Fort Resolution Métis Council 1 August, 2019 INTERVENTION REPORT MVEIRB File No EA1819-01. Diavik Diamond Mine - Processed Kimberlite to Mine Workings 1 Table of Contents Summary and Recommendations ................................................................................................. 4 Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................. 8 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 9 1.1 Organization of the Intervention Report ............................................................................ 9 1.2 Fort Resolution Métis Council ........................................................................................... 10 2.0 Caribou ................................................................................................................................... 11 2.1 Project-Specific And Cumulative Impacts On Caribou ...................................................... 11 2.1.1 Issue Statement ........................................................................................................... 11 2.1.2 DDMI’s Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 11 2.1.3 FRMC’s Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 11 2.1.4 Evidence and Rationale ............................................................................................... 12 2.1.5 Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 16 2.2 Caribou and Habitat Health ............................................................................................... 17 2.2.1 Issue Statement ........................................................................................................... 17 2.2.2 DDMI’s Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 18 2.2.3 FRMC’s Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 18 2.2.4 Evidence and Rationale ............................................................................................... 18 2.2.5 Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 19 3.0 Culture .................................................................................................................................... 20 3.1 Engagement of FRMC in Diavik’s Assessment of the Project ........................................... 20 3.1.1 Issue Statement ........................................................................................................... 20 3.1.2 DDMI’s Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 20 3.1.3 FRMC’s Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 20 3.1.4 Evidence and Rationale ............................................................................................... 20 3.1.5 Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 22 3.2 Inadequate Baseline Collected for Assessment of Impacts to FRMC Culture .................. 23 3.2.1 Issue Statement ........................................................................................................... 23 3.2.2 DDMI’s Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 23 2 3.2.3 FRMC’s Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 24 3.2.4 Evidence and Rationale ............................................................................................... 24 3.2.5 Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 26 3.3 Limited Impact Pathway’s for Assessing Culture .............................................................. 27 3.3.1 Issue Statement ........................................................................................................... 27 3.3.2 DDMI’s Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 27 3.3.3 FRMC’s Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 28 3.3.4 Evidence and Rationale ............................................................................................... 28 3.3.5 Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 29 3.4 Inadequate Mitigations Proposed for Reducing Impacts to FRMC Culture ..................... 29 3.4.1 Issue Statement ........................................................................................................... 29 3.4.2 DDMI’s Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 30 3.4.3 FRMC’s Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 30 3.4.4 Evidence and Rationale ............................................................................................... 30 4.4.5 Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 35 3.5 Project-Specific And Cumulative Impacts On Culture ....................................................... 35 3.5.1 Issue Statement ........................................................................................................... 35 3.5.2 DDMI’s Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 36 3.5.3 FRMC’s Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 36 3.5.4 Evidence and Rationale ............................................................................................... 37 3.5.5 Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 38 4.0 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................ 39 References ................................................................................................................................... 43 List of Tables: Table 1: Measures required by FRMC prior to a hydrologic connection between the Pits and Mine Workings and Lac de Gras .................................................................................................. 32 3 Summary and Recommendations Fort Resolution Métis Council (FRMC) represents the rights and interests of our Métis members in our traditional territory. The Diavik Diamond Mine overlaps with our territory, and Diavik Diamond Mine Inc’s (Diavik or DDMI) proposed Processed Kimberlite to Mine Workings project poses potential impacts to FRMC cultural use and caribou within our territory. One of our key issues is to protect caribou and cultural values from these impacts so as to ensure our ability to exercise our right to harvest caribou within our territory. We are specifically concerned with DDMI’s cumulative effects assessment for caribou. DDMI’s assessment contains high levels of uncertainty, does not sufficiently account for the decline of caribou and does not include an accurate baseline inclusive of Indigenous Traditional Knowledge (ITK). We are also concerned that DDMI has failed to adequately engage with FRMC and has not engaged with us to identify impact pathways on cultural use. Measures presently proposed by DDMI are inadequate for mitigating cultural impacts, and we hold DDMI’s conclusion that there are no significant cultural impacts associated with the project to be invalid. DDMI believes that there will be no residual adverse effects from the project, but this conclusion fails to account for the historical and current contexts for caribou and culture within our territory. Based on our review of the Project, we believe that the following should be required of DDMI: FRMC Recommendation 1 - Proponent to consider all of Diavik mine activities and closure plans within the assessment, as well as additional pressures on the Bathurst caribou herd including predation, fire, disease, and other impacts. In addition, DDMI to adjust the baseline timeline to include the full decline of the Bathurst herd and reassess. FRMC Recommendation 2 –Should the Review Board determine that the EA will be allowed to complete without FRMC recommendation 1 being adopted, FRMC recommends that the Review Board find that there is already a pre-existing significant adverse cumulative effect on Bathurst caribou, and consider Project effects in light of this highly sensitive receiving environment, and make its decisions on whether the Project should be allowed to proceed and under what conditions accordingly. FRMC Recommendation 3 – As a condition of approval, the Proponent to engage FRMC in a funded caribou ITK study prior to closure, with the results of the study included in filings for relevant regulatory stages of approvals with the Wek’èezh?i Land and Water Board (WLWB)