The ability of most intervenors to comment on the guidelines has been hampered by at least three factors. Firstly, the short period provided for comments. Although there are no legal requirements for a comment period, the three week period provided is not long enough given the nature and scale of this project. For example, the BHP public review provided for a 30 day review period which included scoping meetings. Secondly, the period for public comment falls during the time where most organizations experience a reduced capacity when staff take annual leave. Given that the proponent submitted its project description in March 1998 and the length of time it took DIAND to decide twice that this project would be assessed using the comprehensive study process, we fail to see why the public comment period should be short-changed at this point. Finally, DIAND has not publicly announced any form of financial assistance for participant funding. Diavik has similarly not provided any assistance. Within our limited capability, we have provided the following comments but reserve the right to make any additions or changes should we secure participant funding in the future.

 Lack of Process Clarity and Objectives

It is unclear from the guidelines and the covering letter who will review any of the comments and ultimately, who will decide whether they are worthy of being incorporated into the final version. This is compounded by the fact that DIAND is yet to finalize the comprehensive study process for this project. CARC supports a strong role for the proposed Steering Committee's direct involvement in reviewing the comments submitted and deciding which points are incorporated into the final version.

 The lack of clarity in the Diavik guidelines can be contrasted with those prepared by the BHP EARP panel where the process was clearly laid out including some thoughtful objectives for the review. DIAND has mentioned some objectives for the Diavik comprehensive review in a draft discussion paper and it would be in the public interest to repeat them as part of the guidelines. This would help to build some confidence and accountability amongst all the participants.

 Government Information Request

 We strongly urge the proposed Steering Committee to request the federal and territorial governments to provide any and all information relevant to the comprehensive study. One method to achieve this objective would be for the Steering Committee to reissue the BHP Panel's Government Information Request dated May 1995 amended as necessary. At a minimum, government should voluntarily update their responses provided to the BHP Panel.

 The guidelines themselves are not clear and appear to be a summation of comments received from government agencies on the proposed guidelines submitted by Diavik as part of their project description. There are frequent overlapping requirements and confusion amongst the project description, description of the existing environment, environmental effects, and mitigation measures. A good edit with the intention of avoiding duplication is advisable. By example, the BHP EARP panel final guidelines are presented in a relatively clear manner with adequate cross-referencing. The organization of those guidelines may provide some assistance here. Further details are provided below.

 Specific Comments

 Part 1: Direction from Government

 1.1 Purpose of the Guidelines

This section states "For greater detail and clarification on the directions described in these guidelines, the proponent should consider the individual response of government authorities to the proposed environmental assessment guidelines presented in the company's March 1998 Project Description." This creates uncertainty over just what is required from the proponent. If there is any conflict between the guidelines and the comments submitted, what is the proponent to do? The guidelines themselves should be a stand-alone document that clearly outlines the requirements. The sentence referenced above also seems to create two classes of comments, those of government for which there is some type of a requirement to review, and those of others that the proponent is not directed to consider.

 As stated above in our general comments, there is a need to clearly articulate objectives for the comprehensive study process. As a starting point, we suggest using the objectives outlined in the draft discussion paper prepared by DIAND and the BHP EARP panel final guidelines (see section 3).

 1.2.1 Scope of the Project

 The second bullet in the list refers to "existing exploration activities". This should be expanded to include all anticipated exploration activities. Diavik should be required to indicate where they have discovered kimberlite pipes throughout the claims block, which ones are diamondiferous, and a plan for exploring these and any potential development of these resources. We are aware that Aber Resources, the junior partner in the Diavik project, has extensive holdings through joint venture arrangements on a number of adjacent claims blocks. These holdings should be clearly delineated in map format with an overview discussion of current activities and implications for the Diavik project. Similarly, holdings of Diavik Diamond Mines or related companies, including Kennecott Canada, should be outlined and discussed.

1.2.2 Scope of the Assessment

 The requirement for the proponent to consider the requirements of the proposed Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act is unclear and likely to cause confusion. Why not build any of these requirements into the existing guidelines?

