ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔩᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᑦ ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᖅᑎᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ ᐋᕿᒃᓯᒪᔭᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦᒥ ᓄᓇᑖᕈᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᖏᕈᑎᑎᒍᑦ

1. ᓄᓇᕗᑦᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔩᑦᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᑦᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᖅᑎᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦᐋᕿᒃᓯᒪᔭᑦᓄᓇᕗᑦᒥᓄᓇᑖᕈᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦᐊᖏᕈᑎᑎᒍᑦᓄᓇᕗᑦᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔩᑦᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᑦᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᖅᑎᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦᐋᕿᒃᓯᒪᔭᑦᓄᓇᕗᑦᒥᓄᓇᑖᕈᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦᐊᖏᕈᑎᑎᒍᑦ ᐅᑯᐊ ᑭᒃᑯᓕᒫᓄᑦ ᑐᓴᒐᒃᓴᑦ - ᖃᒪᓂᖅᑐᐊᒥ ᐊᐳᖅᑎᕐᓈᖅᑐᒨᖓᔪᑦ 12.8.2 - ᒫᕐᓯ 2009-ᒥ

2. The Nunavut Impact Review BoardAn Institution of Public Government created by the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Baker Lake Public Information Session Meadowbank 12.8.2, March 2009

3. ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᐅᓂᑳᖃᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ • ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᖕᒪᑕ ᓄᓇᕗᑦᒥ ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔩᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦ? • ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔩᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᐳᖅᑎᓈᖅᑐᒨᖓᔪᒥᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᕕᒃᓴᒥᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᖓᓕᒫᖅ ᐊᖁᑎᒃᓴᒨᖓᔪᒥᒃ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᕆᔭᒥᒃ • ᐊᐳᖅᑎᓈᖅᑐᒥ ᐱᓕᕆᕕᒃᓴᒧᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᒃᑯᑕᖅᑖᕈᑎᒃᓴᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᒪᓕᒃᑕᐅᖁᔭᑦ 32 • ᑐᒃᓯᕋᖅᑕᑦ ᖃᓄᖅᑑᕈᑕᐅᒃᑲᓐᓂᖁᔭᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᕕᒃᓴᒧᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᒃᑯᑕᖅᑖᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᒃᓴᑦ • ᓄᓇᕗᑦᒥ ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔩᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᑎᑦᓯᓛᖅᑐᑦ ᐄᐳᕈᒥ

4. Outline of Presentation • What is the NIRB? • The NIRB’s Review of the Meadowbank Project and the All Weather Private Access Road • The Meadowbank Project Certificate and Condition 32 • Request for a Reconsideration of the Project Certificate • The NIRB’s Public Hearing in April

5. ᓄᓇᕗᑦᒥ ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔩᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦᑕ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᕆᒋᐊᓕᖏᑦᑕ ᑐᑭᖏᑦ: “ᓴᐳᔾᔨᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᕚᓪᓕᖅᑎᑦᓯᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᑑᑎᓂᓕᖕᓂᒃ ᒪᑭᒪᑦᓯᐊᕈᑎᒃᓴᓂᒃ ᐊᕙᑖᓅᖓᔪᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓄᓇᕗᑦᒥᐅᓅᖓᔪᓄᑦ ᐊᒃᑐᐃᓂᐊᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᒍᑎᓂᒃ ᐱᖁᔭᖅᑎᒍᑦ”

6. NIRB’s Mission Statement: “To protect and promote the well-being of the Environment and Nunavummiut through the Impact Assessment Process”

7. ᖃᓄᕐᓕ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔩᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖃᓲᖑᒻᒪᑕ?ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔩᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦ ᐊᒃᑐᐃᓂᐊᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓲᑦ

8. What does NIRB do?NIRB = Impact Assessment

9. ᐊᕙᑕᓃᑦᑐᓕᒫᑦ ᐊᒃᑐᖅᑕᐅᔪᑦ

10. Environmental Impacts

11. ᐃᓅᓯᕆᔭᓅᖓᔪᑦ - ᑮᓇᐅᔾᔭᒃᓴᐅᑎᒃᓴᓄᓪᓗ

12. Socio-Economic Impacts

13. ᐊᑕᐅᑦᓯᒃᑰᓚᔪᑦ ᓱᕐᕋᐃᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᕖᑦ

14. Cumulative Impacts

15. ᓯᕗᓪᓕᕐᒥ ᐅᔾᔨᖅᑑᑕᐅᔪᔪᑦ (ᑕᐃᔭᐅᓲᑦ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓂᕐᒥᒃ) ᑲᔪᓯᒍᑎᒃᓴᑦ ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᖃᑕᐅᓗᑎᒃ ᐱᒃᑲᓐᓂᕆᐊᓖᑦ ᑐᓴᒐᒃᓴᑲᓐᓂᕐᓂᒃ ᑲᔪᓯᒋᐊᖃᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦᒥ ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔩᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦᑕᕿᒥᕐᕈᒍᑎᖏᑦ ᐃᓚᖓᓂ Sec. 12.4.4 ᓄᓇᕗᑦᒥ ᓄᓇᑖᕈᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᖏᕈᑎᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᕈᑎᖃᕝᕕᖏᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦᒥ ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔩᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦᑕ ᐅᑯᑎᒎᓇ ᓇᓪᓕᐊᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅ ᓯᑕᒪᓃᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᐊᑑᑎᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᑭᖑᕐᖓᒍᑦ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓚᐅᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᕕᒃᓴᒨᖓᔪᓂᒃ ᐅᕝᕙᓗᑭᐊᖅ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᓯᒍᑎᒃᓴᓂᒃ

16. NIRB Assessment Process Section 12.4.4 of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement gives NIRB these four options after assessing a project or activity

