final review of the environmental impact statement
TRANSCRIPT
© 2021 Pinchin Ltd.
FINAL
Review of the Environmental Impact Statement Addendum for the Marathon PGM Project Northwestern Ontario Prepared for:
Pays Plat First Nation Pays Plat, Ontario
Attention: David P. Mushquash Chief, Pays Plat First Nation
July 23, 2021
Pinchin File: 290703
Review of the Environmental Impact Statement Addendum for the Marathon PGM Project July 23, 2021 Northwestern Ontario Pinchin File: 290703 Pays Plat First Nation FINAL
© 2021 Pinchin Ltd. Page 2 of 29
Issued to: Issued on: Pinchin File: Issuing Office:
Pays Plat First Nation July 23, 2021 290703 Kenora, ON
Author: Sebastian Belmar, M. Sc. Intermediate Biologist 807-464-5402 [email protected]
Environmental Setting and Assessment of Effects Review
Author: Byron O'Connor, P.Eng., QPESA National Mining Lead 613-484-5607 [email protected]
Water Quantity and Quality Review
Reviewer: Mario Buszynski, M. Sc., R.P.P. Project Director 416-254-6614 [email protected]
Review of the Environmental Impact Statement Addendum for the Marathon PGM Project July 23, 2021 Northwestern Ontario Pinchin File: 290703 Pays Plat First Nation FINAL
© 2021 Pinchin Ltd. Page 3 of 29
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Pinchin Ltd., on behalf of Pays Plat First Nation, reviewed the Environmental Impact Statement
Addendum ("EIS Addendum") for the Marathon PGM Project ("the Project"). As part of the environmental
assessment, the Joint Review Panel invited the public to comment on the sufficiency and technical merits
of the EIS Addendum submitted by the Proponent, Generation PGM.
In this review, Pinchin evaluated the sufficiency and technical merits of the EIS Addendum by comparing
its content to the minimum information requirements described in the project-specific EIS Guidelines. In
addition, Pinchin assessed whether the EIS Addendum identified all the concerns that may negatively
impact the rights of Pays Plat First Nation. This evaluation was completed by reviewing the Environmental
Impact Statement Report (2012), the EIS Addendum (2021), and its supporting studies (2007 – 2021).
Pinchin concluded that the EIS Addendum is insufficient and lacks the technical merits to assess the impacts of the Project adequately. As a result, it is unknown how the Project could impact the rights of Pays Plat First Nation.
The main concerns identified by Pinchin include:
• An inadequate Project Description that does not include the Sally and Geordie deposits which
have been portrayed to investors as part of the project. Other potential deposits have not been
discussed as extensions to the Project or from the aspect of cumulative effects. The study area
is not large enough to consider future expansion of the mine and associated waste management
facilities;
• Outdated and insufficient characterizations of the benthic and fish communities that preclude the
adequate description of the contemporary recipient of the effects;
• A Fish Offsetting Plan that is insufficient to achieve the goal of no net loss of fish productivity;
• Characterizations of wildlife habitat based on flawed methodologies;
• A general lack of integration of Traditional Knowledge from Pays Plat First Nation;
• An insufficient community engagement plan with Pays Plat First Nation, leaving the present
leadership and community members with little understanding of the project; and
• The use of obscure and non-transparent methods in the project-specific and cumulative effects
assessments;
Review of the Environmental Impact Statement Addendum for the Marathon PGM Project July 23, 2021 Northwestern Ontario Pinchin File: 290703 Pays Plat First Nation FINAL
© 2021 Pinchin Ltd. Page 4 of 29
Pinchin respectfully recommends that the Joint Review Panel request that the deficiencies in the EIS
Addendum be rectified and submitted for a general review by all parties before the Project proceeds to a
public hearing.
Review of the Environmental Impact Statement Addendum for the Marathon PGM Project July 23, 2021 Northwestern Ontario Pinchin File: 290703 Pays Plat First Nation FINAL
© 2021 Pinchin Ltd. Page 5 of 29
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 3
2.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 6
2.1 History of the Project ............................................................................................................ 6 2.2 Scope of the Review ............................................................................................................. 7 2.3 Documents Reviewed ........................................................................................................... 7
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ADDENDUM REVIEW ............................................... 8 3.1 Project Description................................................................................................................ 8 3.2 Description of the Environment .......................................................................................... 10
3.2.1 Water Quality and Quantity ........................................................................................ 10 3.2.2 Sediment Quality and Benthos ................................................................................... 11 3.2.3 Fish and Fish Habitat .................................................................................................. 13 3.2.4 Fish Offsetting Plan .................................................................................................... 18 3.2.5 Wildlife and Species at Risk ....................................................................................... 20
3.3 Indigenous Engagement and Consultation ........................................................................ 22 3.4 Assessment of Effects ........................................................................................................ 24 3.5 Assessment of Cumulative Effects ..................................................................................... 25
4.0 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................. 27 5.0 TERMS AND LIMITATIONS .......................................................................................................... 28
6.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................... 28
Review of the Environmental Impact Statement Addendum for the Marathon PGM Project July 23, 2021 Northwestern Ontario Pinchin File: 290703 Pays Plat First Nation FINAL
© 2021 Pinchin Ltd. Page 6 of 29
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 History of the Project
Mineral exploration around the Marathon deposit began almost a century ago, and numerous studies,
from economic to geological analyses, were conducted while ownership of the Project changed over time.
In 2003, Marathon PGM Corp. acquired the Marathon PGM-Cu deposit from Polymet and funded
additional mineral exploration until 2009.
The Marathon PGM-Cu Project (hereafter "the Project) was submitted to the Federal Ministry of the
Environment for review in 2010 by Marathon PGM Corp. The Ministry of the Environment determined that
the Project was likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects and referred it to a Joint Review Panel (hereafter "JRP") for its assessment. Also, shortly after its submission to the Ministry of the
Environment, the Project was acquired by Stillwater Canada Inc., who became the new Proponent.
Stillwater Canada Inc. submitted an EIS to the JRP in July of 2012. On November 26, 2012, the JRP
decided that the "EIS is deficient, and does not contain sufficient information to proceed to the public
hearing." The JRP received and summarized more than 500 requests for information in the Deficiency
Statement (JRP, 2012)
In January 2014, Stillwater Canada Inc. requested the indefinite suspension of the EA process and the
public hearing, and later, in October 2014, the EA be put on hold. Following the suspension, the JRP was
disbanded.
On July 13, 2020, the Project, under the ownership of Generation PGM, requested that the EA resume
and volunteered to submit an update to the Environmental Impact Statement to a newly formed JRP in
early 2021.
