas). Arctic 54: 284-298. Heide-Jørgensen, M.P., H. Lassen, J. Teilmann, and R.A. Davis. 1993. An index of the relative abundance of wintering belugas, Delphinapterus leucas, off West Greenland. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 50: 2323-2335. Higgins, G.M. 1968. South coast-Baffin Island: an area economic survey. Canada Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, Area Economic Survey Report 67/2: xvi + 234 p. Hilton-Taylor, C.C. 2000. 2000 IUCN red list of threatened species. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. xviii + 61 p.

Huey, L.M. 1952. An Alaskan record of the narwhal. J. Mammal. 33: 496. Innes, S., M.P. Heide-Jørgensen, J.L. Laake, K.L. Laidre, H.J. Cleator, P. Richard, and R.E.A. Stewart. 2002. Surveys of belugas and narwhals in the Canadian High Arctic in 1996. NAMMCO Sci. Publ. 4: 169-190. JCNB/NAMMCO. 2001. Final report of the Joint Meeting of the NAMMCO Scientific Committee Working Group on the Population Status of Narwhal and Beluga in the North Atlantic and the Canada/Greenland Joint Commission on Conservation and Management of Narwhal and Beluga Scientific Working Group, 9-13 May 2001, Qeqertarsuaq, Greenland. xxii + 78 p. Johnson, S.R., W.E. Renaud, R.A. Davis, and W.J. Richardson. 1976. Marine mammals recorded during aerial surveys of birds in eastern Lancaster Sound, 1976. LGL Limited, Toronto, ON, for Norlands Petroleums Limited, 180 p. Johnston, D.H. 1961. Marine mammal survey, Hudson Bay 1961. Ontario Department of Lands and Forests. Unpublished MS 32 p. Kemper, J.B. 1980. History of use of narwhal and beluga by Inuit in the Canadian eastern arctic including changes in hunting methods and regulations. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. 30: 481-492. Kingsley, M.C.S. 1989. Population dynamics of the narwhal Monodon monoceros: an initial evaluation (Odontoceti: Monodontidae). J. Zool. Lond. 219: 201-208. Kingsley, M.C.S. 1990. Polar bear attack on a juvenile narwhal. Fauna Norv. Ser. A 11: 57-58. Kingsley, M.C.S., H. Cleator, and M.A. Ramsay. 1994. Summer distribution and movements of narwhals (Monodon monoceros) in Eclipse Sound and adjacent waters, north Baffin Island, N.W.T. Medd. Grønl. Biosci. 39: 163-174. Kinloch, D., H. Kuhnlein, and D.C.G. Muir. 1992. Inuit foods and diet: a preliminary assessment of benefits and risks. Sci. Total Environ. 122: 247-278. Koski, W.R. 1980a. Distribution and migration of marine mammals in Baffin Bay and eastern Lancaster Sound, May-July 1979. Unpublished report by LGL Limited, Toronto, ON for Petro-Canada, Calgary, AB. xxxiv + 317 p. Koski, W.R. 1980b. Distribution of marine mammals in the Canadian central high Arctic, July - September 1979. Unpublished report by LGL Limited, Toronto, ON for Petro-Canada, Calgary, AB. 117 p. Koski, W.R. and R.A. Davis. 1980. Studies of the late summer distribution and fall migration of marine mammals in NW Baffin Bay and E. Lancaster Sound, 1979. Unpublished report by LGL Limited, Toronto, ON for Petro-Canada Explorations Inc., Calgary, AB. xxv + 214 p. Koski, W.R. and R.A. Davis. 1994. Distribution and numbers of narwhals (Monodon monoceros) in Baffin Bay and Davis Strait. Medd. Grønl. Biosci. 39: 15-40. Laidre, K.L., M.P. Heide-Jørgensen, and R. Dietz. 2002. Diving behaviour of narwhals (Monodon monoceros) at two coastal localities in the Canadian High Arctic. Can. J. Zool. 80: 624-635. Lien, J. 1999. An examination of the capture and the captive maintenance of marine mammals in Canada. Report to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, 31 March 1999, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Ottawa, ON. 167 p. (available from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, 200 Kent St., Ottawa, ON).

