Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/136695748/130116-09DN018-Screening-Decision-Report-OEDE
Timestamp: 2017-04-25 17:36:13
Document Index: 738088944

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 5', 'art 5', 'art 4', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2']

ScribdBrowseInterestsPolitics & Current AffairsCareer & MoneyPersonal GrowthFictionHealth & FitnessLifestyleEntertainmentBiographies & HistoryScience & TechBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoin130116 09DN018 Screening Decision Report OEDEUploaded by NunatsiaqNewsArcticShipsCanadaRoadSewage Treatment0.0 (0)DownloadEmbedDescription: Nunavut Impact Review Board screening decision on Nanisivik naval station proposal, issued Jan. 14, 2013View MoreNunavut Impact Review Board screening decision on Nanisivik naval station proposal, issued Jan. 14, 2013Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentSCREENING DECISION REPORT NIRB FILE NO.: 09DN018 DFO File No.: NU-11-0037 EC File No.: 4704 004 029 January 14, 2013 The Honourable John Duncan Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Government of Canada Executive Offices 10 Wellington, 21st Floor Gatineau, QC K1A 0H4 and The Honourable Peter MacKay Minister of National Defence National Defence Headquarters Major-General George R. Pearkes Building Ottawa, ON K1A 0K2 Sent via email, facsimile and regular post Re: Screening Decision for Department of National Defence’s “Nanisivik Naval Facility” project proposal, Qikiqtani Region, NIRB File No. 09DN018
Dear Mr. John Duncan and Mr. Peter MacKay: For the reasons set out in detail below, the Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB or Board) is recommending that the Department of National Defence’s (DND or the Proponent) “Nanisivik Naval Facility” project proposal be returned to the Proponent for clarification pursuant to Section 12.4.4(c) of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (NLCA). The Board recognizes that the NIRB screening process in respect of this project was originally engaged in March 2009, and as such, the project proposal has been in the screening stage for an exceptionally long period of time. The protracted screening timeline for this proposal reflects the Proponent’s on-going development of the project proposal after its initial submission, significant delays and gaps in the Proponent’s responses to information requests by the Board
P.O. Box 1360 Cambridge Bay, NU X0B 0C0 Phone: (867) 983-4600 Page 1 of 35 Fax: (867) 983-2594
and by reviewing parties, requests by the Proponent and some reviewing parties for extensions to the NIRB’s typical timelines and, more recently, additional time required to respond to the Proponent’s significant reduction to the scope of the original project proposal. These issues have contributed to an extended screening stage, including a period of almost 2 years (2009-2011) where the NIRB awaited a response from the Proponent to requests for project information critical to the ability of the NIRB and commenting parties to adequately screen the project proposal. The detailed procedural history provided in these reasons reflects these significant gaps in the on-going development of the project proposal and identifies several points in the process where the need for additional information caused extended delays to the NIRB’s screening process. LEGAL FRAMEWORK The primary objectives that govern the functions of the NIRB are set out in Section 12.2.5 of the NLCA as follows: “In carrying out its functions, the primary objectives of NIRB shall be at all times to protect and promote the existing and future well-being of the residents and communities of the Nunavut Settlement Area, and to protect the ecosystemic integrity of the Nunavut Settlement Area. NIRB shall take into account the well-being of the residents of Canada outside the Nunavut Settlement Area.” Further, Section 12.4.4 of the NLCA states: Upon receipt of a project proposal, NIRB shall screen the proposal and indicate to the Minister in writing that: a) the proposal may be processed without a review under Part 5 or 6; NIRB may recommend specific terms and conditions to be attached to any approval, reflecting the primary objectives set out in Section 12.2.5; b) the proposal requires review under Part 5 or 6; NIRB shall identify particular issues or concerns which should be considered in such a review; c) the proposal is insufficiently developed to permit proper screening, and should be returned to the proponent for clarification; or d) the potential adverse impacts of the proposal are so unacceptable that it should be modified or abandoned. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND BACKGROUND On November 14, 2008 the NIRB received the DND’s “Nanisivik Naval Facility” project proposal directly from the Proponent. On November 17, 2008 the NIRB indicated to the Proponent that this project proposal appeared to be located in an area with an approved land use plan (North Baffin Regional Land Use Plan) and would consequently require a conformity determination from the Nunavut Planning Commission (NPC) prior to initiating the screening process. In addition, the NIRB requested that authorizing agencies with jurisdiction to authorize works or activities associated with this project forward copies of any such applications to the NIRB. On March 12, 2009 the NIRB received a positive conformity determination from the
P.O. Box 1360 Cambridge Bay, NU X0B 0C0 Phone: (867) 983-4600 Page 2 of 15
NPC for this file. The NIRB assigned this project proposal file number 09DN018 and commenced screening pursuant to Part 4, Article 12 of the NLCA. Following receipt of the initial application materials, the NIRB undertook a preliminary completeness check and found that the proposal as submitted did not contain sufficient information for the NIRB to permit proper screening. On March 23, 2009 the NIRB requested that additional information from the Proponent be provided to the Board by April 6, 2009. By April 20, 2009, not having received the requested additional information, the NIRB requested additional time to screen the project proposal. By May 20, 2009, the Board still had not received the necessary information and again requested that the Proponent submit the outstanding information by June 2, 2009. On May 27, 2009 the Proponent provided the Board with written notification that the requested additional information would not be provided by June 2, 2009 as DND was in the process of hiring a design consultant and an environmental consultant. Subsequently, on April 29, 2011 the NIRB received additional information in support of this project proposal, but upon review of the submission, the NIRB found that it was still insufficiently developed to permit proper screening. On May 11, 2011 the NIRB requested that the additional outstanding information be provided to the Board by June 1, 2011. On June 2, 2011 the Proponent provided the Board with written notification requesting additional time to address the outstanding items required by the Board, and on September 6, 2011 the NIRB received the Proponent’s submission. On September 12, 2011 the project proposal was distributed to community organizations in Arctic Bay as well as to relevant federal and territorial government agencies and Inuit organizations. The NIRB requested that interested parties review the proposal and provide the Board with any comments or concerns by October 3, 2011 regarding:     Whether the project proposal is likely to arouse significant public concern; and if so, why; Whether the project proposal is likely to cause significant adverse eco-systemic and socio-economic effects; and if so, why; Whether the project is of a type where the potential adverse effects are highly predictable and mitigable with known technology, (please provide any recommended mitigation measures); and Any matter of importance to the Party related to the project proposal.
