Socio-Economic Impact Assessment

ENOKSEOT HOLDINGS LTD. Socio-Economic Impact Assessment Iqaluit Hydro Electric Development Project January 31, 2008 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION...3 II. III. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.. 7 MAIN REPORT 11 a. Description of Impacted Communities 10 b. Background Assumptions to Report...15 c. Key Resources..18 i) Public Participation Methods and Process 18 ii) iii) iv) Project Development Impact Scenarios.26 General impact of construction of hydro-generation facilities 34 Potential Impacts: Iqaluit, Local, Regional....37 1. Health and Well-Being.37 2. Business Opportunities..41 3. Employment Opportunities...50 4. Investment Opportunities...57 5. Population Sustainability 58 6. Services and Infrastructure Social Services..61 7. Services and Infrastructure Education....64 8. Services and Infrastructure Housing Availability & Affordability 66 9. Services and Infrastructure Physical Infrastructure 67 10. Land Uses, and Harvesting....70 Appendix 1 Appendix 2 Appendix 3 Appendix 4 Appendix 5 Appendix 6 Appendix 7 Appendix 8 Appendix 9 Appendix 10 Appendix 11 Socio-Economic Impact Assessment Questionnaire For Community Feedback Public Consultation Communications Results of Socio-Economic Impact Assessment Survey Sample Excerpt of Socio-Economic Monitoring Agreement Overview of Hydroelectric Operations and Maintenance Overview of Hydroelectric Operations and Maintenance Pending Consultation Meetings Transcripts of Selected Community Meetings Enokseot Holdings Ltd. Profile Employment Summary of GN Public Service Review Inuit Accord on Human Resources Development 2

I. INTRODUCTION The following introduction is designed to help you to get an overall idea of what a socioeconomic impact assessment is, the purpose of the assessment and what the information in the report covers in a snapshot. What is a Socio-Economic Impact Assessment (SEIA)? Simply put, a socio-economic impact assessment is a study to determine how a proposed development project will affect or change the lives of current or future residents of a community or geographic area. SEIA s are most often part of a larger Environmental Impact Statement which is the complete study of the combined information gathered from a socio-economic impact assessment as well as an environmental impact assessment (EIA). Purpose of this report The focus and scope of this report is based on merely the aspects of the socio-economic aspects which will be shared with those conducting the EIA to further refine areas of study. The SEIA process involved collecting baseline data (available existing information) about the socio-economic conditions combined with information gathered through participation from stakeholders (land users, hunters, cabin owners, business owners etc.) by means of interviews, focus groups and public meetings. Participant s feedback and other data collected were designed to provide information to assist in the overall decision to consider the following scenarios: There were four development scenarios to consider during the assessment process: 1. A decision to not proceed with hydro-electric development for Iqaluit 2. A decision to proceed with hydro-electric development at the Qikiqgijaarvik (Jaynes Inlet) site 3. A decision to proceed with hydro-electric development at one of Akulikutaq or Tungatalik (Armshow River) sites 4. A decision to proceed with hydro-electric development at the Kangalait (Cantley Bay) site Identification and development of positive and negative scenarios for each option above over three "impact" time frames: 1. The lead up and construction period (5 years) 2. The period immediately after construction (5 years) 3. The 50 year period after construction 3

This study was to focus specifically on the following. I. The potential socio-economic and cultural impacts of investing I not investing in one or more hydroelectric generating stations and associated transmission lines to supply electrical energy to Iqaluit as described in these options: II. The impact of each option on the social and economic lives of Iqalungmiut, Nunavummiut, and impacted communities, directly or indirectly This study was conducted by Enokseot Holding Ltd. of Iqaluit, Nunavut as contracted by Qulliq Energy Corporation. QEC and hydro Qulliq Energy Corporation (QEC) is a Crown Corporation owned 100% by the Government of Nunavut (GN). The corporation was originally established in 2001 as Nunavut Power Corporation (NPC) under the Nunavut Power Utilities Act. It was renamed Qulliq Energy Corporation and the Nunavut Power Utilities Act was renamed the Qulliq Energy Corporation Act as the result of legislation passed in March 2003 which also broadened the corporation s mandate to respond to a range of energy use and conservation issues in Nunavut. Qulliq Energy Corporation operates several divisions, some using registered trade names Nunavut Power Qulliq Energy and Nunavut Energy Centre. These are not separate corporations. They all share the same reporting structure and Board. QEC, under the Nunavut Power trade name, generates and distributes electrical power to Nunavummiut through the operation of twenty-seven (27) diesel generation plants in 25 communities. Currently, 100% of the electricity generated in Nunavut is done through the burning of imported fossil fuels, and QEC uses nearly 25 per cent of the diesel fuel imported into Nunavut annually. Recognizing the inevitable increase in world prices for fossil fuels, as well as the environmentally and ecologically harmful effects of burning diesel fuel, QEC has embarked on exploring the feasibility of possibly developing a hydro-electric power generating facility in Nunavut. It was concluded from a cost benefit analysis that it would be most beneficial to first explore a potential facility to serve the territory s largest community, Iqaluit. QEC is in the midst of conducting further in-depth feasibility studies concentrating on 3 possible locations for the possibly development of hydro-electric power generating facility. Those locations include Armshow Long (2 sites), Jayne s Inlet and Cantley Bay. These studies includes Environmental; Engineering; Social-Economic and Impact Assessment. For additional information on the Iqaluit Hydro Project is available on the internet at the following website http://www.nunavutpower.com/hydro%20development%20maps.htm 4