 DIAND clearly indicated at the April 28, 1998 stakeholder meeting on the Diavik project, that they would seriously consider extending the assessment to include direct socio-economic effects of the project. CARC supports such an extension considering the nature and scale of the project, and the cumulative effects in association with the Ekati mine. For reference, the BHP EARP panel guidelines contained a requirement (401) for that proponent to "describe all significant environmental and socio-economic effects likely to arise from the Project, including situations not explicitly identified in these Guidelines." The draft Diavik guidelines require the proponent to examine direct socio-economic effects and mitigation of adverse impacts in other sections and it makes sense to put this in the scope of the assessment.

1.3 Public Involvement

 The manner in which this section is written might lead the proponent and others to believe that there is a requirement to report only on its consultations prior to the formal start of the assessment. This should be clarified to mean that there is a need to report on all public consultations both prior to and after the start of the assessment. The proponent should be required to explicitly state how public concerns raised during the consultations will be used in their scoping, assessment methodology, examination of environmental and socio-economic effects, mitigation measures and follow-up programs. The proponent should also discuss how they intend to involve the public in the future should the project proceed. The guidelines should be amended to require the proponent to consult widely on the development and implementation of the public involvement plan.

 The bullets include the following statement: "summary of information collected from public consultations". The proponent should be required to report on all the issues and concerns raised during its public consultations, the significance they attach to the issue, and how the issue was dealt with or resolved. There should also be an attempt at providing an objective assessment of the public consultations with a requirement for a clear public record of these consultations that will then be placed on the public registry. This might include verbatim transcripts of formal sessions and/or tape recordings.

 1.4 Presentation

The 'Appendices' section should specify that any additional documentation provided by the proponent should be consistently cross-referenced in the text. The additional documents should be of a similar format where possible to avoid confusion.

 1.5.1 Spatial Boundaries

The project is clearly not limited to the physical footprint of the development on the so-called East Island in Lac de Gras. The first bullet refers to 'tenure arrangements' and we assume that this includes mineral claims that are held by the proponent but this should be clearly stated. In 1.2.1 Scope of the Project above, we commented on the extensive holdings of Aber Resources and Kennecott in the vicinity of the project and there should be some discussion of these claims in relation to the spatial boundaries of the project.

 1.5.2 Temporal Boundaries

 This section should clearly state that the proponent is required to report on its future exploration activities within the claims block and the implications of such activities on the project. There should be some discussion of how project changes will be dealt with and how new information will be incorporated into project design and management.

 1.5.3 Traditional Knowledge

 The role of TK, as defined in the first sentence on page 15, can be expanded to include baseline conditions prior to exploration activities and an understanding of environmental change.

 The proponent is required to report on efforts to collect and document TK through the assessment. This does not recognize the significant difference in time frames between environmental assessment, which is often carried out too hastily, and community-based TK research that requires a substantially longer period of time. Government, Aboriginal peoples and others need to know what the long-term commitments of the proponent are in relation to TK collection, documentation and use in project design, modification, management and monitoring.

 Part II - Content of the Environmental Assessment Report

 2.1 Executive Summary

 This section and the following are confusing. Both require an 'executive summary' but is this the same document or different?

 2.2 Overview Document

 The list of contents does not include residual effects which should be the second last item.

 2.3.3 Need and Purpose of the Project

 While we strongly support the requirement for the proponent to report on the need and purpose of the project, this section should be more explicit. Specifically, the proponent should provide a description of diamond supply and demand, markets, implications of their project on markets, and their own marketing plans. This will help establish the economic viability of the project not just the viability of alternative means of carrying out the project. These matters are of public interest as the diamonds are public resources managed by the proponent through the prevailing regulatory systems.

 2.3.4 Alternative Means

 The consideration of alternatives must include alternative time tables for carrying out the project. This should include an examination of timing and phasing of the project to minimize environmental effects and maximize socio-economic benefits in relation to the capacity of local and regional labour markets and similar factors.

 The proponent must be required to present the alternative mine plans that were internally generated, the relative environmental and socio-economic costs and benefits of each, and a rational for the choice of the preferred alternative. This is especially important in determining the economic viability of the underground mining option versus the open pit/underground proposal put forth by the company.