Mansfield, A.W., T.G. Smith, and B. Beck. 1975. The narwhal, Monodon monoceros, in eastern Canadian waters. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 32: 1041-1046. Martin, A.R., M.C.S. Kingsley, and M.A. Ramsay. 1994. Diving behaviour of narwhals (Monodon monoceros) on their summer grounds. Can. J. Zool. 72: 118-125. Maxwell, B. 1999. Responding to global climate change in Canada's Arctic, Vol. 2 of the Canada Country Study: Climate impacts and adaptations. Environment Canada, Downsview, ON. xxii + 82 p. McLaren, P.L. and R.A. Davis. 1982. Winter distribution of Arctic marine mammals in ice-covered waters of eastern North America. Report by LGL Limited, Toronto for Petro Canada Exploration Inc., Calgary, AB. xiii + 151 p. Mercer, M.C. 1973. Observations on distribution and intraspecific variation in pigmentation patterns of odontocete Cetacea in the western North Atlantic. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 30: 1111-1130. Miller, G.W. and R.A. Davis. 1984. Distribution and movements of narwhals and beluga whales in response to ship traffic at the Lancaster Sound ice edge - 1984. In LGL Limited. 1986. Reactions of beluga whales and narwhals to ship traffic and ice-breaking along ice edges in the eastern Canadian arctic. Canada Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, Environmental Studies No. 37: iv + 34 p. Miller, L.A., J. Pristed, B. Møhl, and A. Surlykke. 1995. The click-sounds of narwhals (Monodon monoceros) in Inglefield Bay, Northwest Greenland. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 11: 491-502. Mitchell, E. 1981. Canada progress report on cetacean research June 1979-May 1980. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. 31: 171-179. Mitchell, E. and R.R. Reeves. 1981. Catch history and cumulative catch estimates of initial population size of cetaceans in the eastern Canadian Arctic. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. 31: 645-682. Muir, D.C.G., C.A. Ford, N.P. Grift, R.E.A. Stewart, and T.F. Bidleman. 1992. Organochlorine contaminants in narwhal (Monodon monoceros) from the Canadian Arctic. Environ. Pollut. A 75: 307-316. Munn, H.T. 1932. Prairie trails and Arctic byways. Hurst and Blackett Ltd., London. 288 p. + 15 pls. Murray, B.W., S. Malik, and B.N. White. 1995. Sequence variation at the major histocompatibility complex locus DQ beta in beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas). Mol. Biol. Evol. 12: 582-593. Neve, P.B. 1995a. Life history of narwhals (Monodon monoceros) in West Greenland, Part II, p. 1-12. In P.B. Neve (ed). Narhvalen Monodon monoceros L. I Vest Grønland. Specialeafhandling ved Københavns Universitet. Neve, P.B. 1995b. Age estimation of the narwhal (Monodon monoceros) in West Greenland, Part I, p. 1-15. In P.B. Neve (ed). Narhvalen Monodon monoceros L. i Vest Grønland. Specialeafhandling ved Københavns Universitet. Nielsen, O., R.E.A. Stewart, L. Measures, P. Duignan, and C. House. 2000. A morbillivirus antibody survey of Atlantic walrus, narwhal and beluga in Canada. J. Wildl. Dis. 36: 508-517. Newman, M.A. 1970. Narwhals captured. Vancouver Public Aquarium Newsletter XIV: 1-3.