On April 19, 2021, the JRP announced that Generation PGM had submitted the EIS Addendum and
invited the public to submit comments for 70 days. Later, the JRP extended the comment period until July
26, 2021, considering restrictions imposed by the Covid-19 pandemic and the lack of reliable internet
services in Pays Plat First Nation to allow the band members to participate in this process. Participants
are expected to submit their views on the sufficiency and technical merits of the EIS Addendum, as
measured against the "Guidelines for the Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement Pursuant to
the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and Ontario Environmental Assessment Act for the
Marathon Platinum Group Metals and Copper Mine Project" (Canadian Environmental Assessment
Agency and Ontario Ministry of Environment, 2011; hereafter "EIS Guidelines").
Review of the Environmental Impact Statement Addendum for the Marathon PGM Project July 23, 2021 Northwestern Ontario Pinchin File: 290703 Pays Plat First Nation FINAL
© 2021 Pinchin Ltd. Page 7 of 29
2.2 Scope of the Review
In this review, we evaluate the sufficiency and technical merits of the EIS Addendum by comparing its
content to the minimum information requirements described in the EIS Guidelines. The EIS Guidelines
provide a framework for preparing a complete EA for the Project while placing on the Proponent the
responsibility to provide adequate data and analyses to support the assessment. In addition, we assess
whether the EIS Addendum identified all the concerns that may negatively impact the rights of Pays Plat
First Nation.
In synthesis, this review will:
• Determine if the EIS Addendum contains the information prescribed by the EIS Guidelines
• Assess the technical merits of the EIS Addendum and its supporting documents
• Identify outstanding concerns that may negatively affect Pays Plat First Nation
2.3 Documents Reviewed
Below we list the documentation reviewed as part of this study. This list is not exhaustive because it does
not refer to all the supporting documentation reviewed in addition to the main reports. For example, while
the list includes the Environmental Impact Statement Addendum Volume 1, all of the baseline studies
conducted since 2006 were also reviewed but are omitted for simplicity.
• Amended Agreement to Reestablish a Joint Review Panel for the Marathon Palladium Project
and Terms of Reference for the Joint Review Panel (Ministry of the Environment, Canada, and
Ministry of the Environment, Conservation, and Parks, Ontario, 2020)
• Guidelines for the Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement Pursuant to the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act and Ontario Environmental Assessment Act for the Marathon
Platinum Group Metals and Copper Mine Project" (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
and Ontario Ministry of Environment, 2011)
• Environmental Impact Statement Addendum Volume 1 (Generation PGM, 2021)
• Environmental Impact Statement Addendum Volume 2 (Generation PGM, 2021)
• Assessing Cumulative Environmental Effects under the Canadian Environmental Assessment
Act, 2012 (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, 2018)
• Policy for Applying Measures to Offset Adverse Effects on Fish and Fish Habitat under the
Fisheries Act (Fisheries and Oceans, Canada, 2019)
Review of the Environmental Impact Statement Addendum for the Marathon PGM Project July 23, 2021 Northwestern Ontario Pinchin File: 290703 Pays Plat First Nation FINAL
© 2021 Pinchin Ltd. Page 8 of 29
• Science Advice on the Determination of Offset Requirements for the Fisheries Protection
Program (Fisheries and Oceans, Canada, 2017)
• Environmental Impact Statement Main Report (Stillwater Canada Inc., 2012)
• Environmental Impact Statement Supporting Information (Stillwater Canada Inc., 2012)
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ADDENDUM REVIEW
In this section, we present the main findings of our review, organized in a manner that parallels the
structure of the EIS Addendum. In each subsection, we introduce our main concerns in a systematic
approach. First, we describe the requirements used to evaluate the sufficiency and technical merits of
each component of the EIS Addendum. For instance, when the EIS Guidelines determine the minimum
information that a section must contain, we present those requirements to set up a benchmark for
evaluating the content. Second, we describe how the EIS Addendum does not meet the established
requirements and discuss how that deficiency influences the assessment of effects. Finally, we present a
conclusion on the sufficiency and the technical merits of each subsection, followed by a list of conditions
required to remediate the deficiencies
3.1 Project Description
The EIS Guidelines establish that the EIS Addendum will describe "…the general layout of the
components of the mine site, the location of the transmission line corridor, the new access roads and
areas for road upgrades, and load-out and any other supporting facilities. The EIS will describe the
Project as it is planned to proceed, including project phases and activities (construction, operation,
modification (if relevant), closure, post-closure, decommissioning and abandonment (if relevant)." In
addition, a fundamental principle of Environmental Assessment is that a project should not be
piecemealed, as this would underestimate the significance of its impacts.
There is much evidence in the Environmental Assessment literature and Regulations regarding the
piecemealing of projects. An example is Ontario's "Guide to Environmental Assessment Requirements
for Electricity Projects on the provincial government website. Section B.2.2 refers to Conducting an
Environmental Screening. "The Proponent begins the screening stage by preparing a description of the
Project for the purposes of the screening process…It is inappropriate for proponents to break up or
piecemeal a larger project into separate components or phases, with each part being addressed as a
separate project…Furthermore, plans for future expansions of the Project that are known at the time of
the Environmental Screening Process is being applied shall be considered as part of the Project."
Review of the Environmental Impact Statement Addendum for the Marathon PGM Project July 23, 2021 Northwestern Ontario Pinchin File: 290703 Pays Plat First Nation FINAL
© 2021 Pinchin Ltd. Page 9 of 29
The Project Description presented in the EIS Addendum is incomplete, and it contradicts existing
documentation prepared by the Proponent. Generation PGM introduces the Marathon Deposit as the
unique component of the Project while excluding four additional deposits and explorations. Generation
PGM argues that the other deposits (Geordie and Sally), and explorations (Boyer and Four Dams), are in
the early stages of study and that their development is uncertain. However, in public presentations to
investors and the Economic Feasibility Study (G Mining Services, 2021), Generation PGM presents
measured and indicated resource estimates for all deposits while suggesting that Marathon and the
additional deposits and explorations are part of a single project. The image shown below was obtained
from the presentation to investors, and it identifies the Marathon Palladium Project as composed of three
deposits and two explorations.
Figure 1. Representation of the Marathon Palladium Project included by Generation PGM in a presentation to investors.
Further, we present below several excerpts from the Economic Feasibility Study, which suggest that
Generation PGM has a reasonable expectation of developing the remaining four deposits.
"Based upon 61 diamond drill holes, totalling 9,645 m, trenching, mapping, magnetic and radiometric
airborne survey and soil sampling" and "a total of 56 holes have been drilled in the Sally deposit area, of
which 45 are drilled into area 41."
Review of the Environmental Impact Statement Addendum for the Marathon PGM Project July 23, 2021 Northwestern Ontario Pinchin File: 290703 Pays Plat First Nation FINAL
© 2021 Pinchin Ltd. Page 10 of 29
"A NI 43-101 Mineral Resource Estimate on the Geordie Deposit was published by Marathon in June
2010."