 2.3.6 Performance Record

 We strongly support inclusion of the corporate track records of both partners in this project as an accountability mechanism. We do not believe that this section goes far enough in defining what needs to be reported. The guidelines issued by the BHP EARP Panel in May 1995 (section 5.3) provide a far more comprehensive and appropriate requirement as shown below:

 "The Proponent should describe its relevant experience over the last 10 years in mining operations in Canada and in other countries with similar regulatory and social policy regimes in regard to the following:

  a) record of compliance with government policies and regulations pertaining to environmental protection and socio-economic issues, including details of any corrective measures or penalties imposed by government as a result of significant non-compliance; 

2.3.8 Economic Contribution

 Although the proponent is required to report the direct and indirect economic contribution of the project, this needs to be discussed in a qualitative sense. Traditional measures of economic performance, for example Gross Domestic Product, more than often consider negative consequences (e.g. environmental mitigation or remediation, crime or social dysfunction) as a positive economic contribution. We believe that the proponent should be required to describe the economic contribution of their project in a more holistic manner using more appropriate measures such as 'Genuine Progress Indicators'.

 2.4 Description of the Existing Environment

 The proponent should be required to document trends and time scales used in describing the existing environment.

2.4.1 Physical and Biological Environment

The proponent should be required to describe the mineralogy of the project area, especially the mineral content and characteristics of the waste rock and kimberlite pipes. This is important in determining the potential for acid rock drainage and the necessity of tailings treatment due to suspended clay particles.

 2.4.2 Social, Economic and Cultural Environment

 Outfitting, tourism and recreational activities in the vicinity of the project should be described.

 2.5 Environmental Effects Assessment

 This section should be clarified to ensure that environmental effects and socio-economic effects are predicted in a quantitative and qualitative manner to allow for proper monitoring and follow-up.

 The Significance Criteria and Significance sections do not mention that the determination of significance is a relatively subjective matter. Where there are differences amongst values held by land users, this should be documented and then serve as a basis for significance determination that may vary from one group to another.

 The Renewable Resources section does not make any reference to the potential of the project area to the Protected Areas Strategy currently under way. Wilderness values and protected areas should be a consideration during this environmental assessment. This subject was raised during the BHP environmental review and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency gave its written assurance to World Wildlife Fund Canada that future assessments would include these factors.

 This portion of the guidelines should also require the proponent to deal with widely accepted principles of environmental management including sustainable development and the precautionary principle. The impact of this project on Canada's commitments made under international agreements and treaties (Biodiversity Convention, Kyoto Protocol, Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy and others) should also be evaluated. These additional requirements are also directly applicable to government and deserve their response too.

 2.5.1 Project Components

 This whole section is often confusing as environmental effects from the project are interwoven with environmental effects on the project.

 2.5.1.1 Retention Dikes, Open Pit and Underground Mining

The noise and dust associated with dike construction and mining operations needs to be considered by the proponent.

 2.5.1.3 Waste Rock, Ore and Overburden Storage

 Although it may be easy to assume that the proponent may deal with the issue of acid rock drainage this should be clearly stated as a requirement.

 2.5.1.4 Processing and Plant Site Infrastructure

 The issues of noise from the plant operations, including transportation to and from the plant, should be included. Potential for any runoff from the plant or stored materials should be reported by the proponent.

2.5.1.7 Hazardous Materials

 The ANFO impacts seem to be limited here to water quality but should also include aquatic life, especially fish.

 2.5.1.8 Power

 The proponent should be required to describe the noise emitted during power generation and efforts to mitigate the effects, including those on wildlife.

 2.5.1.9 Airstrip and Roads

 Noise and potential for wildlife disturbances should be considered by the proponent.

2.5.1.10 Borrow Pits and Quarry Sites

 Noise and dust are likely to be major concerns with these operations and should be described by the proponent including mitigation efforts.

 2.5.1.11 Site Facilities and Infrastructure

 There is a typographical error in this section where "associate" should read "associated".

 2.5.12 Accidents and Malfunctions

 This section should include the potential for fires (both internal and outside of operational facilities), aircraft and vehicular crashes, and emergency minewater containment and treatment.

 2.5.1.14 Exploration Program

 The requirement here should be expanded to ensure that the proponent clearly indicates the location of all areas explored within the claims block, and the potential of these areas for future exploration and development. Some description of the potential of nearby holdings should also be provided including the potential implications for the Diavik project.

 2.5.1.16 Technological Innovation

 The on-going work on kimberlite toxicity to aquatic life should be included.

 2.5.3.3 Land and Resource Use

 Although the proponent is required to report on land use conflicts, there should also be the requirement to describe how the project will affect Aboriginal rights. This was a requirement in the BHP EARP panel guidelines (section 5.2.2) and should be repeated in the Diavik guidelines. This issue should also be addressed by the federal government.