Palsbøll, P.J., M.P. Heide-Jørgensen, and R. Dietz. 1997. Genetic studies of narwhals, Monodon monoceros, from West and East Greenland. Heredity 78: 284-292. Parkinson, C.L. 2000. Variability of Arctic sea ice: the view from space, an 18-year record. Arctic 53: 341-358. Peary, R.E. 1907. Nearest the Pole. Doubleday, Page, and Company, New York. 411 p. + map. Porsild, M.P. 1922. Scattered observations on narwhals. J. Mammal. 41: 8-13. Read, C.J. and S.E. Stephansson. 1976. Distribution and migration routes of marine mammals in the central Arctic region. Can. Fish. Mar. Serv. Tech. Rep. 667: v + 13 p. Reeves, R.R. 1976. Narwhal: another endangered species. Can. Geographic 92: 12-19. Reeves, R.R. 1977. Hunt for the narwhal. Oceans 10: 50-57. Reeves, R.R. 1992a. What is a narwhal worth? An analysis of factors driving the narwhal hunt and a critique of tried approaches to hunt management for species conservation. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Geography, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec. xi + 326 p. Reeves, R.R. 1992b. Recent developments in the commerce in narwhal ivory from the Canadian Arctic. Arct. Alp. Res. 24: 179-187. Reeves, R.R. 1993a. The commerce of maktaq at Arctic Bay, northern Baffin Island. Arct. Anthropol. 30: 79-93. Reeves, R.R. 1993b. Domestic and international trade in narwhal products. Traffic Bulletin 14: 13-20. Reeves, R.R. and M.P. Heide-Jørgensen. 1994. Commercial aspects of the exploitation of narwhals (Monodon monoceros) in Greenland, with particular emphasis on tusk exports. Medd. Grønl. Biosci. 39: 119-134. Reeves, R.R. and E. Mitchell. 1987. Cetaceans of Canada. Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Communications Directorate, Underwater World 59: 27 p. Reeves, R.R. and E. Mitchell. 1988. Distribution and seasonality of killer whales in the eastern Canadian Arctic. Rit Fiskideildar 11: 136-160. Reeves, R.R. and S. Tracey. 1980. Monodon monoceros. Mamm. Species 127: 1-7 p. Remnant, R.A. and M.L. Thomas. 1992. Inuit traditional knowledge of the distribution and biology of high Arctic narwhal and beluga. Unpublished report by North/South Consultants Inc., Winnipeg. vii + 96 p. Richard, P. 1991. Abundance and distribution of narwhals (Monodon monoceros) in northern Hudson Bay. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 48: 276-283. Richard, P. 2001. Marine mammals of Nunavut. Department of Education, Iqaluit, Nunavut. 97 p. Richard, P., J.R. Orr, R. Dietz, and L. Dueck. 1998. Sightings of belugas and other marine mammals in the North Water, late March 1993. Arctic 51: 1-4. Richard, P.R., A.R. Martin and J.R. Orr. 2001. Summer and autumn movements of belugas of the Beaufort Sea region. Arctic 54: 223-236. Richard, P., and D. Pike. 1993. Small whale co-management in the eastern Canadian Arctic: a case history and analysis. Arctic 46: 138-143. Richard, P., P. Weaver, L. Dueck, and D. Barber. 1994. Distribution and numbers of Canadian High Arctic narwhals (Monodon monoceros) in August 1984. Medd. Grønl. Biosci. 39: 41-50.