The objectives of QEC include: a) to generate, transform, transmit, distribute, deliver, sell and supply energy on a safe, economic, efficient and reliable basis; and b) to plan and provide for Nunavut's long term needs for affordable energy, taking into consideration Nunavut's desire to enhance energy self reliance and to conserve energy and energy resources. c) to undertake programs to maximize efficiency of fuel and other energy consumption and to provide advice and information to consumers to enable fuel and energy conservation; d) to undertake and other activity ordered or authorized by order of the Commissioner in Executive Council. 5

Land uses and harvesting The Inuit people have been given life from the lands they have inhabited for thousands of years. It has served Inuit in every aspect of life and the very land itself has been named from Nuna the land. For all its harshness and unforgiving elements it has still provided everything from which to live. Shelter, warmth and drinking water come from snow, the land provides wildlife and berries, while the waters of the lakes, rivers and the ocean provides the greatest bounty of all. This great bounty provides food and furs, as well as the source for tools and oil to make the light and heat for the Qulliq. As the people moved outward and adapted to the land around them they learned to read all the signs it provided to them to find their way to great hunting and fishing areas and always lead them home. The threats to this bond and the very land itself are growing at an alarming rate with the greatest threat of all being the effects of climate change. Climate changes are affecting everything from the ice flows and inland water levels to its effects on migration habits. Adapting to these rapid changes is likely to be the greatest challenge to face Inuit in generations, possibly ever. The ongoing studies being done on climate change in the north and around the globe are intensifying and is beyond the scope of this report but it will have an impact on the socio-economic future of Nunavut. The sooner populations are using renewable sources of energy the faster we can stop putting further pressure on the environment. However, even with renewable sources of energy in the north, we must be diligent to ensure that Nunavummiut can still use the land in traditional ways. It is with this need in mind that we look at how local population in and around Iqaluit use and harvest the land and its resources. It is important to keep in mind when reading this report that much information about the projected impacts on the land, lakes, rivers and ocean will affect the animals, fish and other marine life. With this information only then will the area population and land users offer a conclusive opinion? It is the unique linkage between the people the land and the wildlife that makes the usual partially overlapping process of SEIA and EIA an almost conjoined process in the case of the Inuit. As part of the ongoing process of community consultation and involvement the data that comes from environmental assessments will need to be provided to both the public and involved in further socioeconomic analysis to get the true picture as well as an endorsement from the community and land users. 6

II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The following report has been written in response to a request put forth by Qulliq Energy Corporation (QEC) to conduct a Socio-Economic Impact Assessment for possible hydro-electric development for the City of Iqaluit. This report has now been conducted by Enokseot Holdings Ltd. Recognizing the inevitable increase in world prices for fossil fuels, as well as theenvironmentally and ecologically harmful effects of burning diesel fuel, QEC has embarked on exploring the feasibility of developing a hydro-electric power generating facility in Nunavut. It was recommended from a cost benefit analysis that it would be most beneficial to first explore potential facility development to serve the territory s largest community, Iqaluit. QEC is in the midst of conducting further in-depth feasibility studies concentrating on three possible locations for the possibe development of a hydro-electric power generating facility. Those locations include Armshow River (2 sites), Jayne s Inlet and Cantley Bay. These further studies include Environmental, Engineering and Socio-Economic and Impact Assessment (SEIA). The report submitted here is specific to the Socio-Economic and Impact Assessment portion of QEC studies being conducted. This initial Socio-Economic Impact Assessment is designed as the initial phase of a further ongoing process with the goal of determining the potential impacts on the people in and around the Iqaluit area, including the Kimmirut region. The potential impacts are examined as to whether they will have a positive or negative effect on a variety of social and economic factors. Some of these potential impacts are as follows: Land use (Hunting, Fishing, Recreation, etc.) Health and well being Population sustainability Affect on traditional lifestyles Business and investment opportunities Employment opportunities Services and infrastructure Income and lifestyle The SEIA presented here will explain in further detail projections of potential positive and negative impacts over three impact time frames related to a hydro-electric development project : 5 years lead-up to construction, the 5 year post construction and an estimated 50 year operational time. 7