17. ᖃᓄᕐᓕ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓂᖅ ᑐᑭᖃᒻᒪᑦ? ᕿᒥᕐᕈᔭᑦ ᐱᑕᖃᓐᓂᖅᓴᑦ ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔾᔪᑎᒃᑯᑦ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᒍᑎᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᕕᒃᓴᒨᖓᔪᓂᒃ

18. What is a Review? A Review is a more detailed environmental assessment of the Project

19. ᖃᖓᓕ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᔭᐅᔪᖃᓕᕋᐃᒻᒪᑦ ᐊᑑᑕᐅᓲᖑᕙᑦ? ᐱᑕᖃᓕᕋᐃᒻᒪᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᕕᒃᓴᒨᖓᓛᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᓱᕐᕋᐃᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᓕᖕᓂᒃ ᒪᑯᓂᖓ: • ᐱᑕᖃᓕᕋᐃᒻᒪᑦ ᐃᓱᒫᓗᒋᔭᖃᕝᕕᐅᓪᓚᕆᒃᑐᓂᒃ ᑭᒃᑯᓕᒫᓄᑦ • ᓄᑖᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᔾᔪᑎᑦ ᐊᑑᑕᐅᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᓱᕐᕋᐃᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᐅᖏᑦᑐᓂᒃ

20. When is a Review Required? When the project involves potential significant effects on: • Significant public concern • New technology for which the effects are unknown

21. ᓄᓇᕗᑦᒥ ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔩᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦ ᐃᓚᖓᓅᔪᒥᒃ5-ᑯᑦ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᒍᑎᖏᑦ ᒪᑯᐊ ᓄᓇᕗᑦᒥ ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔩᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᒐᒃᓴᑦ ᖃᓄᖅᑑᕈᑎᒋᓲᖏᑦ 12.4.4 (b) ᓄᓇᕗᑦᒥ ᓄᓇᑖᕈᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᖏᕈᑎᑎᒍᑦ ᑭᖑᓪᓕᖅᐹᑦ ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔾᔪᑎᑦ ᑐᑭᖏᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᔾᔪᑎᓂᒃ ᐱᖁᔭᖅᑎᒍᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᓂᒃ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓂᖅ ᑎᑎᕋᕆᐊᖓᖅᓯᒪᔭᑦ ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆ- ᔾᔪᑎᑦ ᑐᑭᖏᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᔾᔪᑎᒃᓴᓂᒃ ᐱᖁᔭᖅᑎᒍᑦ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓂᖅ ᒥᓂᔅᑕᐅᑉ ᐊᑑᑕᐅᖁᔭᖏᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᒨᖓᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᖓᒍᑦ 5-ᑯᑦ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᒍᑎᑦ ᑭᖑᓪᓕᖅᐹᒥᒃ ᑲᑎᒪᑎᑦᓯᓂᖅ ᐱᓕᕆᔾᔪᑎᒃᓴᓂᒃ ᐱᖁᔭᖅᑎᒍᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔾᔪᑎᖃᕐᓂᖅ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᓖᑦ ᐊᑑᑕᐅᓛᕈᒪᔪᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᕗᑦᒥ ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔩᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦᑕ ᖃᓄᖅᑑᕈᑎᖏᑦ (ᑐᓴᒐᒃᓴᑦ ᑐᓴᖅᑕᐅᑎᑕᖏᑦ ᒥᓂᔅᑕᒧᑦ) ᒪᓕᒃᑕᐅᒋᐊᓖᑦ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᓯᒍᑎᒃᓴᑦ ᓯᕗᓪᓕᖅᐹᒥ ᑲᑎᒪᑎᑦᓯᓂᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓄᓇᕗᑦᒥ ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔩᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦᑕ ᖃᓄᖅᑑᕈᑎᖏᑦ ᒥᓂᔅᑕᐅᑉ ᖃᓄᖅᑑᕈᑎᖏᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦᒥ ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔩᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦ ᐱᔪᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᕆᐊᖓᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔾᔪᑎᑦ ᑐᑭᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᕗᑦᒥ ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔩᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦ ᐱᔪᑦ ᑭᖑᓪᓕᖅᐹᖅᓯᐅᑎᓂᒃ ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔾᔪᑎᓅᖓᔪᑦ ᑐᑭᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᕗᑦᒥ ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔩᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦᑕ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖏᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᒧᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᒃᑯᑕᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑲᑎᒪᑎᑦᓯᒍᑎ- ᖏᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᓕᕆᔾᔪᑎᓅᖓᔪᓂᒃ ᐊᖏᕈᑎᓂᒃ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓂᖅ ᓄᓇᕗᑦᒥ ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔩᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦᑕ ᐱᓕᕆᕕᐊᑕ ᐃᓗᐊᒍᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᔾᔪᑎᑦ ᐊᖏᕈᑎᑎᒍᑦᕿᒥᕐᕈᔪᑦ ᓯᕗᓪᓕᐹᓂᒃ ᑲᑎᒪᔾᔪᑎᓂᒃ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓂᖅ ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔪᑎᓅᖓᔪᓂᒃ ᕿᒥᕐᕈ- ᓂᖅ ᑭᖑᕐᖓᒍᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᕕᒃ ᒪᑐᓯᒪᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ

22. NIRB screening decision 12.4.4 (b) NLCA NIRB Part 5 Review Flow Chart FEIS Technical Review DEIS Technical Review Minister refers project To Part 5 Review Final Hearing Technical Meeting Issue Scoping NIRB’s Decision (Report to the Minister) Guideline development Pre-Hearing Conference & NIRB Decision Minister’s Decision NIRB receives DEIS NIRB receives FEIS NIRB issues a Project Certificate & holds a regulators meeting Conformity Review NIRB internal Conformity Review to PHC decision EA Post-Mortem