Roberge, M.M. and J.B. Dunn. 1990. Assessment of the subsistence harvest and biology of narwhal (Monodon monoceros L.) from Admiralty Inlet, Baffin Island, N.W.T., 1983 and 1986-89. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1747: vi + 32 p. Roe, N.A. and W.J. Stephen. 1977. Narwhals (Monodon monoceros) observed near King Christian Island, Northwest Territories. Can. Field-Nat. 91: 309-310. Sergeant, D.E. 1981. On permissible exploitation rates of Monodontidae. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. 31: 583-588. Silverman, H.B. 1979. Social organization and behaviour of the narwhal, Monodon monoceros L. in Lancaster Sound, Pond Inlet, and Tremblay Sound, N.W.T. M.Sc. thesis, McGill University, Montreal, PQ. xi + 147 leaves. Smith, T.G. 1977. The occurrence of a narwhal (Monodon monoceros) in Prince Albert Sound, western Victoria Island, Northwest Territories. Can. Field-Nat. 91: 299. Smith, T.G., M.O. Hammill, D.J. Burrage, and G.A. Sleno. 1985. Distribution and abundance of belugas, Delphinapterus leucas, and narwhals, Monodon monoceros, in the Canadian High Arctic. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 42: 676-684. Smith, T.G. and B. Sjare. 1990. Predation of belugas and narwhals by polar bears in nearshore areas of the Canadian High Arctic. Arctic 43: 99-102. Steltner, H., S. Steltner, and D.E. Sergeant. 1984. Killer whales, Orcinus orca, prey on narwhals, Monodon monoceros: An eyewitness account. Can. Field-Nat. 98: 458-462. Stepney, P.H. and R.L. Wooley. 1976. Survey of marine mammals of Lancaster Sound, October 1975. Unpublished report by Renewable Resources Consulting Services Limited for Norlands Petroleums Limited, Calgary, AB. iv + 55 p. Stewart, D.B. 1994. A review of the status and harvests of fish, invertebrate, and marine mammal populations in the Nunavut Settlement Area. Can. Manuscr. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2262: iv + 98 p. Stewart, D.B. 2001. Inuit knowledge of belugas and narwhals in the Canadian eastern Arctic. Prepared by Arctic Biological Consultants, Winnipeg, MB for Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Iqaluit, Nunavut. iv + 32 p. Stewart, D.B., A. Akeeagok, R. Amarualik, S. Panipakutsuk, and A. Taqtu. 1995. Local knowledge of beluga and narwhal from four communities in Arctic Canada. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2065: viii + 48 p. + Appendices on disk. Stewart, D.B., L.M.J. Bernier, and M.J. Dunbar. 1991. Marine natural areas of Canadian significance in the Hudson Bay marine region. Unpublished report prepared by Arctic Biological Consultants, Winnipeg for the Canadian Parks Service, Ottawa, ON. vii + 241 p. Strong, J.T. 1987. Update COSEWIC status report on the narwhal Monodon monoceros in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 25 pp. Strong, J.T. 1988. Status of the narwhal, Monodon monoceros, in Canada. Can. Field- Nat. 102: 391-398. Strong, J.T. 1989. Reported harvests of narwhal, beluga and walrus in the Northwest Territories, 1948-1987. Can. Data Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 734: iv + 14 p. Sutton, G.M. and W.J. Hamilton. 1932. The mammals of Southampton Island. Mem. Carnegie Mus. XII(Pt. II, Sec. I): 1-111.