On September 20, 2011 the NIRB received a request from the Qikiqtani Inuit Association (QIA) to extend the commenting deadline. The Board found this request to be reasonable and asked that parties provide comments by October 17, 2011. Comments were received from the following interested parties on or before October 17, 2011 (see Appendix A for complete comment submissions):   QIA Government of Nunavut
P.O. Box 1360 Cambridge Bay, NU X0B 0C0 Phone: (867) 983-4600 Page 3 of 15
Nunavut Tourism Environment Canada Fisheries and Oceans Canada Transport Canada
After careful consideration of the comments received by parties, and in particular, the concerns expressed by parties that they required additional information and clarification in order to effectively consider the project proposal, on November 1, 2011 the NIRB requested that DND respond by November 22, 2011 to parties’ comments, including providing the additional information and clarification requested by the parties. On November 30, 2011 DND requested additional time to respond to the comments and the Board granted the request to extend the response date to February 29, 2012. On February 24, 2012 DND advised the NIRB that after undertaking a review of the infrastructure requirements of the Nanisivik Naval Facility, DND planned to reduce the functionality of the site while keeping the intent of the facility the same, i.e. a berthing and refuelling facility for the Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships and other Government of Canada vessels. Further, on March 5, 2012 the NIRB received DND’s response to parties’ comments and concerns pertaining to the Nanisivik Naval Facility project proposal. The response also included information that would be relevant to the project’s reduced scope. On March 8, 2012 the NIRB requested that parties review DND’s March 5, 2012 response to comments as well as the February 24, 2012 reduced project scope, and provide the Board with any additional comments or concerns as may pertain to the revised scope of the proposal. Specifically, the NIRB requested that parties indicate whether or not the originally submitted comments remained valid and applicable in light of the reduced project scope as specified by DND. It was requested that comments be submitted to the NIRB office by March 22, 2012. Comments were received from the following interested parties on or before March 23, 2012 (see Appendix A for complete comment submissions):     Government of Nunavut Environment Canada Fisheries and Oceans Canada Transport Canada
Following a review of all documentation submitted by DND including the revised scope of the Project and DND’s response to parties’ comments, the NIRB found that clarification on a number of topics as previously requested remained outstanding and would be required in order to facilitate the NIRB’s assessment. On April 27, 2012 the Board requested that DND review and respond to those points raised in the public comment submissions received by the Board to date, and again requested that DND provide clarification regarding outstanding information requirements. The Board requested that DND provide clarification on the points raised and a response to the comment submissions by May 22, 2012. On May 22, 2012 DND requested additional time to review and respond to the comments received and to address the outstanding items required by the Board. The Board granted DND’s
P.O. Box 1360 Cambridge Bay, NU X0B 0C0 Phone: (867) 983-4600 Page 4 of 15
request to provide a response by September 28, 2012. On September 10, 2012 DND again requested additional time to respond to the NIRB’s requirements. , Subsequently, on November 8, 2012 the NIRB received the revised documents in support of the project proposal. SCOPE OF PROJECT PROPOSAL The proposed project is located in the North Baffin region approximately 33 kilometres (km) northeast of the hamlet of Arctic Bay. The objective of the proposed project is to serve primarily as a deep-water refuelling and resupply station for Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships, Canadian Coast Guard and other government ships transiting through the Northwest Passage during the navigable season. The facility as proposed would also be used to receive, marshal, hold and distribute cargo and goods from commercial sea vessels. The construction program is proposed to commence in 2014 with the facility becoming fully operational by 2016. The proposed facility has been designed for an anticipated life of at least 40 years with the facility being manned and operated from June through October, and normally remaining unmanned from November to June each year. The original project activities as proposed in the November 14, 2008 application included:  Establishment of construction camp between 2012 and 2015: o Pioneer construction camp (20 to 30 personnel) to develop quarry, upgrade roads and establish the construction camp o Construction camp (100 personnel) to construct the facility Use of existing dock during construction and operation to transport equipment and bulk material on cargo ships or barges; Upgrade berthing/wharf infrastructure; Construction of helicopter landing area; Construction of Shore Support Building, and a Cargo Storage and Marshalling Area; Construction of bulk fuel storage facilities: o Naval distillate fuel – five 3.75 million litre (L) single wall vertical tanks (22 meter diameter) with up to 15.0 million L stored at the facility o Diesel – three 500,000 L single wall vertical tanks (10 meter diameter) with up to 1.0 million L stored at the facility o Gasoline – 16 drums with total capacity of 3,200 L o Aviation Fuel – 60 drums with total capacity of 7,000 L at the facility and a horizontal storage tank at the proposed helicopter pad with a total capacity of 5,000 L Upgrade existing roads and development of new roads to provide access to components of the facility; Use of airport at Arctic Bay during construction period to transport personnel to and from the facility; Use of existing all-weather road between Arctic Bay and the facility during construction and operation to transport personnel and materials to the project site, and to potentially access medical services, police and other community services; Potential use of borrow sites for rock and aggregate (no areas have been identified yet); Water withdrawal from East Twin Lake to provide water for facility; Generation of waste:
P.O. Box 1360 Cambridge Bay, NU X0B 0C0 Phone: (867) 983-4600 Page 5 of 15 Fax: (867) 983-2594
o Domestic waste to be treated using mechanical package plant system or facultative lagoon o Discharge of treated effluent into receiving environment if using lagoon o Incineration of suitable solid waste, recycling of other wastes o Separation of oily wastewater Chemical and hazardous material storage; and Potential use of a Project Management Office in Arctic Bay.
The reduced project activities as proposed in DND’s February 24, 2012 letter included:       Site preparation to commence 2014 with establishment of construction camp in 2015: o Use of pre-built mobile trailers for construction camp (50-60 personnel) Use of existing wharf as berthing facility during construction and operation to transport equipment and bulk material on cargo ships or barges; potential for minor improvements to maintain or improve its functionality; Establishment of Cargo Storage and Marshalling Area; Construction of helicopter landing area; Set-up of a general purpose storage building, wharf operator shelter and upgrades to three existing DND trailers; Construction of bulk fuel storage facilities: o Naval distillate fuel – two 3.75 million L single-walled, vertical tanks (22 meter diameter) with up to 7.5 million L stored at the facility o Diesel – two 81,000 L doubled-walled, horizontal tanks (3 meter diameter) with up to 162,000 L stored at the facility o Aviation Fuel – 15 drums with total capacity of 3,000 L Upgrade existing roads and development of new roads to provide access to components of the facility; Use of airport at Arctic Bay during construction and operation to bring in personnel and materials; Use of existing all-weather road between Arctic Bay and the facility during construction and operation to transport personnel and materials to the project site; Use of local borrow site for rock and aggregate (no areas have been identified yet), located approximately 3 km south of the facility; Potential for Arctic Bay to provide services in potable water and wastewater management; however if volume is to be a burden on the community then alternative would be to obtain water from Twin Lakes and to build sewage lagoon at site; Generation of waste: o Domestic waste and treated effluent to be treated in Arctic Bay or at on site facultative lagoon system; o Incineration of suitable solid waste, recycling of other wastes; o Separation of oily wastewater; Chemical and hazardous material storage.
P.O. Box 1360 Cambridge Bay, NU X0B 0C0 Phone: (867) 983-4600 Page 6 of 15
COMMENTS AND CONCERNS The following represents a summary of the comments and concerns received during the public commenting period for this file; please note that the original comment submissions have been included in their entirety in Appendix A: October 17, 2011 Comments Qikiqtani Inuit Association (QIA) QIA conducted community consultation on September 28, 2011 with the community of Arctic Bay and the following comments and concerns were raised by the community and QIA. In addition, QIA indicated that QIA cannot support this project until the Proponent addresses the questions, comments and concerns identified to date. Specifically, QIA identified the following issues:  The proposal has aroused significant public concern and has the potential to cause significantly adverse eco-systemic and socio-economic effects especially if approved as is.  Communication and consultation between the Proponent and Arctic Bay has been inadequate and QIA believes issues raised in the document could have been avoided if proper consultation was done in advance. Further consultation is required. In addition, QIA noted that any consultation conducted by DND to date has been meaningless because DND’s plans keep changing.  Indicated that the proposal could be modified to greatly reduce impacts and ease public concern while many questions and concerns remain to be answered by the Proponent.  Expressed concerns regarding the following: o Use of both the Arctic Bay airport and existing all-weather road between Arctic Bay and Nanisivik; in particular that no mitigation strategies were provided for the potential additional use of the Arctic Bay airport. o Use of Arctic Bay emergency services such as fire, police and medical services, and the limited availability of emergency service infrastructure in Arctic Bay. o Potential to foster criminal activity as the facility is proposed to be unmanned during November to June of each year.  Updates are required to the Emergency Response Plan to include the description of additional emergency resources to be provided in Arctic Bay.  Questions were raised on the use of emergency equipment located in Arctic Bay and issues related to providing support during adverse weather conditions, fire suppression systems in place at site and limited emergency resources currently available at Arctic Bay.  Noted that hunting conditions have changed since the mine has ceased operations and residents are concerned that increased activity due to the operation of the Nanisivik Naval Facility will scare away wildlife from the area again.  Identified concerns regarding the potential for increased naval traffic to interfere with Inuit harvesting in and around Nanisivik.  Reminded the Proponent of the rights and obligations associated with Article 6.3.1 of the NLCA regarding compensation and wildlife harvesting.