"neither the Geordie nor Sally Resource Estimates are incorporated into the mine plan reported in this
technical report."
"It is P&E's opinion that the Marathon Project has sufficient potential to increase mineral resources. The
Geordie Deposit has a recent updated Mineral Resource Estimate and further exploration of both
deposits is warranted."
We conclude that the Project Description presented by the Proponent does not meet the requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (2012) and the EIS Guidelines because it arbitrarily excludes some components of the Project from the assessment. A direct
consequence of this deficiency is that the EIS Addendum underestimates the significance of the residual
adverse effects of the Project. As a result, it is unknown how the Project could impact the rights of Pays
Plat First Nation.
We respectfully recommend the Joint Review Panel ask the Proponent to complete the following actions,
as per the EIS Guidelines:
• Incorporate the Geordie and Sally Deposits into the Project Description
• Conduct the necessary studies to update the description of the environmental setting, including the physical, natural, and socio-economic components
• Incorporate the Boyer and Four Dams explorations into the assessment of cumulative effects
3.2 Description of the Environment
3.2.1 Water Quality and Quantity
Additional information is required to assess the impacts of the Project on water quality and quantity. The water quality modeling shown for Hare Lake and Pic River only shows predictive modeling
quality to year 17 after the start of operations. The water quality modeling predicts no change in arsenic
quality but an increase in sediment arsenic and copper concentrations before dropping again. Why is
sediment changing but not water? Why are there significant concentration spikes in sediment quality for
molybdenum and vanadium? In addition, water quality modeling for Hare Lake appears to be based on
whole-lake constituent concentrations following mixing. This assumes the lake will be well mixed which is
Review of the Environmental Impact Statement Addendum for the Marathon PGM Project July 23, 2021 Northwestern Ontario Pinchin File: 290703 Pays Plat First Nation FINAL
© 2021 Pinchin Ltd. Page 11 of 29
very unlikely. The Proponent should describe how it was determined that the lake will be very well mixed,
and what are the potential implications to the water quality in Hare Lake if the lake is not very well mixed?
It is unclear when water treatment will commence for the Project. Will the water treatment plant be
operational as soon as contact water is being generated at the site? The Proponent should provide more
detail on the treatment technology that will be used at the site. How long will the water treatment plant
continue to operate after mining operations have ended? Relative to the tailings management, no
geotechnical information has been made available for the tailings dam foundation stability. If any
geotechnical work has been conducted to date in the tailings management area to determine foundation
conditions, the Proponent should provide the information or clarify what studies will be conducted and
when. The Proponent should also explain what groundwater controls will be put in place to ensure that
groundwater impacted by tailings will not discharge to surface water features.
Open pit dewatering and fill rate estimates only include groundwater inflow with no direct runoff into the
pits. Direct precipitation and runoff needs to be considered.
Any effects on the Mean Annual Flow (MAF) that were less than 10% in a catchment or flow system were
considered to be not significant by the Proponent. What is the basis for this? Cumulatively, numerous
<10% impacts could be significant. The cumulative effect of these impacts needs to be assessed.
The hydrology modeling information was not included in the documentation. Please provide the
supporting documentation for the flow assessments (modeling).
A monitoring plan is provided to assess the impacts on flows in watersheds post closure but there are no
contingency measures provided and no triggers have been developed for the contingency measures.
Pic River – There will be an estimated reduction of 0.16% of the watershed area that includes Pic River.
Reduction in MAF of 0.15% in construction and 0.13% in ops. Pic River could be used as a supplemental
source of process water to a maximum of 300 m3/hour, which is 0.17% of MAF. The Proponent states
that a low flow trigger will be developed for the Pic River. This trigger should be developed now.
3.2.2 Sediment Quality and Benthos
The EIS Guidelines establish that the "…description of the aquatic environment shall include information
on … benthic invertebrate communities, including characterization of the community diversity, distribution,
and abundance." Thus, there are two essential elements to consider when evaluating the acceptable use
of the EIS Guidelines. First, the EIS Addendum shall estimate the species diversity of each community,
describe its spatial variation (distribution), and estimate the abundance of the populations that are part of
them. Second, because ecological systems are dynamic, each parameter (i.e., diversity, distribution, and
Review of the Environmental Impact Statement Addendum for the Marathon PGM Project July 23, 2021 Northwestern Ontario Pinchin File: 290703 Pays Plat First Nation FINAL
© 2021 Pinchin Ltd. Page 12 of 29
abundance) changes over time. Thus, it is inadequate to provide a single, fixed value. Instead, the EIS
Addendum shall estimate the central tendency over time and provide a measure of the temporal variation
around that estimate.
The EIS Addendum does not present adequate estimates of the ecological parameters required by the
EIS Guidelines. We can illustrate the weaknesses of the studies by examining the data collected for
watershed 5, which includes Hare Lake. Data was collected first in 2006. As the table obtained from the
2012 Baseline Report shows below (Table 1), one sampling unit (L4) was surveyed in 2006 (NAR, 2007).
In a subsequent study in 2007 (Golder, 2009), three sampling units were surveyed, all different from the
one sampled in 2006 (L17, S9, and S10). Finally, in 2009, 2010, and 2011, six new units were sampled, a
single time each (Ecometrix, 2012). Because ecological parameters vary in space and time, it is
impossible to compare the data from the sampling unit surveyed in 2006 to different units sampled later.
Also, this means that none of the surveys completed between 2007 and 2011 replicates the 2006 survey.
Further, this can be generalized to demonstrate that there is no temporal replication of the surveys.
The consequences of the haphazard sampling design are grave. First, because most or all the sampling
units were only surveyed once, it is impossible to describe how the communities change over time.
Second, because most sampling units were surveyed in different years, it is impossible to explain how the
communities vary in space in any given year. Critically, then, it is impossible to estimate a central
tendency and variation for any of the measured ecological parameters. Ultimately, the inadequate
ecological characterization also means that it is impossible to infer the state of the benthic communities
that would receive the effects of the Project a decade later
Table 1. Section of Table 3.19 of the 2012 Aquatic Baseline Report showing the sampling units (i.e., stations) in Stream 5 watershed (Watershed 105 in the 2020 updated baseline report).
Review of the Environmental Impact Statement Addendum for the Marathon PGM Project July 23, 2021 Northwestern Ontario Pinchin File: 290703 Pays Plat First Nation FINAL
© 2021 Pinchin Ltd. Page 13 of 29
We conclude that the characterization of the benthic community diversity, distribution, and abundance presented by the Proponent does not meet the requirements set in the EIS Guidelines. Therefore, the EIS Addendum is considered insufficient and lacks the technical merits to assess the impacts of the Project adequately. As a result, it is unknown how the Project could impact the rights
of Pays Plat First Nation.