SWG. 1997. Narwhal. Status report for Scientific Working Group Canada-Greenland Joint Commission for the Conservation and Management of Beluga and Narwhal, Appendix 6. In The Sixth meeting of the Canada/Greenland Joint Commission on Conservation and Management of Narwhal and Beluga, Iqaluit, Northwest Territories, November 28 to December 1, 1997. Thomsen, M.L. 1993. Local knowledge of the distribution, biology, and hunting of beluga and narwhal: a survey among Inuit hunters in West and North Greenland. Report for Greenland Hunters' and Fishermans' Association, Greenland Home Rule Authorities and Inuit Circumpolar Conference, Nuuk, Greenland. ix + 98 p. + 7 appendices. Tomilin, A.G. 1957. Mammals of the U.S.S.R. and adjacent countries. Vol. IX. Cetacea. Israel Program for Scientific Translations (Translated from Russian to English in 1967). 717 p, Jerusalem. Topolniski, D.E. 1993. Financial and economic analysis of the 1986-1990 exploratory fisheries for turbot and scallops in Cumberland Sound, Baffin Island. Econ. Commer. Anal. Rep. 135: v + 63 p. Treble, M.A. 1999. Exploratory fishery results for Greenland halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides) in NAFO Division 0A, 1996-98. Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) SCR Doc. 99/45: 12 p. (Serial No. N4104). Treble, M.A. and R. Bowering. 2002. The Greenland halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides) fishery in NAFO Division 0A. Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) SCR Doc. 02/46: 9 p. (Serial No. N4658). Tuck, L.M. 1957. Wildlife investigations in the Cape Hay region, Lancaster Sound, 1957. Unpubl. Canadian Wildlife Service Rep. No. 760: 36 p. + plates. Turl, C.W. 1987. Winter sightings of marine mammals in Arctic pack ice. Arctic 40: 219-220. Tynan, C.T. and D.P. DeMaster. 1997. Observations and predictions of Arctic climatic change: potential effects on marine mammals. Arctic 50: 308-322. Vibe, C. 1950. The marine mammals and the marine fauna in the Thule District (northwest Greenland) with observations on ice conditions in 1939-41. Medd. Grønl. 150: 154 p. Vibe, C. 1967. Arctic animals in relation to climatic fluctuations. Medd. Grønl. 170: 227 p. Wagemann, R., S. Innes, and P.R. Richard. 1996. Overview and regional and temporal differences of heavy metals in arctic whales and ringed seals in the Canadian arctic. Sci. Total Environ. 186: 41-66. Wagemann, R., N.B. Snow, A. Lutz, and D.P. Scott. 1983. Heavy metals in tissues and organs of the narwhal (Monodon monoceros). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 40 (Suppl. 2): 206-214. Wagemann, R., E. Trebacz, G. Boila, and W.L. Lockhart. 1998. Methylmercury and total mercury in tissues of arctic marine mammals. Sci. Total Environ. 218: 19-31. Welch, H.E., R.E. Crawford, and H. Hop. 1993. Occurrence of Arctic cod (Boreogadus saida) schools and their vulnerability to predation in the Canadian High Arctic. Arctic 46: 331-339.

Weaver, P.A. and R.S. Walker. 1988. The narwhal (Monodon monoceros L.) harvest in Pond Inlet, Northwest Territories: hunt documentation and biological sampling, 1982-1983. Can. Manuscr. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1975: iv + 26 p. Yaremchuk, G.C.B. and B. Wong. 1989. Issues in the management of marine mammals in the Northwest Territories and Yukon North Slope. Can. Manuscr. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2009: v + 10 p.

BIOGRAPHICAL SUMMARY OF REPORT WRITER

D. Bruce Stewart, M.Sc., is a zoologist with training in ecology and physiology. From 1977-86, he planned and conducted baseline research on aquatic resources throughout the NWT and Nunavut for the Northern Land Use Information Series (NLUIS) Mapping Program. He has worked with Inuit on the land to study anadromous Arctic charr populations and in the communities to compile traditional knowledge of the distribution and biology of narwhals and belugas in the Canadian eastern Arctic. As Head of Arctic Biological Consultants, Bruce has provided expert advice on aquatic resources, parks initiatives, and resource developments to government, industry, and native organizations. This work has included preparation of a comprehensive fishery development strategy for the Canadian Beaufort Sea/Amundsen Gulf area for the Inuvialuit; reviews of information on fish populations and harvests in the Nunavut, Sahtu Dene and Metis, Gwich'in, North Slave, South Slave and Deh Cho settlement areas for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO); and studies that recommend areas for consideration as new National Marine Parks in Hudson Bay and James Bay. In 1991-93, the Ministers of the Environment for Canada and Manitoba appointed Bruce to a six-member panel charged with conducting a public review of the potential environmental effects of the $5.7 billion Conawapa hydroelectric development proposed by Manitoba Hydro. He has also assessed the potential impacts of the Nanisivik Mine and the Diavik and Jericho diamond projects on the aquatic environment, and is currently working on an overview of the Hudson Bay marine ecosystem for DFO and the Atlantic walrus update for COSEWIC. Bruce has written over 60 scientific publications and reports, published popular articles and photographs in Canadian Geographic and The Beaver, and lectured on the Arctic to a wide variety of audiences.

PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS/AUTHORITIES CONTACTED

Carrière, S. May 2002. Ecosystem Management Biologist, Wildlife and Fisheries, Department of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development, Government of the Northwest Territories, Yellowknife, NT Ditz, K. May 2002. Fisheries Management Biologist, Eastern Arctic Area, Fisheries & Oceans Canada, Iqaluit, Nunavut. Dooley, T. May 2002. A/Resource Policy Director, Department of Fisheries and Policy Planning, Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, Government of Newfoundland/Labrador, St. John’s NF.

Fleming, M. January-July 2002. Secretary, Environmental Committee, Municipality of Sanikiluaq, General Delivery, Sanikiluaq, Nunavut. Gougeon, N. May 2002, Secretary-Treasurer, Hunting, Fishing and Trapping Coordinating Committee, Montreal, Quebec. Goulet, G. December 2001-May 2002. Coordinator Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge, COSEWIC Secretariat, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, Ottawa. Hall, P. July 2002. Fisheries Management Coordinator, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Fisheries Management Program, Winnipeg, MB. Han, S-L. May 2002. Manager, Wildlife Research, Nunavut Wildlife Service, Department of Sustainable Development, Iqaluit, Nunavut. Harwood, L. May 2002. Biologist, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Yellowknife, Northwest Territories. Kilabuk, J. July 2002. Pangnirtung, Nunavut. Lepage, M. May 2002. Coordonnateur des espèces menaces, Societé de la faune et des parcs du Québec, Direction du développement de la faune, Québec, Québec. Lien, J. May 2002. Honourary Research Professor, Biopsychology Programme and Ocean Sciences Centre, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Newfoundland. McLean, E. May 2002. Resource Biologist, Fisheries Joint Management Committee, Joint Secretariat- Inuvialuit Renewable Resources Committees, Inuvik, NT. Mercier, F. July 2002. Senior Planner, Marine Studies, Park Establishment Branch, National Parks Directorate, Parks Canada, Hull, QC. Noble, J. March 2001, May 2002. Executive Director, Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, Iqaluit, Nunavut. Papatsie, L. December 2001. Fisheries Management Technician, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Eastern Arctic Area Office, Iqaluit, Nunavut. Pattimore, J. 1986. formerly Harvest Coordinator, Baffin Region Inuit Association, Iqaluit, Nunavut. Reeves, R. May 2002. OKAPI Wildlife Associates, Hudson, Quebec. Richard, P. February-August 2002. Research Scientist, Arctic Research Division, Fisheries & Oceans, Winnipeg, MB. Sahanatien, V. May 2002. Ecosystem Secretariat Manager, Parks Canada - Nunavut Field Unit, Iqaluit, NU. Simon, P. May 2002. Advisor, Northern Fish and Marine Mammals, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Fisheries Research Branch, Ottawa, Ontario. Stern, G. May 2002. Contaminants Research Scientist and Section Head, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Winnipeg, MB. Stewart, R. August 2002. Research Scientist, Marine Mammal Productivity, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Winnipeg, MB. Treble, M. July 2002. Marine Fisheries Biologist, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Winnipeg, MB. Wheatley, M. August 2003. Director of Wildlife Management, Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, Iqaluit, Nunavut. White, L. May 2002, World Wildlife Fund Canada, Toronto, ON. Wright, D. July 2002. Coordinator, Environmental Affairs, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Oceans Program, Winnipeg, MB.

50 ITEM 5 - Integrated Fisheries Management Plan for Narwhal in the Nunavut Settlement Area DFO-06

3/2/2021 The Government of Canada supports a global ban on heavy fuel oil in the Arctic - Canada.ca

Canada.ca > Transport Canada

The Government of Canada supports a global ban on heavy fuel oil in the Arctic

From: Transport Canada

News release

February 18, 2020 Ottawa Transport Canada and Global Affairs Canada

The Government of Canada takes the protection of the Arctic very seriously, and continues to work with Member States at the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to find ways to reduce the environmental impacts of increased marine shipping in the North. Balancing environmental needs and economic impacts are a priority for the Government of Canada.