Nunavut and Nunavummiut have a challenging road ahead to meet the expectations defined in the Pinasuaqtavut 2004-2009 (Government of Nunavut, 2004). QEC supports and shares these goals of: Inuuqatigiittiarniq: Healthy Communities Pijarnirniqsat Katujjiqatigiittiarnirlu: Simplicity and Unity Namminiq Makitajunnarniq: Self-Reliance Ilippallianginnarniq: Continuing Learning Specifically, these goals can be further supported through a future with less dependence on fossil fuels and more locally generated renewable energy. Further to the goals of self-reliance and continued learning, the report will show preferred opportunities to a local and regional Inuit population as mandated by the Land Claims Agreement. Improvements to communities can be supported and implemented as defined in an Inuit Impact Benefit Agreement (IIBA) to be negotiated as noted in Land Claims Agreement. The report also highlights the potential negative impacts that can result from an influx of outside influences, some of which may have harmful effects to local culture over time. Throughout the SEIA report we will describe the public communication and participation efforts to inform local residents. These efforts include radio, local newspapers, establishment of a website and development of an SEIA questionnaire. A number of public meetings were held in both English and Inuktitut for land users, cabin owners, elders, business owners, hunters and trappers, government, the general public and citizens of the Kimmirut region. At each of these meetings, the SEIA questionnaire was distributed for community feedback. All communication opportunities were intended to involve and inform residents and land users. Although the rate of response by return of completed questionnaires was relatively low, we gained the impression of strong interest in this development from the majority of meeting attendees, with no strong objections to QEC plans to date. Generally, the public would welcome further details on environmental impacts to feel well informed and voice a stronger opinion. Some final thoughts are summarized and included on the final page of this report with complete SEIA questionnaire results found in Appendix 3. Public opinion is eager for details of the Environmental Assessment, specifically the potential impacts to wildlife, fishing, hunting, the lands, lakes, and rivers. The other key environmental factor that will strongly impact the socio-economic conditions in the long term relate to climate change and its significant ramifications on northern population and day to day life in the region. A great desire for more environmental impact information was expressed throughout all public consultation. The public s thirst and concern for environmental impact details was emphasized in all responses, both in public meetings and in responses to the SEIA questionnaire. The level of public interest in these topics was significant and consistent. It is recommended that future studies and public participation strive to inform the public to the best extent possible on all environmental factors related to a hydro-electric development project in the region. 8

Public participation and the development of human resources are vital to improving the future economic outlook for Iqaluit and Nunavut. This means improving the skills and education of local and regional Inuit by way of job training, improved funding systems for education, language, culture and literacy. Each of these activities can contribute to a more prosperous, stronger region leading to a self reliant, self-sustaining future for all Nunavummiut (Nunavut Economic Forum, 2005). The SEIA report has also illustrated some perceived negative impacts that can result from a hydro-electric development project. For example the hydro construction project could bring a strain to an already strained local infrastructure such as housing, waste management systems, schools and health services. With proper planning, support of QEC, local government, territorial government, Inuit cultural organizations and local residents, strain on infrastructure can be minimized. A sustainable combination of commitment and cooperation could be outlined in a Socio Economic Monitoring Agreement (SEMA) to ensure that all valued components of the local socio economic landscape could be protected and public consultation is assured. Additional encouragement of social development, maintenance of traditional knowledge and culture, and a commitment to Inuit and Nunavummiut hiring and business contracting priorities could all be improved over time through a SEMA program (Refer to Appendix 4). The socio economic impact assessment process must continue through feasibility and planning stages of a hydro-electric development project to encourage and engage further public participation. Such a project can hold much historic significance and provide a symbol of great pride for all Nunavummiut when all aspects of sustainable development are incorporated. Therefore, it is recommended that any proposed construction proceeds in such a way that is responsible to the public and respectful to the land while contributing to the overall vision of a stronger and self-sustaining Nunavut. 9

III. MAIN REPORT a. Description of Impacted Communities (i) City of Iqaluit The City of Iqaluit encompasses 52.34 square kilometers, as outlined in the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (1992); which allows for a significant expansion of the built up area. There are two protected areas, Sylvia Grinnell Territorial Park Reserve (existing and proposed) west of the populated area and to the east of the populated area is the Watershed Protection Area around Lake Geraldine, the source of drinking water for the City of Iqaluit. In addition, the region is surrounded by several territorial parks, including Katannilik Territorial Park which lies to the south west of Iqaluit (Appendix 5, Figure 1). Photo 1 City of Iqaluit, Nunavut Iqaluit, being the capital of the Territory of Nunavut, is the economic and population hub of this region. As of the Canada 2006 Census, the population of Iqaluit is 6,184 residents. Population has grown by 46.7% over the 10 year period from 1996 to 2006. These figures account for all permanent residents who do not own a home outside of Nunavut. Therefore, this figure does not include the substantial temporary population that varies seasonally and due to employment. It is estimated that the city of Iqaluit has current energy demands for both electricity and heating of 199 GWh with an average 23 MW and 41 MW peak. The Government of Nunavut projects that energy demands of Iqaluit are expected to increase over the next thirty years by over 165%. Diesel and oil are the primary fuels imported to the region for generation of electricity and heating, respectively, to meet this demand (Phase II Pre- Feasibility Report (Ref. No. VA103-137/01-2, Knight Piésold Consulting, page I and II). According to policy City of Iqaluit General Plan By-Law 571 (June 2003) Section 4.2 Watershed Protection Area, the land around Lake Geraldine will be excluded from development, including roads and trails, to protect the present and future water supplies. The watershed boundary will change as the demand for more water to service the community increases. This will result in a search for alternative lakes and rivers adjacent to the existing Watershed Protection Area. It is anticipated that the watershed boundary will increase in the future. 10