P.O. Box 1360 Cambridge Bay, NU X0B 0C0 Phone: (867) 983-4600 Page 7 of 15
Noted that no strategies have been presented to mitigate the negative effect of increased naval activity on local harvesting. Reminded the Proponent that they will be liable to compensate the community if any animals are killed which may reduce their annual quota of harvest. Requested that the Proponent hire experienced local Inuit to act as wildlife monitors. Identified that consultation needs to be conducted by the Proponent with the Hamlet of Arctic Bay and the Hunters & Trappers Association regarding boat paths on the sea ice to transport materials and to minimize impacts to Inuit hunters on the ice. Raised concern regarding the use of Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships past Arctic Bay and deeper into Admiralty Inlet, and concerns that residents would not have a say regarding what goes on in and around Arctic Bay. Sought additional information in the project proposal regarding whether DND intends to travel further into Admiralty Inlet for patrolling or exercises. Noted that locations of the aggregate quarry have not yet been determined by DND and advised DND that aggregate sites containing carving stone should remain off limits. Identified concern with the potential for introduction of invasive species to the area with washing-down of equipment at the wharf, and concern that the Proponent has not introduced a mitigation strategy. Requested that the proponent commit to monitoring for eco-systemic changes around the wharf area. QIA suggested the Proponent designate the Nanisivik Naval Facility as a spill response and search and rescue center with adequate equipment, resources and personnel on site to deal with an emergency of such magnitude as a major oil spill in Lancaster Sound and the high arctic.
Government of Nunavut (GN) Comments from Nunavut Research Institute (NRI)  Identified that the Proponent would require a Nunavut scientific research license issued pursuant to the Scientists Act to collect traditional knowledge as part of planned public consultation/engagement process. A scientific research license may also be required for environmental field studies carried out as part of monitoring efforts.  Indicated that a detailed report on consultation conducted in 2007 and 2008 should be included in the project application.  Also indicated that the project design should incorporate and address community preferences/concerns/knowledge documented during all consultation.  Expressed that there was no indication that the current proposal considers local knowledge and perspectives in the selection of valued ecosystem components or valued socio-economic components, identification of impacts, the development and consideration of project alternatives, or in the development of mitigation and monitoring measures.  Identified that the proposal was deficient as it does not provide clear information on whether the new consultation and gathering of traditional knowledge has been initiated as yet because no timeline for these steps was provided in the proposal. Requested that the Proponent be required to provide a detailed timeline and detailed plans for completing consultations and traditional knowledge studies. Information should also be provided on
P.O. Box 1360 Cambridge Bay, NU X0B 0C0 Phone: (867) 983-4600 Page 8 of 15
the value of these consultation from its perspective and explain why it is occurring so late in the planning process. Requested that more detailed plans for local training and employment to be generated by the project should be provided in the proposal. Indicated that the Proponent should provide a more detailed description of anticipated requirements for services from the nearest community, Arctic Bay, in the proposal.
Department of Economic Development and Transportation (ED&T)  Identified the following potential socio-economic effects: o Require clarification on what commercial or non-naval use may be permissible for the site, including cruise ships or yachts; o Potential future for marine tourism near Arctic Bay with the development of the Nanisivik Naval Facility; and o Hiring of local residents and the requirements for use of local businesses.  Requested clarification on whether the proponent plans on using the access road between Arctic Bay and Nanisivik for the long term and if funding would be arranged for the long term for the continued maintenance and operation of the access road by the ED&T. Department of Community and Government Services (CGS)  Requested clarification on where solid waste would be disposed of.  Requested that the Proponent provide information on whether a secondary water source would be used and what the storage or transfer of water may entail, and what the predicted water usage would be.  Indicated the Proponent should develop and submit a sludge management plan. Nunavut Tourism  Noted the potential for serious impacts on the tourism sector, particularly to cruise ships and private yacht travel.  Identified that Nanisivik is critical in terms of being a potential refuelling location.  Indicated that access to a facility for refuelling will be critical for the development of marine tourism in Nunavut.  Stated that having the port facility available to the cruise ship industry is very important to help develop that sector of the tourism economy. Environment Canada (EC)  Identified concern regarding the potential deposit of chemicals, sediments, wastes or fuels associated with the project into any water body. Noted that the Proponent is required to follow the Fisheries Act, Section 36 (3).  Identified that a permit will be required if dredging is to occur for in-water works.  EC expressed concerns regarding the following: o Potential deposit of sediment into any fish bearing waters; o Potential contamination of groundwater; o Release of contaminants to the air with incineration of wastes including dioxin and furan emissions; and o Potential impact to nesting habitat for migratory birds within the project boundaries.
P.O. Box 1360 Cambridge Bay, NU X0B 0C0 Phone: (867) 983-4600 Page 9 of 15
EC recommended the following: o Install bubble curtains prior to pile driving for the wharf upgrades be installed to prevent impacts prior to impacts occurring should noise levels be greater than 150 decibels (dB); o Maintain an undisturbed buffer zone of at least 100 metres between any quarrying and the normal high water mark of any waterbody; o Implement suitable erosion control measures; o Install silt fences/curtains down gradient of any quarrying activities; o No disturbance of the stream bed or banks of any definable watercourse is permitted; clearing adjacent to streams/lakes should be done without disturbing the organic layer; o Prepare an Abandonment and Restoration Plan for the proposed quarry sites; o Excavation and/or removal of material from the proposed quarry sites should only take place one metre or more above the groundwater table; o Proponent should apply the Guidelines for Effluent Quality and Wastewater Treatment at Federal Establishments (1976); o The Proponent should be aware of the potential for the proposed Wastewater Systems Effluent Regulations by the Government of Canada to apply to the Facility after the 5-year period for research; o Proponent be required to treat all oily wastewater transferred from vessels or collected on-site separately from domestic wastewater treatment; o The burning of wastes should be considered only after all alternatives for waste disposal have been explored and devices used for incineration meet emission limits established under the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) Canada-wide Standards; o The Proponent should develop an incineration management plan and provide the plan to EC prior to implementation; o Burning by the Proponent should be strictly limted to burning of clean wood only, in order to prevent the release of dioxins and furans;Approved movement documents must be completed for the transportation of hazardous wastes outside the territory of Nunavut; o The Proponent must maintain an up to date spill contingency plan. o The Proponent shall document and report any spill events to the Northwest Territories/Nunavut (NWT/NU) 24 hour Spill Line at (867) 920-8130. o The Proponent must identify storage tank systems to EC and the installation of all new tank systems must comply with the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) Storage Tank System for Petroleum Products and Allied Petroleum Products Regulations. o The updated emergency response plan must include:  Whether the Proponent has discussed the requirements and possible demands of the project on community services with Arctic Bay;  Planning for various potential emergencies including air or ship emergencies or disasters; and  An examination and discussion of the ways in which allowances have been made to adjust emergency response to extreme weather events.