23. Break Time!

24. ᑭᓱᓂᒃ ᐅᕙᓃᒍᑎᖃᑉᐱᑖ ᐅᑉᓗᒥ? • ᐅᕙᓃᒍᑎᕗᑦ ᒫᓐᓇ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓯᓐᓇᑕᑦᓯᓐᓂᒃ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᕋᑦᑕ ᐱᖓᓱᓂᒃ ᒪᑯᓄᓄᖓᖓᔪᓂᒃ: • ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔩᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒥᒍᑦ ᐊᖏᓲᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᕕᒃᓴᐅᔪᒪᔪᓂᒃ • ᕼᒻᒪᓚᒃᑯᑦ ᖃᒪᓂᖅᑐᐊᒥ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ Agnico-Eagle-ᑯᑦ ᑐᒃᓯᕋᖅᓯᒪᖕᒪᑕ ᐋᕿᒋᐊᖁᔨᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᐳᖅᑎᓈᖅᑐᒥ ᐱᓕᕆᔾᔪᑎᒃᓴᒥᒃ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᒃᑯᑕᕐᒥᒃ • ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓚᐅᒍᑎᒋᔪᓐᓇᖅᑕᓯ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔩᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᑎᑦᓯᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓄᖕᓂᒃ

25. Why are we here today? We are here to ensure you are aware of the following three things: • The NIRB’s role in the approval of projects • The Hamlet of Baker Lake and Agnico-Eagle requests to amend the Meadowbank Project Certificate • How you can be involved with the NIRB’s Public Hearing Process

26. ᐊᑑᑕᐅᕙᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᕕᖕᒨᖓᔪᑦ • ᐊᐳᖅᑎᓈᖅᑐᒥ ᒎᓕᓂᒃ ᐅᔭᕋᒃᑕᕆᐊᓄᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᕕᐊᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᖓᓕᒫᖅ ᐊᖁᑎᒃᓴᓕᕆᔪᑦ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᕆᔭᒥᒃ • ᐅᔭᕋᓐᓂᐊᖅᕕᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓯᖃᓪᓖᕕᖕᒥ ᐱᓕᕆᕖᑦ ᐅᖓᓯᖕᓂᓕᒃ 75 km ᑲᓚᒦᑕᓂᒃ ᑲᓇᖕᓇᖓᓃᑦᑐᖅ ᖃᒪᓂᖅᑐᐊᕐᒥᐅᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᖓᑦᑕ • ᐅᖓᓯᖕᓂᓕᒃ 115 km ᑲᓛᒦᑕᑦ ᐊᖁᑎᒃᓴᑎᓴᖅ ᖃᒪᓂᖅᑐᐊᒥᒃ ᐊᐳᖅᑎᓈᖅᑐᒧᑦ • ᐃᓂᒃᓴᖓᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓂᐅᕋᐃᕕᐅᖃᑦᑕᓛᖅᑐᖅ ᓄᓇᒥ ᐃᓚᒋᔭᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐅᖅᓱᐊᓗᒃᑯᕕᒃᓴᖅ ᕼᒻᒪᓚᒃᑯᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᖃᒪᓂᖅᑐᐊᑉ • ᐊᐳᖅᑎᓈᖅᑐᒨᖓᔪᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᕕᒃᓴᒥᒃ ᑐᒃᓯᕋᐅᑏᑦ ᓇᑦᓯᐅᔾᔭᐅᔪᔪᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦᒥ ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔩᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᓐᓄᑦ 2003-ᒥ • ᐅᕙᓂ 2004-ᒥ, ᒥᓂᔅᑕᖓᑦ ᐃᓄᓕᕆᔨᑐᖃᒃᑯᑦ (ᐋᓐᑎ ᓯᑳᑦ) ᓇᑦᓯᐅᔾᔨᔪᔪᖅ ᐱᓕᕆᕕᒃᒧᑦ ᐊᑑᑕᐅᖁᔨᓪᓗᓂ ᐃᓚᖓᓅᖓᔪᑦ 5-ᑯᑦ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᒍᑎᒃᓴᓂᒃ • ᐅᕙᓂ 2005-ᒥ, 2006-ᒥᓗ, ᓄᓇᕗᑦᒥ ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔩᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᑎᑦᓯᔪᔪᑦ ᓯᕗᓪᓕᖅᐹᖅᓯᐅᒻᒥᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑭᖑᓪᓕᐹᖅᓯᐅᒻᒥᒃ ᐊᐳᖅᑎᓈᖅᑐᒨᖓᔪᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᔾᔪᑎᒃᓴᓂᒃ • ᑏᓴᑉᐸ 2006-ᒥ ᓄᓇᕗᑦᒥ ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔩᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦ ᑐᓂᓯᔪᔪᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᒃᓴᒥᒃ ᐊᐳᖅᑎᓈᖅᑐᒥ ᐱᓕᕆᕕᒃᓴᒨᖓᔪᒥᒃ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᒃᑯᑕᖅᑖᑎᑦᓯᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᑑᑕᐅᖁᔭᒥᓐᓂᒃ ᑐᑭᓕᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᒪᓕᑕᐅᖁᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓗᓕᖃᑦᑎᓪᓗᒍ, ᐱᓕᕆᕕᒃᓴᒧᑦ ᑲᔪᓯᒍᑎᒃᓴᓂᒃ • ᐅᕙᓂ 2007-ᒥ, ᐅᑯᐊ Agnico-Eagle Mines Ltd-ᑯᑦ ᓂᐅᕕᔪᔪᑦ ᐊᐳᖅᑎᓈᖅᑐᒥ ᒎᓗᓂᒃ ᐅᕋᒃᑕᕆᐊᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᕕᒃᓴᖓᓐᓂᒃ ᐅᑯᓇᖓᑦ Cumberland Resources Ltd-ᑯᓐᓂᒃ