Similarly, under Section 4.3 Sylvia Grinnell Park Reserve, including the proposed boundary expansion, Only development consistent with the policies of the Sylvia Grinnell Master Plan will be permitted in the Park Reserve and in accord with the Parks Act (City of Iqaluit General Plan By-Law 571, June 2003; page 32) The boundaries for Sylvia Grinnell Park are well defined and just require legislation to become officially designated. The City of Iqaluit General Plan By-Law 571 does leave provisions for development of power generation facilities. According to the City of Iqaluit s land use policy, certain uses concerning utilities, communications and power are permitted subject to zoning by-law amendments. Section 4.1 Nuna, Policy 3 (c) states Facilities for power generation including conventional combustion and renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power..are permitted on Nuna subject to zoning by-law amendments. Nuna is an Inuktitut word refering to land and specifically to the undeveloped hinterland where a variety of traditional and recreational activities occur (City of Iqaluit General Plan By-Law 571, page 29)(See Appendix 5 for full large City of Iqaluit Boundary map) (ii) Description of Community Boundaries Based on the outcomes of the Phase II Pre-Feasibility Report Ref. No. VA103-137/01-2, Knight Piésold Consulting, October 2006 the communities of Iqaluit, Kimmirut, and Pangnirtung were identified for further study (Appendix 5, Figure 2). As recommended, further study of the socio-economic characteristics of these communities was carried out and reported here to determine the criteria most important to citizens of Iqaluit in regards to possible hydro-electric development and existing land use throughout the identified regions. The three identified sites lie south of Iqaluit, bordering Frobisher Bay. Armshow River and Jayne s Inlet lie on the west shore of Frobisher Bay while Cantley Bay is further to the south, on the east shore of the bay (Phase II Pre-Feasibility Report Ref. No. VA103-137/01-2, Knight Piésold Consulting, Section 3.1). Armshow River (Akulikutaq or Tungatalik)- This region borders the Katannilik Territorial Park and is heavily used for year round recreation, camping, fishing and hunting by residents of Iqaluit and citizens throughout the region. Of the three proposed sites, Armshow River is the nearest to the city of Iqaluit in terms of transportation. While this presents some benefits for a hydro electricity transmission corridor, it also presents much concern for users of the land given the proximity to both the park and the city of Iqaluit. Land holding in this region is governed by INAC for Crown Photo 2 Armshow River, QEC Camp 2 11

Land, Commissioner s Land throughout the park and some Inuit Owned Land (Phase II Pre- Feasibility Report Ref. No. VA103-137/01-2, Knight Piésold Consulting,Table 4.2 and 4.3). Project development at the proposed Armshow River site would need to take into account each of these stakeholders and the potential impacts on the land, land use and residents. There are cabin owners in this region as well. The pre-feasibility study mapping of this proposed site can be found in Appendix 5, Figure 3. 12

Jayne s Inlet (Qikiqgijaarvik) - South of the Armshow River site, the coastal areas of Jayne s Inlet are well used while the regions upstream experience more limited use. The land is governed by INAC for Crown Land and some Inuit Owned Land. Development at the Jayne s Inlet site would have an impact on the Armshow River region as well. While this site itself lies beyond the borders of Katinnilik Territorial Park, the transmission corridor would pass through this Commissioner s owned land (Phase II Pre- Feasibility Report Ref. No. VA103-137/01-2, Photo 3 Jayne s Inlet Knight Piésold Consulting,Table 4.4). Mapping of the proposed Jayne s Inlet project site is referenced in Appendix 5, Figure 4 from the prefeasibility study. As well Jayne s Inlet area is a site used for fishing, whaling and hunting by some. Further communication with land users will be needed providing them with additional information from environmental assessments to determine proper impact assessments. Cantley Bay (Kangalait) - This proposed site is the most distant location for transportation from the city of Iqaluit, on the east side of Frobisher Bay. Cantley Bay is a historic area of Inuit settlement but now experiences limited land use and is apart from any protect areas such as territorial parks. Photo 4 Cantley Bay, upper reaches This region is predominantly Crown Land governed by INAC with some Inuit Owned Land in the region as well (Phase II Pre-Feasibility Report Ref. No. VA103-137/01-2, Knight Piésold Consulting,Table 4.5). It s remote location presents some benefits for limiting impacts on local land use however this factor about Cantley Bay also leads to a necessarily long transmission corridor reaching back to Iqaluit. Site location maps as determined during the pre-feasibility study are referenced in Appendix 5, Figure 5. Survey results in Appendix 3 reflect further details on land use and community feedback and concerns on development in each of these regions. 13