Today, the Minister of Transport, the Honourable Marc Garneau, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, announced the Government of Canada’s support for a ban on heavy fuel oil in Arctic waters. Ministers also announced they will be seeking a phased-in approach to the ban as Canada discusses with IMO countries ways to help balance the environmental benefits with the economic realities of northern, Indigenous and Inuit communities.

Transport Canada has conducted a domestic impact assessment of the proposed heavy fuel oil ban in the Arctic, based on the methodology agreed upon at an IMO committee meeting in February 2019. The impact assessment is available on the Let’s talk marine fuel in the Arctic webpage. Visitors to this

https://www.canada.ca/en/transport-canada/news/2020/02/the-government-of-canada-supports-a-global-ban-on-heavy-fuel-oil-in-the-arctic.html 1/4 3/2/2021 The Government of Canada supports a global ban on heavy fuel oil in the Arctic - Canada.ca website are invited to have their say on how Canada can best reduce the environmental, economic and social risks associated with the use of heavy fuel oil in the Arctic.

Transport Canada held, and continues to hold, consultations with Indigenous and Inuit communities, industry, environmental non-governmental organizations, provincial/territorial governments and other federal government departments about the use of heavy fuel oil in the Arctic.

Quotes

“Canada is proud to play a leadership role at the International Maritime Organization by supporting this ban and is committed to continue working with other countries, northern residents and marine stakeholders to help reduce economic impacts on northern communities.”

The Honourable Marc Garneau Minister of Transport

“As an active member of the International Maritime Organization and consistent with Canada’s Arctic and Northern Policy Framework, we are supporting international cooperation to manage the potential environmental risks associated with Arctic shipping while ensuring support for Canada’s Northern communities.”

The Honourable François-Philippe Champagne Minister of Foreign affairs

Quick facts https://www.canada.ca/en/transport-canada/news/2020/02/the-government-of-canada-supports-a-global-ban-on-heavy-fuel-oil-in-the-arctic.html 2/4 3/2/2021 The Government of Canada supports a global ban on heavy fuel oil in the Arctic - Canada.ca Communities in the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, part of northern Quebec, Labrador, and part of Northern Manitoba could either be directly or indirectly affected by a heavy fuel oil ban in the Arctic. The majority of the population in these communities are Indigenous, primarily Inuit, Innu, and Cree.

Heavy fuel oil is a generic term used to describe lower-cost fuels with a high viscosity and density that remains in the environment for a long time should a ship-source oil spill occur.

As heavy fuel oil does not evaporate as quickly as other fuels, it is more likely to be trapped in ice, which can make recovery very difficult.

Heavy fuel oil is generally used by bulk carriers serving mines, general cargo vessels, and tankers servicing communities.

The Pollution Prevention and Response (PPR) Sub-Committee of the IMO is meeting February17- 21, 20 in London, England.

Associated links Let’s talk marine fuel in the Arctic

International Maritime Organization’s Sub-Committee on Pollution Prevention and Response (PPR)

Contacts Amy Butcher Director of Communications Office of the Honourable Marc Garneau

https://www.canada.ca/en/transport-canada/news/2020/02/the-government-of-canada-supports-a-global-ban-on-heavy-fuel-oil-in-the-arctic.html 3/4 3/2/2021 The Government of Canada supports a global ban on heavy fuel oil in the Arctic - Canada.ca Minister of Transport, Ottawa 613-991-0700

Media Relations Transport Canada, Ottawa 613-993-0055 [email protected]

Syrine Khoury Press Secretary Office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs [email protected]

Media Relations Office Global Affairs Canada 343-203-7700 [email protected]

Date modified: 2020-02-18

https://www.canada.ca/en/transport-canada/news/2020/02/the-government-of-canada-supports-a-global-ban-on-heavy-fuel-oil-in-the-arctic.html 4/4 ITEM 9 - Dr. Gordon Anderson list of Recent Publications HPI-05