FINAL Review of the Environmental Impact Statement ...

© 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. 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]

mailto:[email protected]





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;



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.



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



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").



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)



• 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."



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."



"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



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



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).



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.



• 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



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



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.



Figure 2. Histogram of the length of yellow perch from Hare Lake in 2011 (top) and 2013 (bottom) (Ecometrix, 2020).



Figure 3. Histogram of the length of spottail shiner from Hare Lake in 2011 (top) and 2013 (bottom) (Ecometrix, 2020).



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.



• 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



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.


• 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



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



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.


• 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



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



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



• 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



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

FINAL Review of the Environmental Impact Statement ...

Documents

Transcript of FINAL Review of the Environmental Impact Statement ...