(iii) Description of Project Facilities (of Interest) A hydro-electric development project at any of the proposed sites surrounding Iqaluit will require diligent planning and implementation throughout all three suggested time periods for the period of construction, the years immediately following and the future. Development at the selected site will impact, to varying degrees, the project site specifically, the upstream region and along the transmission corridor. The reliability to predict the impacts will require further discussions with land users and the community. As previously mentioned, given the extreme connection Inuit have to the land and environment, gauging social effects without more information on the effects to the environment is not a true estimation. Refer to Appendix 6 for Section 2: Overview of Hydro Electric Facility Operation and Maintenance from the Canadian Electricity Association study of fish habitats in existing facilities. Each of these regions will incorporate land holdings of Inuit Owned Land, Crown Land, Commissioner s Land throughout territorial parks and protected areas to different degrees. Consultation and involvement of each of these land holders and regional cultural organizations is essential for mutual benefits to be realized from the hydro development project during all three project development periods. Facilities required during construction housing for workers, transportation routes for workers, materials and equipment, support services (financial, cultural, social, health and recreation) will have significant impact for this proposed 5 year period. These facilities should be planned and lead into the recovery period following construction during the early years of operation. This recovery period would involve all land, environment and social impacts of the hydro electric development project. 14

b. Background Assumptions to Report i. Project background to date The Socio Economic Impact Assessment presented here was commissioned by Qulliq Energy Corporation (QEC) as a further step towards a transition from fossil fuel electricity generation to hydro electric development for Iqaluit. Prior to submission of this report, Phase I and Phase II pre-feasibility studies were commissioned by QEC to identify leading sites for hydroelectric generation and development. The Phase I pre-feasibility report Iqaluit Hydro-electric Generation Sites: Identification and Ranking (VA103-137/01-1) was commissioned by QEC to determine regions surrounding Iqaluit generally suitable for hydroelectric development. Further to this report, the Phase II Pre-Feasibility Report (VA103-137/01-2) was completed in October 2006. The Phase II report answered the question of proceeding (or not) with an investment in feasibility level studies for any of the sites identified and ranked in the Phase I report. Furthermore, it recommended two of the three sites that are now proposed for development and analyzed here in regards to socio-economic impacts. Based on the recommendations of these prior reports, further evaluation was carried out here in regards to the socio-economic impacts of potential development at the Armshow River, Jayne s Inlet and Cantley Bay sites. Survey participants were questioned regarding these three specific locations for the 5 year construction period, the 5 years post construction and a 50 year operational period in the future. The following is a list of relevant assumptions made for the consultation, research and report development phase of this project. 15

Project background to date (cont d) ii. Consultations Conducting a series of consultation meetings and inviting special interest groups will access a variety of organizations and people in Iqaluit. Conducting public meetings in one language (either English or Inuktitut) will allow for a freer and easier flow and understanding of information, (note: All consultation meetings were open to the general public as well as invited organization.) Meeting for special interest should be separate to allow everyone an opportunity to speak and offer an opinion. Key interest or stakeholder groups include businesses/property owners, Federal and Territorial Governments, Inuit Organizations (NTI, QIA) and the City of Iqaluit, Elders, Hunters and Trappers Organization. People in Iqaluit are aware of the research and planning underway in Iqaluit. People in Iqaluit understand that continued use of fossil fuels for generation of electricity will be a process that is costly, hazardous to the environment and not sustainable. The hydro project is important for the future growth and development of the community in both a personal and business sense. People in Iqaluit do not respond strongly or in large numbers to consultations, however this does not mean there is a lack of interest, opinion or concern about the hydro project development. On a certain level people in Iqaluit understand the need for changes in energy production. There is a core group of residents that have a vested interest in the community, this may include both long term and short term residents, however the long term residence will experience/enjoy the consequences/benefits of planning and development decisions made today. 16

iii. Questionnaires The survey concept was developed based on the premise that those attending the community meetings would complete and return the surveys on-site. That there was already a moderate level of understanding amoung participants of the potential for hydro-development at these sites given the pre-feasibility studies are already completed. iv. Level of research That the hydro study is in the early stages of development and detailed engineering, environmental and socio-economic research will be conducted as the project continues over the next few years. That detailed research of socio-economic theory and background data will be based on previously conducted research for Nunavut and Iqaluit. v. Cultural understanding There is a significant importance in obtaining information from an Inuit perspective, whose long term use and cultural connections to the land are important in terms of support and planning of the hydro electric development. 17