27. Project History • Meadowbank Gold Mine and All-Weather Private Access Road (AWPAR) • Mine and milling facilities 75 km North of the community of Baker Lake • 115 km AWPAR from Baker Lake to Meadowbank site • Staging and laydown area including fuel tank farm in the Hamlet of Baker Lake • The Meadowbank Project proposal was sent to NIRB in 2003 • In 2004, the Minister of INAC (Andy Scott) sent the project to a Part 5 Review • During 2005 and 2006, the NIRB held a Pre-Hearing Conference and Final Hearing on the Meadowbank Project • December of 2006 the NIRB issued the Meadowbank Project Certificate with specific terms and conditions, allowing Project to proceed • In 2007, Agnico-Eagle Mines Ltd purchased Cumberland Resources Ltd along with the Meadowbank Gold Project

28. ᐊᑑᑕᐅᕙᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᕕᖕᒨᖓᔪᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᒃᑐᐃᒍᑎᒃ ᖃᓄᖅ ᓴᕐᕋᒃᑕᐅᒐᔭᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᒪᑯᐊ ᐱᔾᔪᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᓴᕿᖃᑦᑕᔪᔪᑦ: • ᐊᑑᑕᐅᑦᓯᒃᑰᓚᔪᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᕖᑦ ᓱᕐᕋᐃᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ • ᐊᖁᑎᒃᓴᖅ • ᐃᓅᓯᕐᓅᖓᔪᑦ ᑮᓇᐅᔾᔭᒃᓴᐅᑎᒃᓴᓅᖓᔪᓂᒃ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓪᓗᑎᒃ • ᐆᒪᔪᑦ (ᐃᓚᒋᔭᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑐᒃᑐᑦ) • ᓄᓇᐃᑦ ᑭᒡᓕᖏᓐᓅᖓᔪᑦ ᓱᕐᕋᒃᑕᐅᒐᔭᖅᑐᑦ • ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖃᑦᑕᕈᑎᒃᓴᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᔪᖃᑦᑎᓪᓗᒍ • ᐱᒃᑯᔾᔨᒍᑏᑦ ᐊᑑᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ • ᐅᓯᖃᑦᑕᕋᔭᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐅᒥᐊᕐᔪᐊᒃᑯᑦ • ᐃᓕᖁᓯᕐᓅᖓᔪᓂᒃ • ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑐᖅᑕᖃᒻᒪᖔᖅ ᓄᓇᒥᐅᑕᓂᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ • ᐱᓕᕆᔪᑦ ᐱᔭᕇᑉᐸᑕ ᕿᒪᒃᑕᐅᓕᖅᐸᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓴᓗᒻᒪᓴᖅᑕᐅᓕᖅᐸᑦ

29. Project History & Impact Assessment: Issues Raised • Cumulative Effects • Road • Socio-economic Assessment • Wildlife (including caribou) • Transboundary Effects • Monitoring • Consultation process • Shipping • Traditional Knowledge • Baseline Studies • Abandonment and Reclamation

30. ᐊᑑᑕᐅᕙᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᕕᖕᒨᖓᔪᑦᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᒃᑐᐃᒐᔭᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓪᓗᑎᒃ: ᐊᑑᑎᓂᓕᖕᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᒥᐅᑕᓅᖓᔪᓂᒃ • ᑭᓲᖕᒪᑕ ᐊᑑᑎᓂᓖᑦ ᓄᓇᒥᐅᑕᓃᑐᑦ? • ᐊᑑᑎᓂᓖᑦ ᓄᓇᒨᖓᔪᓕᒫᑦ • ᖃᓄᕐᓕ ᓄᓇᕗᑦᒥ ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔩᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ Cumberland-ᑯᑦ ᓂᕈᐊᔪᒻᒪᑕ ᐊᑑᑎᓂᓕᖕᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᒥᐅᑕᓂᒃ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓪᓗᒋᑦ? • ᐅᖃᖃᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐃᓄᖏᑦ ᖃᒪᓂᖅᑐᐊᑉ, ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ, ᐊᖑᒐᓱᒃᑏᑦ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᖏᑦ

31. Project History &Impact Assessment: VECs • What are VECs? • Valued Ecological Components • How did NIRB and Cumberland choose which VECs to look at? • Consultation with the people of Baker Lake, government, Hunters and Trappers Organizations

32. ᐊᐳᖅᑎᓈᖅᑐᒥ ᐊᑑᑎᓂᓖᑦ ᓄᓇᒥᐅᑕᑦ • ᐱᕈᖅᕕᐅᓲᑦ ᓄᓇᒥ • ᒪᑯᐊ ᐆᒪᔪᑦ: ᑐᒃᑐᐃᑦ, ᐅᒥᖕᒪᐃᑦ, ᐊᒃᑕᐃᑦ, ᐊᒪᕈᐃᑦ, ᖃᕝᕖᑦ, ᑎᕆᒐᓐᓂᐊᑦ • ᑎᖕᒥᐊᑦ • ᐃᖃᓗᐃᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᖃᓗᓖᑦ • ᐃᒥᐅᑉ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᓂᖏᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᓄᐃᓪᓗᐊᕐᓂᖏᑦ • ᓯᓚᐅᑉ ᖃᓄᐃᓐᓂᖓ ᓱᕐᕋᒃᓯᒪᖏᑦᑐᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᕙᓗᐃᑦ • ᓄᓇᐅᑉ ᐃᓗᐊᓂ ᖁᐊᖑᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ

33. Meadowbank VECs • Vegetation • Wildlife : Caribou, Muskox, Grizzly Bear, Wolves, Wolverine, Fox • Birds • Fish and Fish Habitat • Water Quality and Quantity • Air Quality and Noise • Permafrost

