The topic was about cumulative affects of the project.
GenPgm started the day with a presentation that was backed up by slides and quotes from the EIS.
The first presenter spoke about how in their expert opinion GenPgm experts did not adequately study different species of birds ( habitat,mating and rehabitating due to project). The claim is that GenPgm used a one fit all mentality. They said that one fit all does not includes all bird species. ( I didn't know we can read birds minds)
Then they proceded to say that their is not enough data to know exactly how all the species act. Well by their admission data is lacking then logically a one fit all scenario should suffice l.
Then came the environmental group ( Crino). They had 4 main points.
A) They spoke about other projects in the area how they can overlap with the marathon project thus causing more damage. ( note the closest project is 18 km
away). GenPgm did a study on that topic and presented their findings in the EIS.
B) the lumber producer in the area has violated the environmental act some 479 times give or take and were only fined 400k dollars.
( thank you for this fun fact but what does that have to do with GenPgm, I didn't make the connection)
I feel like I'm repeating myself. Just because the lumber company committed violations does not equal to GenPgm doing the same. ( simple Arithmetics)
C) I never understood how those presenters can make some of the statements they do. The presenter said that GenPgm has not adequately done their job. How do they know that infact its the case. How can you bluntly accuse experts in the field of not knowing what they are doing without a shred of evidence.
D) It was also claimed that even though GenPgm agrees with some impact stated they did not take those impacts seriously. The argument is that GenPgm stated in the addendum that no extra mitigation measures is necessary.That doesn't mean that they had no mitigation in place as it's suggested ,it simply means that the mitigation in place are sufficient and had accounted for that impact.
Overall I was disappointed with the weakness of the presenters cases and the lack of evidence (from the EIS). That indicates that either these presenters did not sufficiently study the EIS or the EIS was presented well enough as to not give the presenter any thing to work with.
GenPgm has proven their case by spending time, resources and documenting all their findings. If those presenters want to argue against those findings, then it is only fair to ask them to do their own studies in order to support their claims and prove the EIS wrong.
If not then I would lean more towards the party that did field work rather than not.
The Panel again kept things running fair for all participants and asked the questions that reflected most of the presented concerns over the past two days.
GenPgm respectfully answered all the questions and used their research from the EIS to support their claims.
Thanks
Sam