c. Key Resources i) Public Participation Methods and Process Public participation is a vital part of the socio-economic study process of hydro electric development in Iqaluit. Information and comments collected from the public early in the study process will be of use in planning the hydro facilities and preparing the city of Iqaluit for the opportunities and changes that will result from the hydro development. As part of the hydro electric consultations, efforts were made to consult with the public as well as a number of government organizations, Inuit organizations, and local businesses and the City of Iqaluit to determine their thoughts, opinions and feedback on the impact of hydro generation on the Iqaluit and Kimmirut areas. The SEIA questionnaire developed (Appendix 1) for this project was distributed at each meeting for completion by attendees. The questionnaire was made available in both English and Inuktitut. A PowerPoint presentation was also developed and presented at each public meeting to introduce the scope of the project and the public consultation process (Appendix 2). 1. Summaries from Consultations A total of nine meetings were held with various groups and organizations in Iqaluit and Kimmirut from October to December 2007. In addition, specific meetings are pending with the Qikiqtani Inuit Association, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. (Refer to Appendix 7 for pending details, outcomes to be documented in addendum as available). In an effort to reach as many people as possible some meetings were conducted predominantly in English and others were conducted predominantly in Inuktitut. Translation was available at all meetings. Simultaneous translation with the use of a head-set was available at all meetings with the exception of the cabin owners meeting. Three public meetings were organized, two in English and one in Inuktitut, with the objective of providing the public with opportunities to participate in an environment in which they were most comfortable. This is especially important for unilingual speakers. Public meetings were advertised through the media. This included bilingual announcements on CBC radio community calendar, bilingual posters displayed in public places and the community activities section of Nunatsiaq News. A team member was interviewed by CBC radio in English and Inuktitut on the significance and purpose of the socio-economic project. A study team member was also Photo 5 Community Consultation and team member 18

interviewed by Nunatsiaq News to provide meeting dates and information on the socio-economic consultations for an article that was published by the paper in early October. In addition to the public meetings, and in order to capture the interest of as many people as possible, focus groups were identified and invitations sent out to these individuals and organizations. Even though invitations were sent out to some organizations, all meetings were open to the public. Focus groups where people were invited to attend were the most successful in terms of numbers of participants and feed back gained. Focus groups included the cabin owners meeting, government agencies/inuit organizations meeting and the business meeting. Public meetings, with the exception of the Kimmirut public meeting, were the least successful with minimal public participation and feed back. A successful meeting was held with the Hunters and Trappers executive members. Over fifty of the SEIA questionnaires were distributed throughout these public consultations. It was anticipated that the questionnaires would be completed during the meetings however many attendees chose to take the survey with them. This lead to a low return rate (See Appendix 3 for response rate figures). 2. Meeting - Public English Two people turned out for the meeting, they were already well informed about the project. No specific issues or impacts were raised. 3. Meeting - Cabin Owners Forty people attended this meeting, the largest turnout of any meeting. Many questions and comments were about technical issues of construction of the hydro facilities (Refer to Appendix 8 for transcripts). Other concerns included: Photo 6 Cabin Owners Meeting Interruptions of ice formation, such as delayed freezing or early melting of ice at mouth of rivers, Travelling on unstable thin ice in areas near hydro facility, Impact of hydro facility on wildlife (ie will it cause wildlife to avoid the area), Photo 7 SEIA Team Leader Natsiq Kango 19

Possibility of flooding if the dam overflows, Impact of increased waterflow from dam site on salinity of ocean at mouth of the river, specifically at Jaynes Inlet, Indication that Cantley Bay is a busy fishing area during spring, Concern that a road along the transmission line would permit more people from Iqaluit to travel on the land, concern is for the safety of inexperienced people travelling to these new areas as they may become lost or caught on the land in bad weather conditions. 4. Meeting - Government/Inuit Organizations/City of Iqaluit Approximately 22 people attended this meeting from the Federal and Territorial Government as well as Inuit organizations, and representatives from the City of Iqaluit. Most questions were about the location, cost and extent of construction for the hydro facilities. Some socio-economic questions on education, job training and employment opportunities were asked (Refer to Appendix 8 for transcript). Questions related to job opportunities for local people, providing education and training for work related to construction at the hydro sites, Request for a harvest study to determine current level of wildlife harvesting in the proposed development areas, it was pointed out that if there is a loss of harvesting opportunities there may be an issue of compensation according to article 6 of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, Is there going to be an IIBA negotiated? Employment requirements under Article 23/24 of the NNI policy on Inuit employment will apply to the hydro construction projects, What is the residual value of infrastructure development? What are the construction cost estimates? Is it possible to remove Iqaluit 100% from diesel generation? What is the capacity of local businesses to participate in the hydro project How many people will be working on the project? 20

Questions on ownership and investment opportunities in the site. Will the plans go to NIRB Training and employment opportunities Will archaeological research be focused on transmission lines as well as hydro sites? Question on costs compared to present day electrical rates and retro fitting of homes Question on the process to explore new sources of energy, were alternatives energy sources such as nuclear What is the cost/km for construction of transmission lines 21