We respectfully recommend the Joint Review Panel ask the Proponent to complete the following actions,
as per the EIS Guidelines:
• Develop a sampling strategy to update the aquatic baseline and provide a sound rationale to justify the choice of sampling effort based on the best available science
• Utilize the sampling strategy to complete field studies that provide an adequate update on the conditions of fish populations in the local study area
• Describe and discuss the temporal and spatial variation in the ecological parameters measured, making use of adequate statistical methods
3.2.3 Fish and Fish Habitat
The EIS Guidelines state that the "…description of the existing environment shall be in sufficient detail to
permit the identification, assessment, and determination of the significance of potentially adverse
environmental effects that may be caused by the Project, to adequately identify and characterize the
beneficial effects of the project, and provide the data necessary to enable effective testing of predictions
during the follow-up program." Further, regarding the description of fish and their habitat, the guidelines
indicate that the adequacy of the baseline "shall be evaluated based on, but not limited to, such factors as
… adequacy of sampling effort, across all seasons and over multiple years; and distribution of sampling
effort both temporally and geographically for different habitat types within each water body." Thus, a
crucial requirement for the EIS Addendum is to design a sampling strategy that includes an adequate
sampling effort to examine the geographic and temporal variation of fish populations in the Local Study
Area.
At the center of the requirement introduced by the EIS Guidelines are the concepts of sampling size and
effort. Defining the number of samples to be collected (sample size) is a critical step in planning
ecological studies, such as baseline characterizations of aquatic environments (Guerra-Castro et al.,
2021). The decision to collect a large number of samples can produce more precise results but at an
increased cost. In contrast, small sample sizes can be reached at a lower cost, but they may result in an
undesirable level of error in the parameters being measured. Thus, the EIS Guidelines establish that the
Review of the Environmental Impact Statement Addendum for the Marathon PGM Project July 23, 2021 Northwestern Ontario Pinchin File: 290703 Pays Plat First Nation FINAL
© 2021 Pinchin Ltd. Page 14 of 29
studies would be considered adequate if they use a sampling effort that measures the spatial
(geographical) and temporal variation of fish populations with an acceptable level of precision.
The EIS Addendum has three main deficiencies that affect its ability to characterize the spatial and
temporal variation in the aquatic communities: it lacks an explicit sampling design and strategy, employs
a minimum sampling effort, and lacks an updated description of ecological parameters for the aquatic
communities. The lack of an explicit sampling design resulted in a minimum sampling effort in the surveys
of the aquatic communities. The Aquatic Environment Baseline Report Update (Ecometrix, 2020)
indicates that the baseline studies included "multi-year, multi-season surveys of aquatic habitats and
communities in the study area" and that only minor additional information was identified as required to
supplement the studies published in 2007, 2009, 2012, and 2013. Implicitly, this conclusion is based on
the premise that the current information adequately describes the aquatic habitat to be impacted during
the development of the Project. For this premise to be true, it must be possible to infer the status of the
fish communities in 2021 or later.
Let's consider the fish community in Hare Lake, for instance. First, the Proponent must estimate with a
degree of certainty its diversity and the abundance and age structure of each population. Fish surveys in
Hare Lake ad hoc to this Project were conducted in 2009, 2011, and 2013. Some methodological
differences between the 2009 and 2011 surveys may account for unexplained variation in the diversity of
fish and their abundance. For example, in 2009, using a seine net resulted in the capture of 60 logperch
individuals. In 2011, a seine net was not used, but 21 logperch individuals were trapped using a Nordic
net, resulting in a relative abundance of roughly one-third of that observed in 2009.
In contrast, the relative abundance of spottail shiner in 2009 was approximately two-thirds of that
observed in 2011 when Nordic nets were introduced in the sampling. Was the variation in logperch and
spottail shiner abundances due to natural change between years or sampling error introduced by using
different techniques? Further, what would be the expected abundance of these species in 2021 or later?
This example illustrates how the lack of methodological planning can introduce unaccounted sources of
error in estimating ecological parameters. Most importantly, it shows that the information contained in the
EIS Addendum is insufficient to infer the current status of the fish communities.
Yellow perch and spottail shiner were the most abundant fish species in Hare Lake. The length of
individuals captured in 2011 and 2013 was recorded to examine the age structure of their populations.
The length-frequency histograms included in the Updated Report show a change between years in the
age structure of both populations. In 2011, the yellow perch population was dominated by the abundant
young-of-the-year (YOY), with smaller proportions of presumed 1+ and 2+ classes fish (Figure 1). In
contrast, in 2013, the age class 1+ was arguably as abundant as the YOY (Figure 1). The histograms also
Review of the Environmental Impact Statement Addendum for the Marathon PGM Project July 23, 2021 Northwestern Ontario Pinchin File: 290703 Pays Plat First Nation FINAL
© 2021 Pinchin Ltd. Page 15 of 29
show an apparent decrease in the abundance of YOY in 2013. For spottail shiner, changes between
years in the age structure of the population are more evident. In 2011, two discrete age classes were
observed, 1+ and YOY, the former being the most abundant, while the presence of 2+ fish is uncertain
(Figure 2). In 2013, a multimodal distribution was observed, with YOY being described as the most
abundant, followed by 1+ and 2+ fish (Figure 2). These results illustrate the dynamic nature of the fish
populations in Hare Lake.
It is essential to understand the range and causes of variation in fish population parameters to assess the
potential effects of the Project adequately. However, the EIS Addendum lacks profound interpretations of
the observed changes in the age structure of the populations, raising critical questions. For example,
what could explain the changes between years in the age structure of the populations? Could the rarity of
2+ spottail shiner in 2011 be a consequence of high YOY mortality in 2009? Alternatively, could the
differences be the result of methodological changes or varying efforts between surveys? Because none of
these questions are addressed, it is impossible to make inferences about temporal changes in the
abundance of each age class. Crucially, the minimal temporal replication (n = 2), the high variation
observed between years, and the lack of interpretation of the results make it impossible to infer the age
structure of the populations in 2021 or later. Thus, the effects of the Project cannot be adequately
assessed because the status of the receiving fish populations in Hare Lake is unknown.
Review of the Environmental Impact Statement Addendum for the Marathon PGM Project July 23, 2021 Northwestern Ontario Pinchin File: 290703 Pays Plat First Nation FINAL
© 2021 Pinchin Ltd. Page 16 of 29
Figure 2. Histogram of the length of yellow perch from Hare Lake in 2011 (top) and 2013 (bottom) (Ecometrix, 2020).
Review of the Environmental Impact Statement Addendum for the Marathon PGM Project July 23, 2021 Northwestern Ontario Pinchin File: 290703 Pays Plat First Nation FINAL
© 2021 Pinchin Ltd. Page 17 of 29
Figure 3. Histogram of the length of spottail shiner from Hare Lake in 2011 (top) and 2013 (bottom) (Ecometrix, 2020).