P.O. Box 1360 Cambridge Bay, NU X0B 0C0 Phone: (867) 983-4600 Page 10 of 15
o The Proponent should be required to conduct activities outside of the migratory bird nesting season. o The Proponent should be required to take reasonable steps to ensure all wastes are inaccessible to wildlife at all times. o The Proponent should identify what steps would be taken to protect wildlife (including marine birds) in the event of a spill. Information should be added to emergency and spill response plan(s). Proponent should be required to follow Section 5.1 and Section 6(a) of the Migratory Birds Convention Act. Provided recommendations to reduce aircraft disturbances to migratory birds. Provided standard comments and recommendations when encountering Species at Risk. Recommended that all field operations staff be made aware of the Proponent’s commitments and project mitigation measures and provided with appropriate advice/training.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO)  Identified that the project will result in the harmful alteration, disruption and destruction of fish habitat. The harmful alteration, disruption and destruction of fish habitat is prohibited unless authorized by DFO pursuant to subsection 35(2) of the Fisheries Act (NIRB note: as in place at the time the comments were provided).  Indicated that the Proponent should develop a fish habitat offsetting plan to compensate for the fish habitat that will be destroyed or harmfully altered as a result of the wharf upgrading component of the project. Transport Canada  Indicated that Proponent should follow the standards/guidelines/acts that are applicable to the Transport Canada - Navigable Waters Protection Program (NWPP) and the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA) (NIRB note: as in place at the time the comments were provided).  Outlined that the Proponent will be required to submit formal applications to the NWPP in order to obtain NWPP's approval, promulgation, or exemption for each specific work. Further stated that any design, construction, or operational changes should be provided to the NWPP.  Identified that the Oil Pollution Prevention/Emergency plan for fuel transfer must be reviewed by regulators prior to storage capacity tank farms being put in place. March 23, 2012 Comments Government of Nunavut (GN)  Identified that the reduced scope does not alter original comments, specifically those related to marine tourism and use of road between Arctic Bay and the facility. o Also stated that DND’s response from February 24, 2012 does not address potential impacts the facility would have on the development of marine tourism on the region. o Indicated that continued discussion is required regarding the maintenance of the road between Arctic Bay and the Facility.
P.O. Box 1360 Cambridge Bay, NU X0B 0C0 Phone: (867) 983-4600 Page 11 of 15
Indicated that additional information is required to clarify how the reduced scope will affect the anticipated employment opportunities. Requested more detail on the anticipated requirements for services and support from Arctic Bay as a result of reduced onsite services.
Environment Canada (EC)  Indicated that EC did not have any comments further to those provided on October 10, 2011. EC indicated that although the scope of the project has been reduced, the comments provided previously by EC remained relevant. Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO)  DFO indicated that given the reduced scope for the Nanisivik Naval Facility, additional work with DND to obtain further information is required to determine if the reduced scope and footprint of the project now requires a Fisheries Act Authorization. Once this determination has been made, DFO indicated that it will notify the NIRB of the decision. Transport Canada (TC)  TC acknowledged that in light of DND’s response comments dated March 5, 2012, TC’s October 17, 2011 recommendations remain valid and would be applicable to the reduced project scope as specified by DND.  Advised DND to consult with TC’s Marine Safety branch regarding the site specific plans and operation of the Facility as they are developed over time. NIRB ASSESSMENT AND DECISION After completing a review of the application materials received, including the revised scope of the Nanisivik Naval Facility project proposal and taking into account the Proponent’s responses to comments, concerns and requests for clarification, it is the NIRB’s opinion that this project proposal remains insufficiently developed to permit proper screening. The Board has identified a number of outstanding issues with this project proposal, including the following:    Insufficient information presented on how the concerns raised by the public have been addressed and/or incorporated within the revised project design; Insufficient discussion presented on how traditional knowledge had been obtained and considered in the development of this proposal; Insufficient analysis of potential impacts to community services in Arctic Bay, including the airport, medical services, police, water and wastewater services, and any other services; and insufficient discussion on any mitigation strategies that might have to be put in place for the use of the facilities in Arctic Bay; Insufficient information presented on the aggregate source; Inadequate information provided on the potential impacts to marine wildlife from the project proposal; Inadequate information on the potential impacts from increased noise to marine wildlife during the wharf upgrades, as the information on noise provided was limited to only those impacts on the community of Arctic Bay;
P.O. Box 1360 Cambridge Bay, NU X0B 0C0 Phone: (867) 983-4600 Page 12 of 15
No information was provided on the potential impacts to the marine environment from the use of the cathodic protection system to control erosion on the wharf; Insufficient discussion was provided to the potential (direct and indirect) impacts to Inuit harvesting resulting from project activities, including increased shipping activities enabled and/or facilitated by the presence of the proposed Nanisivik Naval Facility; Insufficient discussion presented on the potential socio-economic impacts to Arctic Bay from Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships patrolling in and around the area including: interactions between patrol ships and harvesters; and use of patrol ships to support community initiatives such as search and rescue operations or other response efforts (i.e. emergency or spill); and, Insufficient information provided on discussions with the GN regarding the road between Arctic Bay and the future Nanisivik Naval Facility and specifically, identification of the party responsible for ongoing maintenance of the road.
In correspondence to the NIRB dated March 5, 2012, DND indicated that the operation of ships at sea is outside of the mandate of this project, which is limited to infrastructure only, and that the Nanisivik Naval Facility project team does not have the authority to speak to potential ship operations. However, it is the Board’s view that the planned use of the facility by ships is an essential element of the scope of the project proposal and the Board is required to give consideration to the impacts from ship movement which will result as a consequence of the proposed infrastructure. Thus a full understanding of DND’s plans for the use of the Nanisivik Naval Facility, including DND’s intentions to allow private or other commercial vessels to use the facility (i.e for refueling, cargo loading and other purposes), is necessary for the Board to adequately assess the potential for impacts from the infrastructure set out in the project proposal. RECOMMENDATION TO THE MINISTER Given these significant deficiencies in the information required for proper assessment, it is the opinion of the Board that there is insufficient information in the current project proposal to make a determination under NLCA Section 12.4.4 (a), (b), or (d). After completing a review of all application materials received and taking into account the comments from the parties and the public as well as responses provided by DND, it is the NIRB’s determination that this project proposal is insufficiently developed to permit proper screening, and the project proposal should be returned to the Proponent for clarification to address the deficiencies listed above in accordance with Section 12.4.4(c) of the NLCA. In making this recommendation, the Board acknowledges that it is uncommon for the NIRB to indicate to the Minister that a project proposal should be returned for clarification in this manner. However, the potential for significant adverse impacts to the ecosystem cannot be properly assessed without receiving the critical information related to this project proposal as requested by the NIRB and several of the commenting parties. As noted in the summary of comments and in the procedural history provided in the preceding sections, the information necessary to conduct an effective and timely assessment of the project proposal has been requested several times from the Proponent since 2009. However, despite repeated requests and several opportunities to do so, essential information has not been provided and significant information gaps in the project proposal remain. While the Board regrets that at this time it is unable to make a determination as
P.O. Box 1360 Cambridge Bay, NU X0B 0C0 Phone: (867) 983-4600 Page 13 of 15
set out under Sections 12.4.4 (a), (b) or (d) of the NLCA, the Board believes that providing the Proponent with the opportunity to submit a better developed project proposal will best support an effective and efficient screening of the project going forward. The NIRB looks forward to receiving your decision and will respond in a timely and efficient manner to your direction once received.