 2.5.3.7 Cultural Resources

 This is another place in the guidelines where the issue of protected areas should be raised.

 2.6 Mitigation Measures and Residual Effects

 The proponent is required to "identify technically and economically feasible measures" to mitigate effects. This should be clarified to indicate that the technically viable measures should first be identified and then a rational or analysis be provided for the preferred measure(s).

 2.6.1 Mitigation of Physical and Biological Components

 The proponent should be required to include their policy and/or statements on sustainable development not just "preserving the environment". The proponents policies and/or statements might more appropriately be placed in section 2.3.6 of the draft guidelines.

 2.6.2 Mitigation of the Social, Economic and Cultural Components

 Part b should include Diavik's policies and/or statements on unionization of their proposed work force. This was a requirement in the BHP EARP panel guidelines (section 6.3.b) and should be repeated for Diavik.

2.6.3 Environmental Management System

 There is a typographical error in the second paragraph as follows: "The next critical [step?] is the implementation of the EMS described in the paper."

 The proponent should be required to report if they intend to meet any applicable ISO standards for environmental management and how this will be achieved. The proponent needs to fully describe and document its environmental management strategy. This would include internal and external environmental audit requirements and procedures, document management, appropriate accreditation and qualifications for staff, on-going training, and clear linkages between monitoring programs and project design and management.

 2.6.4 Environmental Protection Strategies

 While it is appropriate that the proponent provide further details on how these strategies fit into the overall environmental management system, it is not appropriate to limit the pages or amount of text that the proponent can or should use to provide a full description.

2.6.5 Compensation

This section is mis-numbered as "2.6.4" in the draft.

 The proponents efforts and results related to compensation need to be laid out, not simply their policy. Impact and benefit agreements should also be specifically mentioned and the proponent should be required to report on any initiatives in this area.

 2.7 Cumulative Effects Analysis

Clearly there is a role for government in cumulative effects analysis in terms of how they will respond and undertake systemic monitoring or other necessary follow-up. The proposed Steering Committee should ensure that there is appropriate government responses and involvement.

2.7.1 Scoping

 The proponent should be required to undertake public consultations during this stage.

 2.7.2 Spatial Boundaries

 The proponent should be required to provide some rational for the selection of spatial boundaries.

 2.7.3 Temporal Boundaries

 The proponent should be required to provide some rational for the selection of temporal boundaries.

 2.7.4 Analysis

 This section concentrates on the effects on communities which is important. CARC also believes that ecosystems themselves and their significant components merit some consideration in carrying out the cumulative effects analysis. The proponent should conduct this analysis using an explicit methodology or model that should include consideration of carrying capacity. The cumulative effects need to be predicted in a quantitative manner where possible and at a minimum, in a qualitative sense where there are significant uncertainties.

 There is no requirement for the proponent to describe what the cumulative effects may be, how they will be mitigated by the proponent, what the residual effects may be, and how and who should undertake any necessary follow-up programs. This approach to cumulative effects analysis is not consistent with that taken for the environmental and socio-economic effects of the project. It is important to clarify the cumulative effects analysis requirements if this effort is to result in a meaningful contribution to the overall process.

 The recently announced roads initiative by the Government of the N.W.T. must be considered as part of the cumulative effects analysis undertaken by the proponent. Similarly, proposals for hydro-electric projects on rivers flowing into the East Arm of Great Slave Lake need to be considered. All of these preceding suggestions are supported by the recent federal court decision in the Sunpine case.

2.8.1 Organizational Feedback

There is some overlap here between this section and 2.6.3 where Diavik is required to describe their environmental management system. The proponent should be required to clearly outline what the expected natural deviation range will be for each monitoring parameter and what action will be taken when results are outside this range including mitigation, design modification or other activities.

 2.8.2 Parameters

 More guidance should be given to the proponent in specifying what the description of monitoring programs should include. There should be details provided on the objectives of the programs, frequency and extent, role of independent experts including TK holders and communities, procedures to assess the effectiveness of the programs, and how the results of the programs will be communicated to all interested parties. Section 11 of the BHP EARP panel guidelines provides a good basis on which to modify this section of the Diavik draft guidelines.