Review of the Environmental Impact Statement Addendum for the Marathon PGM Project July 23, 2021 Northwestern Ontario Pinchin File: 290703 Pays Plat First Nation FINAL
© 2021 Pinchin Ltd. Page 18 of 29
We conclude that the characterization of fish and fish habitat presented by the Proponent does not meet the requirements set in the EIS Guidelines. Therefore, the EIS Addendum is considered insufficient and lacks the technical merits to assess the impacts of the Project adequately. As a
result, it is unknown how the Project could impact the rights of Pays Plat First Nation.
We respectfully recommend the Joint Review Panel ask the Proponent to complete the following actions,
as per the EIS Guidelines:
• Develop a sampling strategy to update the aquatic baseline and provide a sound rationale to justify the choice of sampling effort based on the best available science
• Utilize the sampling strategy to complete field studies that provide an adequate update on the conditions of fish populations in the local study area
• Describe and discuss the temporal and spatial variation in the ecological parameters measured, making use of adequate statistical methods
3.2.4 Fish Offsetting Plan
The objective of the Fish Offsetting Plan is to support the conservation of fish and their habitat by
"counterbalancing the residual death of fish and/or harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish
habitat resulting from carrying on works, undertakings or activities authorized under the Fisheries Act."
(Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2019). One approach to achieving this objective is to provide in-kind
compensation for the habitat destroyed. In this approach, the fish and fish habitat that is impacted is
replaced by the same quantity and quality. However, in-kind replacement is subject to uncertainty in the
outcome and a time lag between the adverse effects and the implementation of measures. Thus, it must
be emphasized that additional offsetting measures are required to account for uncertainty and time lags
(Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2017, 2019). A review of projects showed that success in maintaining the
productivity of ecosystems is linked to using multipliers to determine the amount of offsetting measures to
be implemented (Quigley and Harper, 2006).
The main flaw of the Fish Offsetting Plan presented by the Proponent is that it establishes a false
equivalency between the amount of habitat to be destroyed and created. In other words, the plan
assumes that the habitats destroyed and created are functionally the same, resulting in no net loss of fish
productivity. However, using the habitat area as a currency representing the amount to be compensated
is widely discredited (Bull et al., 2013) because it ignores the ecological differences between habitats
differing in type, location, time, or ecological context. This false equivalency of habitat is the biggest
drawback of in-kind habitat replacement as it assumes that the new habitat will fully replace the
Review of the Environmental Impact Statement Addendum for the Marathon PGM Project July 23, 2021 Northwestern Ontario Pinchin File: 290703 Pays Plat First Nation FINAL
© 2021 Pinchin Ltd. Page 19 of 29
functionality of the removed habitat (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2017). When in-kind habitat
replacement is proposed, other compound metrics can better describe the ecological characteristics of
the habitat, such as habitat hectares (Bull et al., 2013). Otherwise, the plan should explicitly account for
the uncertainty in the trade by using an adequate multiplier (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2017).
The Fish Offsetting Plan is insufficient to achieve no net loss of productivity in the aquatic ecosystem
because the baseline against which no net loss should be measured is unknown. The characterization of
the aquatic habitat is inadequate, with minimal temporal replication, undescribed natural variation in fish
productivity, and a large temporal gap between the studies and the proposed activities. Implicitly, the EIS
Addendum and the Fish Offsetting Plan assume that the baseline conditions are fixed at the time of the
development of the Project, ignoring the dynamic nature of the ecosystems. For example, the fish studies
conducted at Hare Lake showed a three-fold change in the catch-per-unit effort between samplings
undertaken in 2011 and 2013. No additional fish studies were conducted after those years. If we assume
that the Project will be developed in 2022, What is the expected fish productivity in Hare Lake in 2022
against which the no net loss principle should be measured? It is a fact that a benchmark for fish
productivity cannot be determined. Then, the logical truth is that it is impossible to evaluate the success of
the Offsetting Plan.
The Fish Offsetting Plan does not account for time lags in the implementation of the measures. Generally,
the amount required to compensate is increased as a simple way to account for uncertainty and time
lags. A global review of the success of offsets in compensating biodiversity losses showed that the most
cited reason for success was the use of high offset multipliers to account for uncertainty in the outcomes
(zu Ermgassen et al., 2019). In contrast, small multipliers (i.e., ≤1) often failed to achieve the set targets.
Further, a review of sixteen fish habitat compensation plans in Canada showed that success in attaining
not net loss was linked to a minimum mean compensation ratio of 1.1:1 (Quigley and Harper, 2006). The
Fish Offsetting Plan presented by Generation PGM introduces a compensation rate of 1:1 and, thus, it is
unlikely to account for uncertainty and time lags and result in no net loss of productivity.
Canada's policy for the application of offset measures states that "It is therefore important, and good
practice, for proponents to engage Indigenous peoples early in the planning phase of the offsetting plan.
Indigenous peoples and the knowledge of the Indigenous peoples of Canada can inform the design of
measures to offset residual effects on fish and fish habitat." Despite this, Pays Plat First Nation was not
consulted during the preparation of the Fish Offsetting Plan, and its traditional knowledge was not
incorporated. Thus, potential adverse effects on the rights of Pays Plat First Nation are not explicitly
considered in the plan.
Review of the Environmental Impact Statement Addendum for the Marathon PGM Project July 23, 2021 Northwestern Ontario Pinchin File: 290703 Pays Plat First Nation FINAL
© 2021 Pinchin Ltd. Page 20 of 29
We conclude that the Fish Offsetting Plan presented by the Proponent does not meet the requirements set in the policy of Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
We respectfully recommend the Joint Review Panel to ask the Proponent to complete the following
actions, as per the Canadian policy (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2019):
• Prepare a Fish Offsetting Plan based on updated studies of fish and fish habitat, using quantitative estimates of productivity to determine the adequate amount of habitat to be compensated
• Incorporate uncertainty and time lags in the determination of the offset ratio
• Consult with Pays Plat First Nation during the development of the plan
3.2.5 Wildlife and Species at Risk
The EIS Guidelines establish that "The EIS shall describe and identify the terrestrial species and their
habitat at the site and within the local and regional study areas." Implicitly, this requirement means that
the EIS shall include an inventory of all the terrestrial species occurring in the study area and quantifying
the availability and distribution of habitat for them.
Species inventories are essential for the adequate monitoring and management of biological
communities. However, in practice, complete inventories require extraordinary efforts (Shen et al., 2003).
This statement is particularly true when dealing with rare or cryptic species. So, when an inventory is
conducted, it is essential to assess the completeness and sufficiency of the sampling effort. However, the
EIS Addendum does not include an evaluation of the adequacy of its surveys.