Elizabeth Copland Chairperson Nunavut Impact Review Board
cc: Honourable Keith Ashfield, Government of Canada, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans The Honourable Eva Ariak, Premier of Nunavut Thomas Kabloona, Chairperson, Nunavut Water Board Okalik Eegeesiak, President, Qikiqtani Inuit Association Appendix A: Comment Submissions Received by Parties (October 17, 2011 & March 23, 2012)
P.O. Box 1360 Cambridge Bay, NU X0B 0C0 Phone: (867) 983-4600 Page 14 of 15
Appendix A Comment Submissions Received by Parties (October 17, 2011 & March 23, 2012)
P.O. Box 1360 Cambridge Bay, NU X0B 0C0 Phone: (867) 983-4600 Appendix A-1
8. Comment Form Distribution
COMMENT FORM FOR NIRB SCREENINGS The Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB) has a mandate to protect the integrity of the ecosystem for the existing and future residents of Nunavut. To assess the environmental and socio-economic impacts of the project proposal, NIRB would like to hear your concerns, comments and suggestions about the following project proposal application: Project Proposal Title: Nanisvik Naval Facility Proponent: Department of National Defense Location: North Baffin Comments Due By: October 17, 2011 Indicate your concerns about the project proposal below:
no concerns water quality terrain air quality wildlife and their habitat marine mammals and their habitat birds and their habitat fish and their habitat heritage resources in area traditional uses of land Inuit harvesting activities community involvement and consultation local development in the area tourism in the area human health issues other:____________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________
NIRB #:
09DN018
Please describe the concerns indicated above:
Do you have any suggestions or recommendations for this application?
Navigable Waters Protection Program (NWPP): The Proponent should be guided by and directed to the following standards/guidelines/acts that are applicable to the Transport Canada - Navigable Waters Protection Program (NWPP) and the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA). The NWPP is the Federal Authority mandated with enforcing the NWPA. All proponents must deal directly with NWPP for any work(s) to be built or placed in, on, over, under, through, or across any navigable water. The proponent will need to submit formal applications to the NWPP in order to obtain NWPP's approval, promulgation, or exemption for each specific work. The proponent shall also inform the NWPP of any design, construction, or operational changes accordingly. If the proponent is uncertain of the NWPP's requirements as they pertain to an application for a specific work(s) for this project, please refer to the NWPP Internet site or contact the NWPP office. http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/marinesafety/oep-nwpp-menu-1978.htm Transport Canada Navigable Waters Protection Program Canada Place 1100 - 9700 Jasper Avenue Edmonton, Alberta T5J 4E6 Phone: 780-495-8215
Canada Shipping Act 2001 The Canada Shipping Act (CSA) 2001 outlines Canada’s marine oil spill preparedness and to ensure a prepared response to possible ship-source oil pollution incidents. The CSA defines standards, including specifications and technical / operational requirements. These standards provide details for operators of designated oil handling facilities in developing their oil pollution emergency plans to ensure that plans will comply with the requirements for procedures, equipment and resources as set out in the legislation. Regulations from the CSA stipulate specific responsibilities of Response Organizations and Oil Handling Facilities (OHF) Regulations and Standards. The fundamental requirement is the production of an Oil Pollution Prevention/Emergency Plan for fuel transfer from a ship to a particular storage capacity tank farm. An OHF plan is a regulatory requirement and must be reviewed prior to such tanks being put into use. The regulations stipulate what is required in the plan including (but not limited to) a declaration, personnel training requirements, equipment requirements, prescribed response scenarios, and a schedule of exercises.
Do you support the project proposal? Yes
Name of person commenting: John Cowan of Environmental Affairs Position: Organization: Transport Canada Signature: Date: October 13, 2011
ᒐᕙᒪᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ Kavamaliqiyikkut Ministère de l’Exécutif et des Affaires Intergouvernementales Department of Executive & Intergovernmental Affairs
October 17, 2011 Sophia Granchinho Technical Advisor Nunavut Impact Review Board P.O. Box 1360 Cambridge Bay, NU X0B 0C0 via Email to: sgranchionho@nirb.nunavut.ca RE: NIRB FILE # 09DN018 – Department of National Defence’s “Nanisivik Naval Facility” project proposal Dear Ms. Granchinho: As requested by NIRB on September 12, 2011, the Government of Nunavut (GN) has considered the “Nanisivik Naval Facility” project proposal, submitted for NIRB screening by the Department of National Defence’s (DND) and have attached the following comments and recommendations under Appendix A. We thank NIRB for giving us the opportunity to review and provide comments on this screening and we look forward to receiving further information on this project. If you have any questions or comments please contact me, Pauloosie Suvega, at (867) 975-6022 or psuvega@gov.nu.ca. Qujannamiik, Original signed by Pauloosie Suvega Assistant Deputy Minister, Sustainable Development Department of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs
____________________________________________________________________________ ᑎᑎᖅᑲᒃᑯᕕᐊ 1000, ᐅᕙᓂ 200 P.O. Box 1000, Station 200 ᐃᖃᓗᐃᑦ, ᓄᓇᕗᑦ X0A 0H0 Iqaluit, Nunavut X0A 0H0 ᐅᖄᓚᐅᑎᖓ Tel: (867) 975-6009 • ᓱᑲᑦᑐᒃᑯᑦ Fax: (867) 975-6089 • psuvega@gov.nu.ca
Appendix A Consolidated Comments from the Government of Nunavut Nunavut Research Institute
Section 2.2.4: Regulatory Framework The Nunavut Scientists Act should be added to the table of applicable legislation. The proponent would require a Nunavut scientific research license issued pursuant to the Scientists Act to collect traditional knowledge as part of planned public consultation/engagement process. A scientific research license may also be required for environmental field studies carried out as part of monitoring efforts. Section 2.1.2: Public Involvement/Traditional Knowledge (TK) The proposal indicates that DND and Defence Construction Canada (DCC) consulted with interested parties in 2007 and 2008. A detailed report on these consultations should be included in the project application. Community preferences/concerns/knowledge documented during the 2007/2008 consultations should be fully incorporated and addressed in the project design. There is no indication that the current proposal considers local knowledge and perspectives in the selection of VECs VSECs, identification of impacts, the development and consideration of project alternatives, or in the development of mitigation and monitoring measures. The proposal also outlines plans to undertake new consultation and traditional knowledge collection activities to identify concerns and determine potential impacts of the project on the community. Whether these consultations have already been initiated is unclear (no timeline is provided) given the intention to start construction in 2012, the proponent must provide NIRB a detailed timeline and detailed plans for completing consultations and TK studies. The proponent should also justify the value of these consultations from its perspective and explain why they are occurring so late in the planning process, after most of the key project designs are finalized. If the project does proceed as planned in 2012 there would be very little ability to modify project designs based on concerns and recommendations documented through the consultations. The proposal should include more detailed plans for local training and employment to be generated by the project. Similarly a more detailed description of anticipated requirements for services from the nearest community (Arctic Bay) such as medical care, policing, fire-fighting, education, etc. particularly for the construction phase when 100 people are expected to be on-site year round. The proposal is unclear whether the road connecting Arctic Bay to the Naval facility will be maintained (3.27). Proponent should outline plans for consultation with the GN to determine how this critical road will be maintained. Department of Economic Development and Transportation (ED&T) The Department of Economic Development and Transportation has reviewed the following documents distributed by the Nunavut Impact Review Board for the Nanisivik Naval Facility proposal: NIRB Part 1 Application Form (Revised) NIRB Part 2 PSIR Application form (Revised) and Appendices Non Technical Project Summary NPC Conformity Determination
Relevant correspondence ED&T understands that the proposed activity is to use the existing Nanisivik site to establish a deep-water docking and refueling facility. Proposed Project activities include construction of storage and laydown areas, cargo marshalling area helicopter landing area, beach land and launching area, and camp services/utilities. Additionally, upgrades to the berthing infrastructure, fuel system, and roads are proposed. The construction phase is expected to last ~3 years, and the site may be fully operational by 2015. The facility will be manned and operated from June to October of each year, and left unmanned for the remainder of the year. The life of the facility is predicted to be at least 40 years. Potential socio-economic effects of the Project: ED&T requires clarification on what commercial or non-naval use may be permissible for the site. In the NIRB Part 2 revised PSIR Screening Form, the proponent noted that cruise ships, though once using Nanisivik, now arrive in Arctic Bay (pg. 4.66), and imply that Nanisivik is no longer used. However, there is current use of the Nanisivik site by commercial and private yachts during the open water season. For example, in 2009, Cruise North’s itinerary included a stop at Nanisivik for refueling, and passengers disembarked and hiked the surrounding mountains with local guides during the 7 hour stop. More recently, in 2011 a private yacht carrying 6 tourists tried refueling in Arctic Bay, but waters by the breakwater were not deep enough. The fuel truck met the yacht at Nanisivik to refuel, and the travelers spent the day in Arctic Bay, making purchases at local businesses. These examples demonstrate the future potential for marine tourism near Arctic Bay, and the role that Nanisivik has recently played. Access to a fueling station between Greenland and Alaska is necessary to developing a marine tourism economy in Nunavut waters. Furthermore, in Section 3.3.1 of the PSIR form, the proponent notes that “the Nanisivik Naval Facility may also serve to receive, marshal, hold and distribute cargo and goods from commercial vessels…” (pg. 3.34), and Table 3.2 notes several vessels that may use the Naval Facility. The application does not consider cruise ships or yachts that may need to refuel, resupply, and disembark. Therefore, ED&T would like to confirm whether stops for cruise ships or yachts will be allowed at the proposed naval facility. The proposed project may result in employment of local residents during construction or the operations/maintenance of the facility. This is noted by the proponent, and ED&T wishes to express our expectations that the proponent will aim to hire local residents and utilize local businesses whenever possible. Further, as this is a multi-year operation, any effort to build technical capacity and improve job skills with local residents is strongly encouraged. ED&T also requests clarification on whether local residents hired for construction of the facility will remain in the 100-person camp during their work rotation, or will travel to and from Arctic Bay.