5. Meeting - Public Inuktitut Only two people attended this meeting, the potential hydro sites and proposed development was explained to them. 6. Meeting - Business Twelve people attended this meeting representing Industry Canada, Canadian Airlines, Indian and Northern Affairs and a local building contractor (Refer to Appendix 8 for transcript). The following is a summary of questions the group asked: Technical questions on the amount of power to be generated, cost of construction Concern about the high cost of energy is a major strain on the economic viability of businesses in Nunavut 7. Meeting Kimmirut Approximately 21 people from Kimmirut attended this meeting which was held in conjunction with the QEC update by Jamie Flaherty and David Veevee on the proposed Hydro Developments. Interests and concerns were focused on hunting and fishing in the lakes are rivers affected by the hydro development. The following are notes from the meeting in Kimmirut: Kimmirut Meeting These are notes from the Kimmirut meeting and translated and not verified for exact translation Jamie Flaherty spoke first giving a hydro development update there were a number of questions from the audience and his responses are summarized here. Response: Indicates detailed studies on location and pattern of fish cycle are being undertaken at the moment. Citizen1: Not worried too much for the future community is interested in involvement and employment (in hydro project) interested in lowering hydro and fuel costs. Would be interested in bring power to Kimmirut, the best route would need to be determined Citizen2: Three rivers to select hydro site what happens if mineral or archaeological sites are found in the vicinity of the hydro site pick a name for the hydro need a license before starting work (likely reference to NIRB environment impact review). Where are the job opportunities are they available to everyone or just people from Iqaluit will there be shift work two weeks on two weeks off. Will there be hotels for people to stay at? Are there training opportunities? Will people stop using the trail to Kimmirut? 22

Response: Employment opportunities will be available for people from Iqaluit/Kimmirut first then other communities. Employees will be provided with housing. The Kimmirut trail will not be affected as the hydro development is not close to it. Licensing requirements (NIRB, IIBA, etc) will be fulfilled) Elder man: Asks something about the time frame for the project is it a long way in the future? Response: Exact date of development is not determined yet This next part is not clear the man asks a question or makes a statement if development is close to Kimmirut both communities (Iqaluit and Kimmirut) can start using hydro- comparison of cost of fuel compared to hydro power must be calculated to determine savings (if there are any benefits). Citizen3: Talks about determining the rivers to be used by determining the power generation potential of various rivers wants to find out more information on the fishing lakes that may be impacted by development - People in Kimmirut want to be consulted on the future development. Response: Indicates there were be ongoing meetings to inform people in Kimmirut on the hydro development. 8. Meeting English One person attended this meeting; the hydro sites and proposed development were explained to them. 9. Meeting - Hunters and Trappers Organization A meeting was held with the executive of the HTO. In general the HTO supports the idea of hydro development; however they did not recommend one site over another. 10. Meeting Elders A presentation was made to the Elders at the Elder s Facility, 18 elders participated. 23

In general they thought the Armshow would be a good location for the hydro facility because the dam, reservoir and power plant were located well in land away from the most important fishing areas along the coast. The tidal flats and coast line are areas of major use by people from Iqaluit; this has been a traditional fishing location, especially in spring, late summer and fall. 11. NTI Meeting (Refer to Appendix 6) 12. QiA Meeting (Refer to Appendix 6) 13. Department of Oceans and Fisheries Meeting (Refer to Appendix 6) 14. Summary of Public Consultation and Feedback In general, people of the region understand and accept the need to pursue research and development of alternatives to diesel electrical energy generation for Iqaluit. A few questions were directed at exploring alternative energy sources, such as wind energy. However, people were interested in learning more about the possibilities of hydro electric energy generation. Most comments and concerns focused on technical issues on the engineering, planning and construction of the hydro sites such as location of reservoirs/power plant, power-line corridors, possibilities related to road development, flooding of land, length of construction period, cost of construction and cost benefits to the community resulting from hydro electric generation. It was explained that many of these questions required detailed information and they can be better answered when a hydro site has been selected and more detailed information on the engineering design and costing for a specific hydro site is completed. There were no dominant specific major impacts raised by the public about any specific site that would lead to concerns about the overall impact of hydro development. People did their preferences for developing specific sites, however there was not a strong voice from a significant number of people that would give a solid indication or consensus on a preferred site overall or a site to be avoided for development for that matter. Most comments focused on issues related to land use such as preservation of wildlife habitat and concerns about the possible disruption of traditional hunting and fishing activities. People with cabins near the proposed sites were also concerned about the impact of hydro development on the land around their cabins. These concerns are important issues that must be taken into consideration as they have a direct impact on the people who use these sites most frequently. As with the technical questions, it was explained that detailed research on wildlife and fish biology, hydrology, climatology, and archaeology was being conducted at the moment and this information would be available later in the year. Refer to Appendix 3 for full survey results. 24