A significant deficiency of the EIS Addendum is in the methodology used to quantify the habitat available
for terrestrial species within the local and regional study areas. The Addendum relies on habitat suitability
models to estimate the availability and potential loss of habitat for wildlife and species at risk. However,
some major methodological flaws affect the validity of the results. First, the authors fail to address the
most common deficiency in the use of habitat suitability models, that is, a misunderstanding of the
ecological meaning of what is being modeled. What habitat suitability models estimate is closer to the
fundamental niche than to the realized niche of species. The difference is not trivial. The fundamental
niche does not account for the dispersal capabilities and biological interactions of the species (Hirzel and
Le Lay, 2008). Species interactions, including predation and competition, are considered strong drivers of
available habitat occupancy (Leathwick and Austin, 2001). The practical consequence of this
methodological shortcoming is that habitat suitability models tend to overestimate habitat availability.
Review of the Environmental Impact Statement Addendum for the Marathon PGM Project July 23, 2021 Northwestern Ontario Pinchin File: 290703 Pays Plat First Nation FINAL
© 2021 Pinchin Ltd. Page 21 of 29
Thus, the relative magnitude of the potential loss of habitat due to the Project is undoubtedly
underestimated.
Appendix D9 of the EIS Addendum describes the approach followed to estimate habitat availability for
Canada warbler. Occurrences from point counts and incidental observations of Canada warbler were
overlain with the current Forest Resources Inventory, and a summary of the frequency of observations
per ecosite was produced (Table 1). Based on these results, the authors made several conclusions
regarding the habitat occupied by Canada warbler.
Table 2. Frequency of Canada warbler observations across ecosites from Appendix D9 of the EIS Addendum.
Review of the Environmental Impact Statement Addendum for the Marathon PGM Project July 23, 2021 Northwestern Ontario Pinchin File: 290703 Pays Plat First Nation FINAL
© 2021 Pinchin Ltd. Page 22 of 29
The approach described above is flawed for several reasons. First, despite having presence/absence
data, the method uses only presences, weakening the transferability of the model to areas not sampled
(i.e., RSA). Second, the model is not validated by independent data, nor does it present a statistical
evaluation of its predictive value. Third, the model relies on several vegetation-related covariates, without
evaluating their statistical independence. Thus, the model may represent a simplistic approximation to
Canada warbler habitat. Finally, it is unclear if the method corrected any asynchronies between the time
of the observations and the collection of the covariates.
We conclude that the characterization of the wildlife and species at risk presented by the Proponent partially meets the requirements set in the EIS Guidelines.
We respectfully recommend the Joint Review Panel ask the Proponent to complete the following actions:
• Provide a rationale and a quantitative analysis to justify the sufficiency of the survey efforts
• Justify the selection of the methodology to estimate the availability of habitat for Canada warbler. If an expert opinion-based approach is used, a sound rationale should be presented to justify the choice
• Validate the habitat suitability models, for instance, by using independent empirical data to test their predictions
3.3 Indigenous Engagement and Consultation
The EIS Guidelines state, in regards to Aboriginal Engagement and Consultation, that "the EIS will:
• Describe consultations undertaken prior to the submission of the EIS, the methods used and their
rationales, perspectives and opinions expressed about the Project, issues raised and the ways in
which the Proponent has responded to these issues; and
• Outline a proposal for a consultation process with Aboriginal people and groups which the
Proponent, as directed by government, intends to carry out for the purposes of the review of the
EIS."
The EIS Addendum in its Indigenous, Public, and Agency Consultation chapter summarizes the
communications between the Proponent of the Project and Pays Plat First Nation. The Addendum
describes limited consultation and engagement with Pays Plat First Nation, consisting of the provision of
funding for completing TK/TLRU studies in 2013 and the technical review of the EIS Addendum and
ongoing negotiations around a Process Agreement.
Review of the Environmental Impact Statement Addendum for the Marathon PGM Project July 23, 2021 Northwestern Ontario Pinchin File: 290703 Pays Plat First Nation FINAL
© 2021 Pinchin Ltd. Page 23 of 29
Pays Plat First Nation has not shared its traditional knowledge with the Proponent, despite a claim in the
EIS Addendum that "PPFN approved the VECs and TLRU/TK studies completed in 2013." Thus,
Traditional Knowledge from Pays Plat First Nation has not been incorporated in assessing the impacts of
the Project on the rights of Pays Plat First Nation.
The EIS Addendum outlines a consultation process in four phases spanning between 2004 and 2021,
following the EIS Guidelines. The first phase of the process, between 2004 and 2014, comprised the
preparation of the EIS Report and the completion of TK/TLRU studies. However, as was stated above,
the Traditional Knowledge of Pays Plat First Nation was not collected and integrated into the EIS report.
The second phase of the process included the "Exploration Updates" and "Community Involvement,"
which was completed between 2015 and 2019, while the Project's environmental assessment was
suspended. However, Pays Plat First Nation's participation in this phase was limited. In fact, a table
included in the "Communications Log" shows that the majority of the interactions corresponded to
unilateral communications from the Proponent.
Phase 3 of the plan is the EIS Addendum Preparation, and Generation PGM describes it as the
continuing work with the Indigenous communities using modified engagement activities to mitigate the
impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic. Generation PGM asked Pays Plat First Nation to participate in
meetings to discuss and address their concerns before submitting its review to the JRP. However, at the
time of submitting this review, no meetings have been held between Pays Plat First Nation and the
Proponent to discuss their concerns.
It should also be acknowledged that Generation PGM is the most recent owner and Proponent of the
Project, with a recent relationship with Pays Plat First Nation. Thus, the engagement work that previous
owners conducted in the past may be irrelevant to the present Chief and Council.
We conclude that the EIS Addendum is insufficient as it does not adequately engage and consult with Pays Plat First Nation, as required by the EIS Guidelines.
We respectfully recommend the Joint Review Panel ask the Proponent to complete the following actions:
• Integrate the Traditional Knowledge of Pays Plat First Nation into the description of the environmental setting of the Project
• Engage Pays Plat First Nation in the development of the Fish Offsetting Plan
• Consult with Pays Plat First Nation during the development of environmental monitoring programs and consider the participation of its members during the potential implementation of the programs
Review of the Environmental Impact Statement Addendum for the Marathon PGM Project July 23, 2021 Northwestern Ontario Pinchin File: 290703 Pays Plat First Nation FINAL
© 2021 Pinchin Ltd. Page 24 of 29
3.4 Assessment of Effects
The guidelines mandate that "The EIS shall assess the significance of predicted adverse effects
according to the following categories, as applicable:
• Magnitude of the effect
• Geographic extent of the effect
• Timing, duration, and frequency of the effect
• Degree to which the effects are reversible or mitigable
• Ecological and social context, including biodiversity, and
• Existence of environmental standards, guidelines, or objective for assessing the effect.