Other matters related to the Project proposal: In their NIRB Part 2 PSIR Revised Screening Form, DND proposes to use the Arctic Bay airport during the construction phase to transport personnel and to receive materials and goods. The all weather road will be used during both construction and operations to transfer and resupply goods, move personnel, and to access the community health center, police, fire, and other community services (pg. 2.22). However, the proponent states in Section 3.2.3 of the NIRB Part 2 PSIR Form that “at this time, it has not been determined whether the road between the Nanisivik Naval Facility and Arctic Bay will be maintained” (pg. 3.30). Further, the proponent notes in a letter to DCC dated August 23, 2011, that “longterm maintenance of the road during operation of the facility is being negotiated between DND and the
GN”. ED&T has been in communication with DND and understands some of the constraints they may be under regarding ownership of the all weather road. As such, ED&T and DND have discussed possible funding arrangements that would enable ED&T to maintain the road seasonally. ED&T requires clarification on whether the proponent plans on using the road for the long term, and, if so, respectfully requests that the proponent provide assurances that a long term funding arrangement has been determined for the continued maintenance and operation of the all weather road between the facility and Arctic Bay.
Department of Community and Government Services. (CGS) The GN also requests clarity on where solid waste will be disposed of. In the NIRB Part 2 PSIR Screening Form, Appendix C, the proponent suggests that all wastes will be transported off-site (pg. 3.3). The GN wishes to confirm whether this will include any transport of solid waste to the municipal land fill. The GN requests the proponent to indicate if they will draw water from a secondary water source, and what the storage or transfer may entail, and what the potential usage may be. In addition, the GN requests the proponent develop a sludge management plan. Communication with the CGS can assist with responding to these requests, and may include an MOU to outline certain responsibilities.
Eastern Arctic Area Iqaluit Office P.O Box 358. Iqaluit NU X0A 0H0 Tel: Fax: (867) 979-8007 (867) 979-8039
Region Arctique de L’est Bureau de Calgary C.P. 358 Iqaluit NU X0A 0H0 Tél: (867) 979-8007 Téléc: (867) 979-8039
NU-11-0037
Sophia Granchinho Technical Advisor Nunavut Impact Review Board PO Box 9 Baker Lake NU, X0C 0A0 Dear Ms. Granchinho: Subject: DFO Comments, - Nanisivik Naval Facility Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) received this project proposal from the Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB) on September 12, 2011. The proponent of this project is the Department of National Defence and the project involves an upgrade to the Nansivik Naval Facility. DFO has assigned the following referral title and project numbers to this project. Referral File No.: Habitat File No.: Referral Title: 11-HCAA-CA7-00037 NU-11-0037 Nanasivik Naval Facility Upgrade, Arctic Bay
Based on the information provided, we have concluded that this project will result in the harmful alteration, disruption and destruction of fish habitat. The harmful alteration, disruption and destruction of fish habitat is prohibited unless authorized by DFO pursuant to subsection 35(2) of the Fisheries Act.
In reviewing this proposal, DFO will consider the Department's Policy for the Management of Fish Habitat, which provides that no authorizations be issued unless acceptable measures for any fish habitat loss’s are developed and implemented by the proponent. The proponent should develop a fish habitat offsetting plan to compensate for the fish habitat that will be destroyed or harmfully altered as a result of the wharf upgrade project. Through the review of this project, DFO will work with the proponent to mitigate any potential impacts to fish and fish habitat that may result from construction or operation of this upgraded wharf structure.