34. ᐱᕈᖅᕕᐅᓲᑦ • ᐱᕈᖅᑐᐃᑦ ᓱᕐᕋᒃᑕᐅᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᓖᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᓯᔪᖃᑦᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᒪᑯᓄᖓᖓᔪᓂᒃ: • ᓴᓇᔪᖃᑦᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐃᒡᓗᓕᐅᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐊᓯᓂ ᐱᓕᕆᕖᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᖁᑏᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᔭᕋᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᖅᕖᑦ ᐃᑎᖅᓴᓕᐊᕕᓃᑦ • ᐊᒃᑕᑯᑦ ᐅᔭᖃᑦ ᐲᔭᖅᑕᐅᓂᑯᑦ ᓄᐊᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᖁᓕᕇᑦ • ᐱᓕᕆᔾᔪᑎᑦ ᓄᓇᓯᐅᑎᑦ ᓇᓪᓕᐊᓐᓄᕋᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᖏᔫᑎᑦ ᓴᓇᔭᑦ ᐅᓯᔭᐅᕙᒃᑐᑦ ᓄᓇᒃᑯᑦ • ᑕᕆᐅᑦ ᐊᖁᒻᒨᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ • ᐳᔪᕐᓗᐃᑦ ᐱᔪᑦ ᓄᓇᓯᐅᑎᓂᒃ ᐃᖏᕐᕋᔭᕋᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐊᖁᑎᒃᑯᑦ • ᐅᖅᓯᓱᐊᓗᐃᑦ ᑯᕕᔭᐅᕙᒃᑐᑦ • ᐅᑯᐊ Cumberland-ᑯᑦ ᑐᒃᓯᕋᖅᓯᒪᔭᖏᑦ ᐸᓚᕈᑎᒃᓴᑦ ᓱᕐᕋᐃᓗᐊᖏᒍᑎᒃᓴᑦ, ᓂᕆᐅᒋᔭᑦ ᐃᓘᓐᓇᐸᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᒃᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᓱᕐᕋᒃᑕᐅᓗᑎᒃ ᓄᓇᒦᑦᑐᑦ ᐱᕈᒃᑲᓐᓂᕋᔭᖅᑐᑦ ᐱᐅᓯᖅᓱᓕᕈᑎᒃ ᐅᔭᕋᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᖅᕕᒃ ᒪᑐᓯᒪᓕᖅᐸᑦ

35. Vegetation • Plants expected to be affected by activities such as: • Clearing areas for construction of camp facilities and roads and mine pits • Waste rock piles • Vehicle traffic and large structures being dragged across the land • Salt applied to the roads • Dust from vehicle traffic on roads • Fuel spills • Cumberland proposed to mitigate these effects, and expected that most of the impacted areas would re-vegetate naturally upon mine closure

36. ᐆᒪᔪᑦᑐᒃᑐᑦ, ᐅᒥᖕᒪᑦ, ᐊᒃᑕᑦ, ᖃᕝᕖᑦ, ᐊᒪᕈᐃᑦ, ᑎᕆᒐᓐᓂᐊᑦ • ᒪᑯᓂᖓ ᐃᓚᓖᑦ ᓱᕐᕋᒃᑕᐅᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᓖᑦ: • ᐆᒪᔪᖅᑕᓖᑦ ᐅᑎᖅᕕᐅᒍᓐᓇᐃᓕᒃᐸᑕ • ᐊᑑᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕈᓐᓃᖅᐸᑕ ᐆᒪᔪᖅᑕᓖᑦ, ᓂᕿᒋᔭᐅᒍᓐᓃᕐᓗᑎᒡᓗ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᐅᓚᓄᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᔪᓄᑦ • ᐊᓯᕈᐊᒐᔭᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᖏᕐᕋᔪᓄᑦ ᐊᖁᑕᐅᕙᒃᑐᓄᑦ, ᐊᑐᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓕᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᐆᒻᒪᖁᑎᓂᒃ • ᐃᓅᓯᕐᓅᖓᔪᑦ ᑎᒥᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᖁᒃᓴᓇᖅᓯᓗᑎᒃ ᐱᒥᑎᖅᓯᒪᓕᖅᐸᑕ ᐃᒥᑦᓯᐊᕙᐃᑦ ᓱᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂᒃ (ᐱᔪᓂᒃ ᐊᒃᑕᑯᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᔾᔪᑎᒥᓂᕐᓂᒃ ᐃᓚᒍᑕᓕᖕᓂᒃ), ᓂᕆᔭᐅᕙᓕᖅᐸᑕᓗ ᓱᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅᑕᓖᑦ ᐱᕈᖅᑐᑦ ᓂᕆᐅᔭᓲᑦ • ᑐᖁᕋᖅᑕᐅᕙᒡᓗᑎᒡᓗ ᐊᐳᖅᑕᐅᒐᐃᒍᑎᒃ ᑐᓗᖅᑕᐅᒐᐃᒍᑎᒃ ᓄᓇᓯᐅᑎᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᖓᑕᔫᓄᑦ • ᐊᖑᒐᓱᒃᕕᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᕙᓕᕐᓗᓂ ᓄᓇ • ᐅᑯᐊ Cumberland-ᑯᑦ ᐅᖃᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓱᕐᕋᐃᓗᐊᕋᔭᖏᒋᐊᒃᓴᖅ ᐊᑑᑎᑦᓯᐊᖃᑦᑕᕈᑎᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᔾᔪᑎᓂᒃ (ᒪᑯᓂᖓ ᖃᓄᑎᒋ ᓱᑲᓐᓂᕆᔭᐅᒋᐊᖃᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᐃᖏᕐᕋᔪᓄᑦ, ᑐᒃᑐᐃᑦ ᖄᖏᖅᓯᐊᕆᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᐱᓱᒃᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᖁᑎᒥᒍᑦ)

37. WildlifeCaribou, Muskox, Grizzly Bear, Wolverine, Wolf, Fox • The potential impacts include: • Loss of habitat • Avoidance of habitat and food due to human activity • Changes to normal travel routes, using more energy • Health risk of drinking contaminated water (tailings), and eating contaminated vegetation • Death due to collisions with vehicles and aircraft • Increased hunting in the area • Cumberland anticipated that impacts would not be significant if proper measures were taken (e.g. speed limits, giving caribou right-of-way)