Highlights from public consultations will referred to throughout the remainder of this report and labeled Public participation results. 25

ii) Project Development Impact Scenarios Development of a hydro-electric generation facility for the City of Iqaluit has three key impact timeframes. 1. Lead Up and 5 Year Construction Period 2. The 5 Year Period Immediately Following Construction 3. A 50 Year Period After Construction The 5 year proposed lead up and construction period presents a unique situation of temporary needs for workers, infrastructure (such as roads and other transport routes), housing and initial excavation of the land and sea. Each of these requirements for development pose significant impacts to the society, the land, and the economy of the region. Once this period of construction and development has been completed, the project shifts to an initial operational phase. Within the first 5 years of project completion, the temporary needs of the construction project will diminish and new operational needs will set in. This period will be essential to adjusting and/or sustaining the potential benefits of added employment, business opportunity and income generation that was available during the period of construction. Future prosperity as a result of the proposed hydro-electric development will be determined over the 50 year period after construction. During this time, the real benefits and potentially permanent changes for the region will be established. The environment and the economy both changed over time due to the impacts of the project will be realized during this future period. Figure 1: Rate of Response for Project Impact Timeframes 18% 29% 53% Lead Up and 5 Year Construction Period 5 Year Period Immediately Following Construction 50 Year Period After Construction Overall, the greatest numbers of concerns were expressed for the Lead Up and 5 Year Construction Period, as seen in Figure 1. The least number of concerns were expressed for the 50 Year Period After Construction. Based on the request for more detailed information on impacts to the environment, this figure could change throughout further studies. These concerns took into account broad socio-economic 26

issues for the region, not specific to one proposed site option. Figure 2 defines in greater detail the specific concerns related to hydro-electric development over the Lead Up and 5 Year Construction, 5 Year Period Immediately Following and the 50 Year Period After Construction. Figure 2: Socio-Economic Concerns Over Project Impact Timeframes Use of Drugs or Alcohol Crime Health Care Response Times Loss of Inuit culture Unforeseen Health Risks Socio-Economic Concerns General Cost of Living Local Poverty Available Affordable Housing Availability of Job Training Affordable Education Personal Finance Difficulties Job Security Water Pollution Air Pollution Local Noise Levels Increased Air Traffic Vehicle Traffic Near Homes 50 Year Period After Construction 5 Year Period After Construction 5 Year Period During Construction 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Number of Survey Respondants (Out of 13) In order to properly assess the socio-economic factors as they relate to development of a hydro-electric facility for Iqaluit, these three impact timeframes are measured against four project development scenario options: 1. Option 1: A decision to NOT proceed with hydro-electric development for Iqaluit. 2. Option 2: A decision to proceed with hydro-electric development at the Jayne s Inlet (Qikiqgijaarvik) Site. 3. Option 3: A decision to proceed with hydro-electric development at the Armshow River (Akulikutaq or Tungatalik) Site. 4. Option 4: A decision to proceed with hydro-electric development at the Cantley Bay (Kangalait) Site. The scope of Option 1 presents some unique socio-economic issues related to Iqaluit and the region as a whole. Proceeding, or not, with a hydro-electric development is one of the most significant decisions for the region s future regarding environment, economics and overall prosperity. Options 2, 3 and 4, proceeding with development at a selected site, will have considerable socio-economic impacts common to all sites, 27

regardless of the actual site chosen. Further, more socio-economic and environment related impacts will be realized that are specific to only the chosen site, if a decision is made to proceed. It is evident that the focuses of these concerns shift over the three project impact timeframes (See Figure 3). 1. Lead up and 5 Year Construction Period Option 1 A Decision to NOT proceed with hydro-electric development for Iqaluit If the decision is not to proceed with hydro-electric development for Iqaluit: Then opportunities and loss of funding for education, training and employment related to construction of the hydro facility would occur. Pollution resulting from burning of fossil fuels at the power would increase. A large amount of the Nunavut budget would continue to be spent on purchasing fossil fuels from southern Canada rather than being spent on building and maintaining infrastructure and services cost savings for energy consumption resulting from the hydro development would not materialize. Options 2, 3, 4 Decision to proceed with hydro-electric development at Jayne s Inlet, Armshow River or Cantley Bay sites Construction Camps sufficiency A self-contained, self sufficient camp will provide all services (sewer, water, waste, recycling, and energy), food and accommodation, material, labour and equipment. This type of camp would operate separately and would have minimal impact on the community with minimal drug, alcohol and crime related problems. There would also be minimal purchasing of goods and services from the community with consequently, minimal financial benefit to the community. Alternatively a totally dependent construction camp requires a great deal of resources from the community. Where there are shift rotations and crews living in the community, there is a greater impact, especially if a large number of people are hired from the community. This would result in more money flowing into the community and would provide increased opportunity for people to buy goods, services and housing. Unfortunately there are always negative impacts of spending increases. One risk would be basic economics, with more money available in the community, the cost of goods and services could increase as demand increases. Under these circumstances, people on fixed incomes (elders and recipients of social assistance) could find it more difficult to purchase basic needs making life more difficult for them. As well, consideration would have to be given as to what would happen to the community at the end of this construction period, and the affect that a subsequent reduction in spending would have. More research would be needed to determine values for the anticipated increase in spending and the extent to which that would bring about any negative effects. 28