DFO File:NU-11-0037
If you have any questions concerning the above or would like to discuss in greater detail please contact me directly by telephone at (403) 292-8675 by email at Robert.Bedingfield@dfo-mpo.gc.ca Sincerely,
Bobby Bedingfield Fish Habitat Biologist Eastern Arctic Area, Iqaluit Office cc. Derrick Moggy, DFO Eastern Arctic Rodney Watson, Department of National Defence
111017-09DN018-Nunavut Tourism Comments-IA1E From: Ryan Barry <rbarry@nirb.ca> Sent: October-17-11 3:25 PM To: info@nirb.ca Cc: Sophia Granchinho - NIRB; Amanda Hanson - NIRB Subject: FW: Nanisivik Naval Facility Proposal Please see the comments below re the Nanisivik screening. Cheers, Ryan Ryan Barry Executive Director Nunavut Impact Review Board (direct) 1-867-983-4608 From: Colleen Dupuis [mailto:ceo@nunavuttourism.com] Sent: October-17-11 5:04 PM To: rbarry@nirb.ca Subject: FW: Nanisivik Naval Facility Proposal
From: Colleen Dupuis Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 4:57 PM To: 'dlapierre1@gov.nu.ca' Subject: Nanisivik Naval Facility Proposal Ms. Lapierre – The proposed plans for the new facility at Nanisivik have recently come to my attention. These plans have serious impact on the tourism sector, particularly as it relates to cruise ships and private yacht travel. Both of these are growing in Nunavut and we need to ensure that we nurture this growth. While, Nanisivik is not commonly a scheduled port of call for these vessels but is critical in terms of being a potential refueling location. Having a port facility in Canadian waters to refuel at is a significant attraction and makes refueling much simpler. Refueling can be done by longer lines or tankers in communities but this does increase the potential for an environmental incident. Nunavut Tourism and the Government of Nunavut are working to develop this sector which has significant growth potential and is something many communities throughout Nunavut are interested in developing. A facility for refueling will be critical for the development of marine tourism in Nunavut. Nanisivik is not currently listed in our Explorer’s Guide under the cruise ship section. This guide is a visitor’s guide and as such discusses what is important to the visitor TO Nunavut. Having the port facility available to the cruise ship industry is VERY important to help develop that sector of the tourism economy. I would be happy to put you in touch with our cruise ship operators to discuss their concerns Page 1
111017-09DN018-Nunavut Tourism Comments-IA1E and thoughts on the importance of Nanisivik being available to them for refueling, staging cargo, etc. I am just back in the office but understand the timeline for an expression of concern/interest on this matter is today. We would be happy to submit more detail if your require it. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you would like further detail or clarification. Colleen Dupuis
120314-09DN018-DFO Comments-IA1E From: Bedingfield, Robert <Robert.Bedingfield@dfo-mpo.gc.ca> Sent: March-14-12 2:51 PM To: info@nirb.ca Cc: RODNEY.WATSON@forces.gc.ca; Moggy, Derrick Subject: RE: NIRB 09DN018: Request Comments Re Department of National Defence's Proposed Revised Scope of the "Nanisivik Naval Facility" project proposal and its Response to Parties' Comments Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Hello, Given the reduced scope for the Nanisivik Naval Facility Project, DFO looks forward to working with the Department of National Defence to obtain further information to determine if the reduced scope and footprint of the project will require a Fisheries Act Authorization. Once this determination has been made DFO will notify NIRB of the decision. Thank you, Bobby Bedingfield Telephone/Téléphone 403 292-8675 Facsimile/Télécopieur 403 292-5173 E-mail/Courriel Robert.Bedingfield@dfo-mpo.gc.ca Fish Habitat Biologist Biologiste, Habitat du poisson Eastern Arctic Area Region Arctique de L'est Central and Arctic Region Région du Centre et de l’Arctique Fisheries and Oceans Canada Pêches et Océans Canada 7646 8th Street NE 7646, 8e Rue N.-E. Calgary, Alberta T2E 8X4 Calgary (Alberta) T2E 8X4
-----------From: Info at NIRB [info@nirb.ca] Sent: 2012–March-08 1:55 PM To: 'Distribution List' Cc: rodney.watson@forces.gc.ca; Brian Aglukark; Phyllis Beaulieu; bernie.macisaac@aandc.gc.ca; Jeff Mercer; Jeff Mercer; Moggy, Derrick; Dahl,Mark [Wpg]; Allen Cadenhead; tamara.vandyck@dcccdc.gc.ca; louis.lemay@dcc-cdc.gc.ca; Tracey McCaie Subject: NIRB 09DN018: Request Comments Re Department of National Defence's Proposed Revised Scope of the "Nanisivik Naval Facility" project proposal and its Response to Parties' Comments Attachments: 120308-09DN018-NIRB Ltr Distr Request Comment Re Revised Scope-OT2E.pdf; 120224-09DN018-DND Ltr to NIRB Re Reduced Project Scope-IDTE.PDF; 120305-09DN018-DND Cover Ltr to NIRB Re Response to Comments-IDTE.PDF; 120305-09DN018-DND Response to NIRB Re Opportunity to Address Comments-IDTE.PDF Dear Parties: On February 24, 2012 to the Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB or Board) received correspondence from the Department of National Defence (DND) indicating that after undertaking a review of the infrastructure requirements of the Nanisivik Naval Facility, it planned to reduce the functionality of the site while keeping the intent of the facility the same (i.e. a berthing and refuelling facility for the Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships Page 1
120314-09DN018-DFO Comments-IA1E and other Government of Canada vessels). Further, on March 5, 2012 the NIRB received DND’s response to parties’ comments and concerns pertaining to the Nanisivik Naval Facility proposal (enclosed). The March 5, 2012 response also included information that would be relevant to the reduction in the project scope. All materials received and pertaining to the Board’s assessment of the Nanisivik Naval Facility, including original application materials, can be accessed from the NIRB’s online public registry using the following link: http://ftp.nirb.ca/01-SCREENINGS/ACTIVE%20SCREENINGS/09DN018-DNDNanisivik%20Naval%20Facility/. The NIRB requests that parties review DND’s March 5, 2012 response to comments as well as the February 24, 2012 reduced project scope and provide the Board with any additional comments or concerns as may pertain to the revised scope of the proposal. Specifically, the NIRB requests that parties indicate whether or not the originally submitted comments remain valid and applicable to the reduced project scope as specified by DND. NIRB File No.: 09DN018 Project Name: Nanisivik Naval Facility Project Proponent: Department of National Defence Project Type: Refuelling and Docking Facility Location: North Baffin Comments Requested By: March 22, 2012 Please send your comments to the NIRB at info@nirb.ca or via fax to 867-983-2594. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to contact Sophia Granchinho, Technical Advisor directly at 867-793-4633 or sgranchinho@nirb.ca. Best regards, Derek Ehaloak Environmental Administrator Nunavut Impact Review Board P.O. Box 1360 (29 Mitik) Cambridge Bay, NU, X0B 0C0 Phone: 867-983-4600 Fax: 867-983-2594 E-mail: info@nirb.ca Web: www.nirb.ca Public Registry: ftp.nirb.ca
ᒐᕙᒪᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ KAVAMALIQIYIKKUT Ministère de l’Exécutif et des Affaires Intergouvernementales Department of Executive & Intergovernmental Affairs March 22nd, 2012 Sophia Granchinho Technical Advisor Nunavut Impact Review Board P.O. Box 1360 Cambridge Bay, NU X0A 0H0 via Email to: info@nirb.ca
NIRB: 09DN018 – Department of National Defence's (DND) proposed revised scope of the "Nanisivik Naval Facility" project proposal.
Dear Sophia Granchinho: Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Department of National Defence's proposed revised scope of the "Nanisivik Naval Facility" project proposal. The Government of Nunavut (GN) has reviewed the Department of National Defence revised scope of the project. Comments regarding the application can be found in the Appendix. We thank NIRB for providing the GN with the opportunity to review and provide comments regarding the Department of National Defence revised scope of the project and we look forward to receiving further information on this project from NIRB. Please do not hesitate to contact me at (867) 975-6071 if you have any questions or comments.
Pauloosie Suvega Assistant Deputy Minister, Sustainable Development Government of Nunavut
ᑎᑎᖅᑲᒃᑯᕕᐊ 1000, ᐅᕙᓂ 200 P.O. Box 1000, Station 200 ᐃᖃᓗᐃᑦ, ᓄᓇᕗᑦ X0A 0H0 Iqaluit, Nunavut X0A 0H0 ᐅᖄᓚᐅᑎᖓ Tel: (867) 975‐6022 • ᓱᑲᑦᑐᒃᑯᑦ Fax: (867) 975‐6089 • psuvega@gov.nu.ca ᒐᕙᒪᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ KAVAMALIQIYIKKUT Ministère de l’Exécutif et des Affaires Intergouvernementales Department of Executive & Intergovernmental Affairs Appendix
Validity of Original Comments The Government of Nunavut has reviewed these documents and is of the opinion that the reduced scope does not alter our original comments. Specifically, the GN comments, submitted to NIRB on October 17, 2011, focused on possible impacts to marine tourism and on the long term use and maintenance of the road between Arctic Bay and the naval facility. The information provided in DND’s reduced scope does not appear to change the project such that these concerns are no longer applicable. Rather, DND’s responses in the February 24 document do not address whether stops for cruise ships or yachts will be allowed at the proposed facility or how the facility will impact the development of marine tourism in the region. In addition, the GN acknowledges that continued discussions with DND will aim to resolve questions regarding maintenance of the road between Arctic Bay and the naval facility. However, the original comments are still applicable to this proposal. Additional Comments Employment The original project proposed a 100-person camp, and associated facilities. With the removal of permanent accommodations at the Nanisivik Naval Facility, the GN requests clarity in how the reduced project scope will affect the anticipated employment opportunities available. Community Services The removal of the permanent accommodations and associated site infrastructure has resulted in a change to the project. In a letter from Stantec on behalf of DND to NIRB, dated August 23, 2011, it states that during operations, the site will be equipped with the appropriate infrastructure and that there would likely be no adverse impacts to the community services of Arctic Bay. However, DND’s March 6, 2012 response to stakeholders states that the facility will no longer be self-sufficient and will consider community services and support as part of their project (item 4-4). Furthermore, DND’s February 24, 2012 document summarizing the reduced scope of the project states that support from the local community of Arctic Bay will be required for potable water and wastewater management. Therefore, the GN requests more detail on the anticipated requirement for services and support from Arctic Bay as a result of reduced onsite services. Specifically, the GN requests: 1. Information on the specific support required by the local community for water and wastewater services. 2. The winter storage plans for infrastructure, including security plans. 3. Whether DND will use incinerators and whether DND will ship all material, including organic material, south or to Arctic Bay for disposal.