38. ᑎᖕᒥᐊᑦ • ᓱᕐᕋᑦᑕᐅᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᓖᑦ ᒪᑯᓄᖓᖓᔪᓂᒃ ᐃᓚᓖᑦ: • ᐆᒪᔪᖅᑕᓖᑦ ᐅᑎᖅᕕᐅᒍᓐᓇᐃᓕᒃᐸᑕ ᐱᔾᔪᑕᐅᓗᑎᒃ ᐅᔭᕋᓐᓂᐊᖅᕕᖕᒥ ᐱᓕᕆᕕᒃ ᓴᓇᔭᐅᓕᖅᐸᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑕᓯᖏᑦ ᐃᒪᐃᔭᖅᑕᐅᓕᖅᐸᑕ • ᐸᒡᕕᓴᒃᑕᐅᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᑎᖃᑦᑕᕈᓐᓃᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᐅᑉᓗᖃᕝᕕᖕᒥᓐᓄᑦ ᑎᖕᒥᐊᑦ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐱᕙᓗᖕᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᓕᕆᔪᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ • ᐆᒻᒪᖁᑎᖏᑦ ᓄᖑᑎᑕᐅᒃᐸᑕ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᕿᕕᖃᑦᑕᓕᖅᐸᑕ ᐃᖅᓯᓗᑎᒃ • ᐅᑉᓗᖃᕝᕕᖕᒥᓐᓂ ᓅᖃᑦᑕᓕᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᕈᕈᓐᓇᐃᓕᓗᑎᒃ ᑎᖕᒥᐊᕋᓛᑦ • ᑎᖕᒥᐊᖅᑕᓖᑦ ᓱᕈᖅᑎᖅᑕᐅᒃᐸᑕ ᐳᔪᕐᓗᖕᒧᑦ, ᐊᐅᓚᐅᑎᑦ ᑎᐱᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᖅᓱᐊᓗᖕᓂᒃ ᑯᕕᔪᖃᕋᐃᑉᐸᑦ • ᐋᓐᓂᖅᓯᒪᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᐅᕝᕙᓗᑭᐊᖅ ᑐᖁᕋᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᐳᖅᑕᐅᒐᐃᒍᑎᒃ ᑐᓗᖅᑕᐅᒐᐃᒍᑎᒃ ᓄᓇᓯᐅᑎᓄᑦ, ᖃᖓᑕᔫᓄᑦ, ᐅᐊᔭᑦ ᐊᖁᑎᖏᓐᓄᑦ • ᑎᒥᖏᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᖃᑦᑕᓕᖅᐸᑕ ᓱᕐᕋᒃᑕᐅᓗᑎᒃ ᓱᕈᖅᑎᖅᓯᒪᓕᖅᐸᑕ ᓂᕿᖏᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᒥᖅᕕᒋᕙᒃᑕᖏᑦ • ᐅᑯᐊ Cumberland-ᑯᑦ ᓂᕆᐅᔪᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᓱᕐᕋᒍᑕᐅᓪᓚᕆᒐᔭᖅᑐᓂᒃ • ᐸᓚᕈᑎᒃᓴᐅᒐᔭᖅᑐᑦ ᐋᕿᒃᓯᒪᔭᐅᓗᑎᒃ ᐃᓚᖃᑦᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᒪᑯᓄᖓᖓᔪᓂᒃ ᐱᕙᓗᓕᕆᔾᔪᑎᑦ ᓂᐱᖃᓗᐊᖅᑕᐃᓕᒍᑎᑦ, ᓄᓇᓯᐅᑏᑦ ᐃᖏᕐᕋᓂᕆᒋᐊᓕᖏᑦ ᖃᓄᑎᒋ ᐋᕿᒃᓯᒪᔭᐅᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑯᕕᔪᖃᓐᓂᖅᐸᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᔾᔪᑎᒃᓴᑦ

39. Birds • The potential impacts include: • Habitat loss due to mine facility construction and lake dewatering • Disturbance and displacement of nesting birds due to noise and human activity • Increased energy loss and stress levels • Reduced reproduction and survival of young • Habitat degradation due to dust, exhaust and fuel spills • Injury or death due to collisions with vehicles, aircraft or power lines • Health effects from contaminated food and/or water • Cumberland did not expect the impacts to be significant • Potential mitigation measures included noise management, controlling vehicle speed and containing fuel spills

40. ᐃᖃᓗᐃᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᖃᓗᓖᑦ • ᒪᑯᐊ ᓱᕐᕋᐃᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᓖᑦ ᐃᖃᓗᖕᓂᒃ: • ᐊᓯᕈᖅᑕᐅᒃᐸᑕ ᐃᒪᖏᑦ (ᒪᑯᓄᖓᖓᔪᓂᒃ ᐃᖃᖓᓂᒃ ᐱᔪᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓱᕈᖅᑎᓇᑐᖅᑕᓕᖕᓂᒃ) • ᐊᓯᕈᖅᑕᐅᒃᐸᑕ ᐃᒪᖏᑦᑕ ᖃᓄᐃᓪᓗᐊᕐᓂᖏᑦ (ᑕᓰᑦ ᐃᒪᐃᔭᖅᑕᐅᒃᐸᑕ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᒪᖏᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᓕᖅᐸᑕ ᐊᓯᓂ ᓄᓇᓕᖕᓄᑦ) • ᐃᖃᓗᐃᕈᕋᔭᖅᑐᑦ ᑕᓰᑦ ᐃᒪᐃᔭᖅᑕᐅᒃᐸᑕ, ᐅᔭᖃᑦ ᓴᓇᕕᖕᓄᑦ ᐊᑑᑕᐅᓕᖅᐸᑕ • ᓴᐳᔾᔨᒍᑎᒃᓴᓂᒃ ᐃᖃᓗᖕᓂᒃ ᐅᑯᐊ Cumberland-ᑯᑦ ᑐᒃᓯᕋᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ‘ᐃᖃᓪᓕᐊᖃᑦᑕᖏᓪᓗᑎᒃ’ ᐊᑐᐊᒐᖅᑎᒍᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᔩᑦ ᑕᒫᓂ • ᐅᑯᐊ Cumberland-ᑯᑦ ᐋᕿᒃᓱᐃᔪᔪᑦ ᓄᑖᓂᒃ ᐃᖃᓗᖃᓕᕋᔭᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐃᓇᖏᖅᑕᐅᓗᑎᒃ ᐃᖃᓗᓕᕕᓃᑦ ᓱᕈᖅᑎᖅᑕᐅᓂᑯᑦ ᐃᒪᐃᔭᖅᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ, ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓄᓪᓗ ᖃᓄᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅ • ᐅᑯᐊ Cumberland-ᑯᑦ ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔾᔪᑎᖏᑦ ᑐᓴᒐᒃᓴᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᔪᑦ ᓱᕐᕋᒃᑕᑦ ᓱᕐᕋᐃᓗᐊᕋᔭᖏᒋᐊᖏᓐᓂᒃ

41. Fish and Fish Habitat • Potential impacts to fish were expected to come from: • Changes to water quality (from sediment and contaminants) • Changes to amount of water (lake dewatering and water use by camp) • Habitat loss from lake dewatering, rock storage facilities • To protect fish Cumberland proposed a ‘No Fishing’ policy for all non-resident workers • Cumberland planned new fish habitat to replace habitat destroyed by lake dewatering, etc. • Cumberland’s environmental report indicated the effects would not be significant

42. ᖃᖓᑕᔫᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᕙᓗᐃᑦ ᑐᓴᖅᓴᑦ • ᒪᑯᐊ ᐃᓱᒫᓗᒋᔭᖃᕝᕕᐅᔪᑦ: • ᐳᔪᕐᓗᓂᒃ ᐱᔪᑦ ᓄᓇᓯᐅᑎᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᑯᒪᖃᕝᕕᖕᒥᒃ ᐊᐅᓚᐅᑎᑕᓕᖕᒥᒃ • ᐳᔪᕐᓗᐃᑦ ᐱᔪᑦ ᐊᒃᑕᑯᖃᐅᒻᒥᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᔾᔪᑎᒥᓂᖅᑕᓕᖕᒥᒃ, ᐊᒃᑕᖅᕕᖕᒥᒃ, ᐊᖁᑎᓂᒃ, ᐊᐅᓚᑦᓯᒍᑎᓂᒡᓗ • ᐱᕙᓗᐃᑦ ᑐᓴᖅᓴᑦ ᐅᔭᕋᒃᑕᕆᐊᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᖄᖅᑎᑦᓯᒍᑎᓂᒃ, ᓯᖃᓪᓖᑎᓂᒃ ᐅᔭᖃᓂᒃ, ᖃᖓᑕᔫᖅᕙᓗᖕᓂᒃ, ᓄᓇᓯᐅᑎᖅᕙᓗᖕᓂᒃ • ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔾᔪᑎᑦ ᑐᑭᖏᑦᑎᒍᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᖕᒪᑕ ᓯᓚᑐᐃᓐᓇᒨᖃᖅᑐᑦ ᐱᕈᖅᑐᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐆᒪᔪᓄᑦ ᐊᒃᐸᓯᖕᓂᖃᓪᓚᕆᓛᖅᑐᑦ ᓱᕐᕋᐃᓂᖏᑦ ᓲᖃᐃᒻᒪᒎᖅ ᐸᓚᖅᑎᑕᐅᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᓱᕐᕋᐃᓂᐅᓴᔪᑦ • ᑐᓴᖅᓴᑦ ᐱᕙᓗᐃᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓪᓗᐊᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᐅᔾᔨᕐᓇᖃᑦᑕᕋᔭᖅᑐᑦ ᓇᓕᒧᒃᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᖃᓄᑎᒋ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓅᖓᔪᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᕕᖕᓂᒃ ᐊᖏᓈᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ ᐊᐅᓚᑕᓄᑦ

43. Air and Noise • Issues of concern: • Emissions from vehicles and power plant • Dust from tailings, waste disposal, roads and operations • Noise from mining activities such as blasting and crushing rock and aircraft and vehicles • The EIS indicated air disturbance on plants and wildlife would be low because of mitigation efforts • Noise levels would be comparable to other industrial activities

44. ᑕᓯᕋᓛᖅ ᓄᓇᐅᑉ ᖄᖓ ᓱᕐᕌᔪᖅ ᑕᓯᐸᐅᔭᖅ ᖁᐊᖑᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᑕᓯᐸᐅᔭᖅ ᖁᐊᕈᓐᓇᖏᑦᑐᖅ ᖁᐊᖑᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᖁᐊᖑᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᖁᐊᕈᓐᓇᖏᑦᑐᖅ • ᐊᐅᖕᓂᐅᓴᔪᖅ ᖁᐊᖑᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᒪᑯᓇᖓ ᐱᓕᕆᔾᔪᑎᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᑕᓂᒃ, ᐊᖁᑎᓂᒡᓗ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᑎᖅᓴᓕᐅᖅᑐᖃᑦᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᓄᓇᒥ (ᐊᐅᓚᑦᓯᔪᖃᑦᑎᓪᓗᒍ) • ᐅᑯᐊ Cumberland-ᑯᑦ ᐅᓂᐅᖅᓯᒐᓱᐊᖃᑦᑕᓛᖅᑐᑦ ᓱᕐᕋᐃᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᓴᓇᔪᖃᑦᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᓯᔾᔪᑎᓂᒃ ᐱᔪᓂᒃ • ᐅᑯᐊ Cumberland-ᑯᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔾᔪᑎᒥᒍᑦ ᓱᕐᕋᐃᓂᐅᓴᔪᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᑲᐃᓕᔾᔮᖏᓐᓂᕋᖅᓱᒋᑦ ᕿᓚᒥᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᑑᑕᐅᓂᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ, ᐅᕝᕙᓗᑭᐊᖅ ᓱᕐᕋᐃᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᒻᒪᑕ ᓱᕐᕋᐃᓗᐊᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᕆᔭᐅᒐᑎᒃ

45. Small Lake ACTIVE LAYER Large Lake Permafrost Large Lake TALIK PERMA- FROST PERMAFROST TALIK • Potential for thawing of permafrost due to project activities, such as roads and ditches (during operation) • Cumberland intended to avoid potential impacts through construction and operating procedures • Cumberland stated in the EIS that these effects would not be a problem as they were either short-term, or else the effects were not considered to be significant

46. Break Time!

47. ᐃᓄᓕᕆᔨᑐᖃᒃᑯᑦ ᒥᓂᔅᑕᖓᑦᑕ ᐊᑑᑕᐅᖁᔭᖏᑦ “ᖃᖓᓕᒫᖅ ᐊᖁᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᓛᖅᑐᖅ ᓯᕗᓪᓕᖅᐸᐅᓛᖅᑐᖅ ᑕᒫᓂ ᓄᓇᕗᑦᒥ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇᐃᑦᑑᓗᓂ. ᐊᖁᑦ ᑎᑭᐅᑎᓯᒪᓛᖅᑐᖅ ᓄᓇᓕᖓᓐᓄᑦ ᖃᒪᓂᖅᑐᐊᒥᐅᑦ, ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᔾᔨᑐᖅᑕᐅᑦᓯᐊᕆᐊᓕᒃ ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔾᔪᑎᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓄᓯᕐᓅᖓᔪᓄᑦ ᑮᓇᐅᔾᔭᒃᓴᐅᑎᒃᓴᑦ ᓱᕐᕋᐃᓂᐊᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᓴᓇᔪᖃᓕᖅᐸᑦ, ᐊᑑᑕᐅᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑭᖑᕐᖓᒍᑦ ᕿᒪᐃᒍᑎᒃᓴᑦ ᐱᔭᕇᑉᐸᑕ, ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᓘᓐᓇᑎᒃ ᐊᑑᑕᐅᒍᓐᓇᕋᔭᖅᑐᑦ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᑎᓐᓂ ᓇᓪᓕᐊᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅ ᐊᖁᑎᓕᕆᔾᔪᑎᑦ.” (ᒥᓂᔅᑕ ᐃᓄᓕᕆᔨᑐᖃᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ ᐋᓐᑎ ᓯᑳᑦ, ᔪᓚᐃᑦ 28, 2005-ᒥ)

48. Minister of INAC Direction “An all weather road of this scale would be the first of its kind in Nunavut. Given the fact that the road is connected to the community of Baker Lake, it is essential that the environmental and socio-economic effects of its construction, use and eventual abandonment, be fully considered as well as possible future options for the road.” (Then-Minister of INAC Andy Scott, 28-July-05)

49. ᓯᕗᓪᓕᖅᐹᖅ ᑲᑎᒪᑎᑦᓯᒍᑦ, ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᓂᒃ ᐱᖁᔭᖅᑎᒍᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᑎᑦᓯᓂᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑭᖑᓪᓕᖅᐹᖅ ᑲᑎᒪᑎᑦᓯᓂᖅ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᔪᖃᑦᑎᓪᓗᒍ, ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓅᖓᔪᖅ ᐅᕝᕙᓗᑭᐊᖅ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᕆᔭᖅ ᐊᖁᑎᒃᓴᖅ? ᑭᓇᓕ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᓯᒐᔭᕐᒪᑦ ᒥᐊᓂᖅᓯᔨᐅᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᑑᑕᐅᒋᐊᓕᖕᓂᒃ ᐱᖁᔭᖅᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᖁᒻᒨᖓᔪᒧᑦ ᖃᓄᑎᒋ ᓱᑲᓐᓂᖃᕆᐊᓕᖕᓂᒃ ᐊᖁᑎᒃᑰᖅᑐᑦ, ᖃᓄᖅᑑᕈᑎᒃᓴᑦ ᐆᒪᔪᑦ ᐅᕝᕙᓗᑭᐊᖅ ᐊᖁᒻᒨᖓᔪᓂᒃ ᐱᔾᔪᑕᐅᔪᖃᑦᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᖃᓄᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅ? ᖃᓄᕐᓕ ᑕᐃᒪ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᓗᒋᑦ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᒨᖓᔪᑦ ᐊᑑᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕋᔭᕐᓂᖓᓂᒃ ᐊᖁᒻᒥᒃ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᓖᑦ? -“...ᐴᓛᖅᑐᓕᕆᔾᔪᑎᑦ, ᓄᓇᓕᒋᔭᑦ ᐊᓯᓂ, ᖃᓄᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅ ᐊᑑᑕᐅᓲᑦ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓅᖓᔪᑦ ᐊᑑᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ” (ᕼᒻᒪᓚᒃᑯᖏᑦ ᖃᒪᓂᖅᑐᐊᑉ, ᐱᐅᕈᐊᕆ 14, 2006-ᒥ)

50. Pre-Hearing Conference, Technical Meeting and Final Hearing Public or Private road access? Who will enforce the rules of the road like speed limits, what to do if there is wildlife on or around the road, etc? What about future uses of the road? -“...tourism development, out post camps, extensions to other natural resources.” (Hamlet of Baker Lake 14-Feb-06)