General comments

This manuscript has considerable scientific significance to Geoscience Communication and the broader empirical literature given its scope and location. Earning the social license to conduct carbon removal projects within and outside of Canada will require substantial community engagement and involvement. In Canada, project success will require engagement with First Nations and Indigenous communities. However, a dearth of literature currently exists on this specific topic. The manuscript is therefore a meaningful and additive contribution to the literature. This is bolstered by the scientific quality of the manuscript which includes a detailed and transparent accounting of the community engagement, along with a good presentation quality.

Specific comments

1. Does the paper address relevant scientific questions within the scope of GC? Yes (see above)
2. Does the paper present novel concepts, ideas, tools, or data? Yes (see above)
3. Are the scientific methods and assumptions valid and clearly outlined? Yes
4. Are the results sufficient to support the interpretations and conclusions? Yes
5. Do the authors give proper credit to related work and clearly indicate their own new/original contribution? Yes
6. Does the title clearly reflect the contents of the paper? Yes
7. Does the abstract provide a concise and complete summary? Yes
8. Is the overall presentation well structured and clear? Yes
9. Is the language fluent and precise? Yes
10. Are the number and quality of references appropriate? There are sufficient (quality) references to provide an evidence base that supports the manuscript.

Other:

• Line 12: 

  While not assuming this list infers a preferred order of operations, many First Nations and Indigenous communities want to start by building relationships, establishing trust, and making a human connection prior to discussion around consent to proceed with any projects.

• Line 18: 

  How to approach the issue of involving the local community in job creation while adhering to potential stipulations from certain governments around the use of union labor in order to access federal funds from policy initiatives? Granted, this is focused on a project in Canada, but these issues will continue to come up as stipulations to access public funding.

• Line 69: 

  Did the initial objectives include discussing potential equity partnerships as previously mentioned?

• Line 235: 

  Is there literature to suggest that any initial outreach should be conducted in partnership with social scientists? Are there any established industry best practices for team composition and expertise related to community outreach pertaining to 'natural' vs. 'social' scientists?

• Line 288: 

  "Give yourself time to learn about communities’ values, norms and culture and how to communicate and behave respectfully...": This should likely be the first step in any community engagement process.

Technical corrections

N/A

1. Does the paper address relevant scientific questions within the scope of GC?
   
   Yes
2. Does the paper present novel concepts, ideas, tools, or data?
   
   Yes
3. Are the scientific methods and assumptions valid and clearly outlined?
   
   Yes
4. Are the results sufficient to support the interpretations and conclusions?
   
   Yes
5. Do the authors give proper credit to related work and clearly indicate their own new/original contribution?
   
   Yes
6. Does the title clearly reflect the contents of the paper?
   
   Yes
7. Does the abstract provide a concise and complete summary?
   
   Yes
8. Is the overall presentation well structured and clear?
   
   Yes
9. Is the language fluent and precise?
   
   Yes
10. Are the number and quality of references appropriate?
    
    Yes

Overall, this paper raises a critical topic--the importance of consultation with Indigenous communities within geoscientific research. Too often, it is argued that a lower level of ethics review and engagement is necessary because many geoscientific projects do not explicitly engage with people; however, as the authors note, this does not recognize longstanding Indigenous rights to consultation and cultural connections to land and landscape. This piece will significantly impact geoscientific work done in Canada and elsewhere.



I think one area of revision, or more accurately, addition, could be in the recommendations section. For example, the authors mention that the UBC ethics review board deemed the research as not warranting a full review, and I found myself curious about the authors' response to this--does this align with their consultation model? Additionally, it would be good to see the recommendations section fleshed out with more actionable goals for institutions to follow to help support the model the authors recommend,