The EIS shall clearly explain the method and definitions used to describe the level of adverse (e.g.,
minimal, low, medium, high) for each of the above categories and how these levels were combined to
produce an overall conclusion on the significance of adverse effects for each VEC." Thus, the EIS
Guidelines introduces a two-step process to determine the significance of adverse residual effects: the
characterization of the effects based on the prescribed categories and the combination of the categorical
attributes in a transparent, repeatable manner.
The EIS Addendum follows the project-specific guidelines to define the categorical attributes used to
describe the residual effects (i.e., direction, magnitude, geographic extent, timing, duration, frequency,
reversibility, and ecological/societal value). However, all the categories are poorly defined and are not
discrete in some cases, resulting in ambiguous characterizations of the effects. For instance, the
geographic extent of the residual effects is categorized as negligible if it is restricted to the SSA, or low if
it is "…restricted to the SSA or immediate surroundings." This definition results in the absurd situation
where a residual effect occurring only within the SSA can be simultaneously categorized as negligible and
low. Further, because the "immediate surroundings" of the SSA are part of the LSA, a residual effect
occurring in the LSA can be classified as low and medium at the same time. The poor definition of the
categories has grave consequences for the scientific integrity of the assessment. Suppose then that the
categorical attributes of a residual effect are combined to determine its significance, following the EIS
guidelines. In that case, the effect may be classified as significant and non-significant at the same time,
depending on subjective interpretations made by the evaluator.
The EIS Addendum does not rely on the characterization of the residual effects to determine their
significance. Instead, it follows different approaches to evaluate the effects on different VECs. It is most
Review of the Environmental Impact Statement Addendum for the Marathon PGM Project July 23, 2021 Northwestern Ontario Pinchin File: 290703 Pays Plat First Nation FINAL
© 2021 Pinchin Ltd. Page 25 of 29
concerning that the effects on the different components of the aquatic environment do not use a
transparent and repeatable methodology, as established by the EIS Guidelines and recognized as a good
practice. The EIS addendum characterizes the residual effects on aquatic VECs using the categorical
attributes prescribed by the EIS guidelines. However, the attributes are not further used, and the
Proponent attempts to provide a rationale that concludes that no significant residual environmental effects
will be caused in all cases. Because the Proponent fails to follow a transparent and defensible process to
determine the significance of residual effects, it undermines the confidence in the assessment.
In contrast with the approach used for the aquatic environment, the assessment of effects on the wildlife
and species at risk provided arguments to justify the conclusions about the effects. While this approach is
more transparent and defensible than the one used in the aquatic environment, it also fails to follow the
guidelines.
We conclude that the assessment of effects presented by the Proponent is obscure and does not follow the EIS Guidelines.
We respectfully recommend the Joint Review Panel ask the Proponent to complete the following actions:
• Presents a new assessment of effects on which the determination of significance is made in a transparent and reproducible manner
3.5 Assessment of Cumulative Effects
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (2012) and the EIS Guidelines require that the Proponent
consider any cumulative effects resulting from the interaction of the Project with past, present, and future
physical activities. Thus, the Proponent shall analyze the cumulative effects on valued ecosystem
components by considering additive, synergistic, induced, and other forms of interactions along the
pathways of effects.
The gravest problems in the EIS Addendum are the lack of understanding of the ecological scale at which
the effects of the Project should be measured and the inadequate identification of the recipients of the
effects. The ecological processes that threaten the conservation of biodiversity operate at the population
level. Thus, understanding the combined effects of multiple developments requires quantifying how they
influence the vital rates of populations. Logically, then, cumulative effects occur at scales that are
population-specific, and the use of a single scale of analysis for all species is inadequate. Consequently,
because the spatial scales of analysis may be either smaller or larger than the scale of populations, the
cumulative effects will be, at best, overestimated. Logically, the worst-case scenario implies
Review of the Environmental Impact Statement Addendum for the Marathon PGM Project July 23, 2021 Northwestern Ontario Pinchin File: 290703 Pays Plat First Nation FINAL
© 2021 Pinchin Ltd. Page 26 of 29
underestimating the cumulative effects on the recipient populations and, should the Project be developed,
reduce their likelihood of survival.
Several specific deficiencies are found throughout the assessment, in addition to the inadequate
ecological framing. First, the methodology implicitly assumes that the nature of the interactions between
the effects of all the activities is additive. While this may be true in some instances, other effects may
interact in a synergistic nature or respond to thresholds, and, in that case, the cumulative effects could be
underestimated. Further, the assessment reveals some conceptual misunderstanding around cumulative
effects and their ecological impacts. In several instances, it is argued that because the project-specific
effects are much smaller than the effects of other activities, the cumulative effects must be insignificant.
This conceptual error also gravely ignores that ecological thresholds may be surpassed even when the
contribution of a new activity is of minor magnitude compared to the existing ones. Finally, the
assessment, as other sections of this EIS Addendum do, justifies the "sustainability" of the Project based
on the fact that "cumulative change in wildlife habitat … is not materially different than that represented by
commercial timber harvesting alone." Regardless of the credibility of the claim, the supporting evidence is
erroneous, as the ecological effects of habitat transformation and habitat destruction are materially
different.
The EIS Addendum does not evaluate potential cumulative effects on Areas of Concern of Lake Superior.
For instance, human activities have resulted in mercury accumulation (Hg) in terrestrial and aquatic
ecosystems. Studies have demonstrated that forestry operations can increase the concentrations and
loads of Hg to surface waters by mobilizing it from the soil (Eklof et al., 2016). Clearing, grubbing, and
stripping of vegetation, topsoil, and other organic material during the activities of the Project may result in
the release and mobilization of Hg from the soil into adjacent watersheds. A recent study showed that
bays in the Great Lakes receiving riverine inputs have high mercury concentrations, leading to
consumption restrictions (Visha et al., 2018). Peninsula Harbour (Marathon) and Jackfish Bay (near
Terrace Bay), which are part of the Regional Study Area for the Project, were declared as Areas of
Concern in the past due to high levels of contaminants in the water, including mercury.
The circulation of waters along the north shore of Lake Superior follows a general westerly direction
(Bennington et al., 2010). This pattern means that effluents entering Lake Superior at the mouth of Hare
Creek could potentially reach the Jackfish Bay Area of Concern in Recovery. Jackfish Bay was
designated as an Area of Concern due to the degradation of the water quality and environmental health
caused by the effluents from the pulp and paper mill in Terrace Bay. The degradation resulted in low
water quality, contamination of sediment, and fish and fish habitat destruction, among other
consequences. Although environmental health has improved significantly (Environment and Climate
Review of the Environmental Impact Statement Addendum for the Marathon PGM Project July 23, 2021 Northwestern Ontario Pinchin File: 290703 Pays Plat First Nation FINAL
© 2021 Pinchin Ltd. Page 27 of 29
Change Canada, 2017), the potential for cumulative effects due to the proposed mining development may
threaten the recovery of Jackfish Bay. Considering these concerns, the EIS Addendum must adequately
assess the levels of contaminants resulting from the combined effect of the Project and past, present, and
future physical activities.