ᑎᑎᖅᑲᒃᑯᕕᐊ 1000, ᐅᕙᓂ 200 P.O. Box 1000, Station 200 ᐃᖃᓗᐃᑦ, ᓄᓇᕗᑦ X0A 0H0 Iqaluit, Nunavut X0A 0H0 ᐅᖄᓚᐅᑎᖓ Tel: (867) 975‐6022 • ᓱᑲᑦᑐᒃᑯᑦ Fax: (867) 975‐6089 • psuvega@gov.nu.ca ᒐᕙᒪᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ KAVAMALIQIYIKKUT Ministère de l’Exécutif et des Affaires Intergouvernementales Department of Executive & Intergovernmental Affairs 4. According to the reduced scope, the maximum storage (2 x 3.75ML capacity tanks) equals the required supply of 7.5ML naval distillate. Therefore, what contingency exists if DND requires more distillate than anticipated in a given year, and how might this impact the community’s fuel supply? 5. Start up and shut down plans for the facility on a seasonal basis and how many people from the community may be required. 6. Other services required by the community, such as police, fire, and medical services.
ᑎᑎᖅᑲᒃᑯᕕᐊ 1000, ᐅᕙᓂ 200 P.O. Box 1000, Station 200 ᐃᖃᓗᐃᑦ, ᓄᓇᕗᑦ X0A 0H0 Iqaluit, Nunavut X0A 0H0 ᐅᖄᓚᐅᑎᖓ Tel: (867) 975‐6022 • ᓱᑲᑦᑐᒃᑯᑦ Fax: (867) 975‐6089 • psuvega@gov.nu.ca Environmental Affairs, Programs P.O. Box 8550 rd 3 Floor, 344 Edmonton Street Winnipeg, Manitoba R3C 0P6
7075-70-1-100
March 22, 2012 Sophia Granchinho Technical Advisor Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB) P.O. Box 1360 Cambridge Bay, NU, X0B 0C0
Re: Request Comments Regarding Department of National Defence’s Proposed Revised Scope of the “Nanisivik Naval Facility” Project Proposal and its Response to Parties’ Comments
Dear Ms. Granchinho, Transport Canada has reviewed your March 8, 2012 letter requesting comments on the revised project scope of the referenced Nanisivik Naval Facility proposal. Based upon a review of the revised scope and March 5, 2012 comments provided by the Department of Nation Defense (DND), Transport Canada acknowledges that DND’s response comments and our October 17, 2011 recommendations contained within the NIRB comment form, both remain valid and would be applicable to the reduced project scope as specified by DND. Transport Canada would also advise that DND consult with our Marine Safety branch regarding the site specific plans and operation of this facility, as they are developed over time. Should you have any questions regarding Transport Canada’s comments concerning this project, please contact me via email at john.cowan@tc.gc.ca or by telephone at (204) 9831139. Regards,
Documents Similar To 130116 09DN018 Screening Decision Report OEDESkip carousel130408-09DN018-Minister Response to NIRB SDR-IT6EMonica Tennberg - Compression of Time and Space10Arctic Competition - RulesHistory of the global warming scare Chapter 5SCFI - Impact Turn FileAdventure Canada Travel Agent ContestThe Mariner's Role in Collecting EvidenceTranspoHttp Www.pacinst.org Report...Curity and Climate ChangeModel SopepweA tale of our creationA BRIEF HISTORY OF TRANSPORTUntitled31572-20111006125657FLP2443 Diploma for Ship & Port Agents HA101Wartsila SP a Id Windfarm bTransverse Thrust on the PropellerMarops 02-Publication ChecklistMaritimeReporter1989-12-01TeambuidlingSsep - July 2013 - January 2010Design ProcessShip Control With LabviewCaptain Harun - MASTER ORALS Answers.docx-1James E. McDaniel Libelant-Appellant v. The M/s Lisholt, Her Engines, Etc., and A. S. Lise, Her Owner, 257 F.2d 538, 2d Cir. (1958)Harmonised Survey SystemChp1code prices latest Documents About ArcticSkip carouselPotsdam Graphic 646254aClimate Security ReportArctic Roadmap 2014-2030National Strategy for the Arctic RegionArctic Force StructureOffshore Oil Drilling in the ArcticThe Arctic:
Five Critical Security ChallengesThe Opportunity Costs of Ignoring the Law of Sea Convention in the Arctic, by James W. HouckNunavutThe Alaskan Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Toward an Integrated Arctic Observing Network, Report in Brief Russia in the ArcticConnections, The Quarterly Journal, Winter 2011Oil Spill Response ToolboxAmericas Role in the ArcticHOUSE HEARING, 114TH CONGRESS - CHARTING THE ARCTICTopsy-Turvy by Verne, Jules, 1828-1905The ArcticDegrees of Climate Change mapComparative Study for the Report on the Status of Pastoralism projectArctic Council Nuuk Declaration 2011Putting a Freeze on Arctic Ocean DrillingArctic Climate and EnergyArctic Economic PotentialAddressing the Gaps in Arctic Governance, by Mark E. Rosen and Patricio Asfura-HeimImplementation Plan for the National Strategy for the Arctic Region - Fi...R41153 (1)Rl 34391 IcebreakerIn the Kingdom of IceArctic 2014More From NunatsiaqNewsSkip carouselOils Spill Response Capacity—NunavutSwoboda v. Government of NunavutNTI Letter to Premier Taptuna NTI Resolution denouncing Bill 37North Water Polynya LetterSocial Media Guide for Nunavut Teachers 2016Makivik Structural Review Committee Report — AGM2017R.A. v. S.K. and D.K. 2017, Nunavut Court of JusticeInuktut in Nunavut Open Letter March 16th, 2017Nunavut Crime Prevention Strategy2017 NUCA 2 R. v. DejaegerBILL 37, Nunavut Legislative Assembly2017 NUCA 01 — R. v. KayaitokR. v. Ningiuk 2017 NUCJ 06Inuit Language Loss in Nunavut — Martin Status Report, March 7, 2017Senate committee report on housing in Inuit NunangatNunavut Finance Minister 2017-18 Budget AddressNunavut coroner's report on death of Annie KootooNTI-RIA Pre-Hearing Written Submission Adventurer Owner Ltd. v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of CanadaInuit Crown Partnership DeclarationAmended, R. v. Mikijuk 2017 NUCJ 02R. v. Holland 2017 Nucj 0314774-eng1329-25-43 - English2016 Fuel Retail Price List - NunavutNew Nunavut Fuel Price TableHope Bay Phase 2, Plain Language Summary2017 NUCJ 01 R. v. Quvianaqtuliaq170112-12MN036-Minister Ltr to NIRB Re Final Hearing Report-IEDE