We conclude that the assessment of cumulative effects presented by the Proponent does not meet the requirements set in the EIS Guidelines. Therefore, the EIS Addendum is considered insufficient and lacks the technical merits to assess the impacts of the Project adequately. As a
result, it is unknown how the Project could impact the rights of Pays Plat First Nation.
We respectfully recommend the Joint Review Panel to ask the Proponent to complete the following
actions:
• Present a comprehensive analysis of potential cumulative effects on Jackfish Bay and Peninsula Harbour.
• Complete a quantitative analysis to evaluate the potential release of mercury into the watersheds because of land-clearing activities.
• Present a cumulative effects analysis conducted at a population-level scale for wildlife, species at risk, and fish. In the absence of demographic information, provide detailed information about the assumptions made in the analysis and the uncertainty imposed by them.
4.0 CONCLUSIONS
In April 2021, the JRP invited the public to comment on the sufficiency and technical merits of the EIS
Addendum for the Marathon PGM project. After reviewing the contents of the original EIS (2012), the EIS
Addendum and its supporting information, and the EIS Guidelines for the Project, we conclude that:
• The EIS Addendum does not present a comprehensive and updated description of the environmental setting for the Project. Thus, the significance of the effects of the Project is unknown
• The EIS Addendum shows that the Project has not been adequately scoped, as it does not include mineral resources presented that were presented as part of the Project to potential investors.
• The data collected as part of the baseline studies are insufficient and outdated, precluding an estimate of the contemporary state of the recipients of the effects of the Project
Review of the Environmental Impact Statement Addendum for the Marathon PGM Project July 23, 2021 Northwestern Ontario Pinchin File: 290703 Pays Plat First Nation FINAL
© 2021 Pinchin Ltd. Page 28 of 29
• The EIS Addendum lacks the technical merits to proceed to the next stage in the environmental assessment, as it contains flawed study designs and analyses of baseline information, and assessments of project-specific and cumulative effects
• The weaknesses of the EIS Addendum preclude an adequate assessment of the effects of the Project on the rights of Pays Plat First Nation
Because of the significant concerns on the sufficiency and technical merits of the EIS Addendum, we
respectfully recommend that the Joint Review Panel do not proceed with a public hearing until the
Proponent has addressed the recommendations of Pays Plat First Nation satisfactorily.
5.0 TERMS AND LIMITATIONS
Specific limitations related to the legal and financial and restrictions to the current work scope are outlined
in our proposal, the attached Methodology, and the Authorization to Proceed, Limitation of Liability, and
Terms of Engagement contract form that accompanied the proposal. Information provided by Pinchin is
intended for Client use only. Pinchin will not provide results or information to any party unless directed to
by the Client or disclosure by Pinchin is required by law. Any use by a third party of reports or documents
authored by Pinchin or any reliance by a third party on or decisions made by a third party based on the
findings described in said documents is the sole responsibility of such third parties. Pinchin accepts no
responsibility for damages suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions conducted.
No other warranties are implied or expressed.
6.0 REFERENCES
Bennington, V., McKinley, G. A., Kimura, N., & Wu, C. H. (2010). General circulation of Lake Superior:
Mean, variability, and trends from 1979 to 2006. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 115(C12).
Bull, J. W., Suttle, K. B., Gordon, A., Singh, N. J., & Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2013). Biodiversity offsets in
theory and practice. Oryx, 47(3), 369-380.
Ecometrix. 2012. Marathon PGM-Cu Project Site – Aquatic Resources Baseline Report.
Ecometrix. 2020. Marathon Palladium Project – Aquatic Environment Baseline Report Update.
Eklöf, K., Lidskog, R., & Bishop, K. (2016). Managing Swedish forestry's impact on mercury in fish:
Defining the impact and mitigation measures. Ambio, 45(2), 163-174.
Environment and Climate Change Canada. 2017. https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-
change/services/great-lakes-protection/areas-concern/jackfish-bay.html
Review of the Environmental Impact Statement Addendum for the Marathon PGM Project July 23, 2021 Northwestern Ontario Pinchin File: 290703 Pays Plat First Nation FINAL
© 2021 Pinchin Ltd. Page 29 of 29
Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2017. Science Advice on the Determination of Offset Requirements for
the Fisheries Protection Program.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2019. Policy for Applying Measures to Offset Adverse Effects on Fish and
Fish Habitat under the Fisheries Act.
G Mining Services. 2021. Feasibility Study. Marathon Palladium & Copper Project. Ontario, Canada.
Golder Associates Ltd. 2009. Baseline Assessment of the Aquatic and Terrestrial Environments.
Guerra‐Castro, E. J., Cajas, J. C., Simões, N., Cruz‐Motta, J. J., & Mascaró, M. (2021). SSP: An R
package to estimate sampling effort in studies of ecological communities. Ecography, 44(4), 561-573.
Hirzel, A. H., & Le Lay, G. (2008). Habitat suitability modelling and niche theory. Journal of applied
ecology, 45(5), 1372-1381.
Leathwick, J. R., & Austin, M. P. (2001). Competitive interactions between tree species in New Zealand's
old‐growth indigenous forests. Ecology, 82(9), 2560-2573.
N.A.R. Environmental Consultants. 2007. Environmental Baseline Assessment. Marathon PGM-Cu
Project. Marathon PGM Corporation.
Quigley, J. T., & Harper, D. J. (2006). Effectiveness of fish habitat compensation in Canada in achieving
no net loss. Environmental Management, 37(3), 351-366.
Shen, T. J., Chao, A., & Lin, C. F. (2003). Predicting the number of new species in further taxonomic
sampling. Ecology, 84(3), 798-804.
Visha, A., Gandhi, N., Bhavsar, S. P., & Arhonditsis, G. B. (2018). Assessing mercury contamination
patterns of fish communities in the Laurentian Great Lakes: A Bayesian perspective. Environmental
Pollution, 243, 777-789.
zu Ermgassen, S. O., Baker, J., Griffiths, R. A., Strange, N., Struebig, M. J., & Bull, J. W. (2019). The
ecological outcomes of biodiversity offsets under "no net loss" policies: A global review. Conservation
Letters, 12(6), e12664.
\\pinchin.com\ken\JOB\290000s\0290703.000 PaysPlat,10CentralPl,ENS,CONSULT\Deliverables\283609 DRAFT EIS Addendum Review, Marathon PGM, ON, Jul 21 2021.docx Template: Master Report Template, HO, March 15, 2019