Revised Final Environmental Study Report (24 MB) - Gold Canyon ...

Gold Canyon Resources Inc.
Springpole Gold Access Corridor Project
Final Environmental Study Report
Net Effect
Screening Criteria Negative Effect (1) Positive Effect (1)
Comments and Rationale
Nil Unk
High Med Low Low Med High
Soils and sediment
quality
Drainage or flooding X
Sedimentation or erosion X
Release of contaminants
in soils, sediments
Natural heritage features
and areas (e.g. areas of
natural and scientific
interest, provincially
significant wetlands)
X Road development and installation of water crossings and eventual decommissioning would conform to the MNR and DFO guidance
documents referenced herein, as well as AOC prescriptions in the FMP. Water crossings and cross-culverts would be to primary road
standards, cross-drainage culvert locations demarcated in the field by independent road consultant. Erosion and sediment control plan
to be developed and followed, as per MNR (1995). Post construction FOIP audit and monitoring post construction is planned, as per
Section 8.
X
X None identified to date.
Other (Potential for
introduction of invasive
exotics)
X
Measures will be implemented to mitigate this risk (use appropriate seed for re-vegetation that contains no exotic species, use local
contractors & equipment).
Land Use, Resource Management Considerations
Access to trails or
inaccessible areas (and
water)
X
Public access will be same as in the FMP due to use of modern, monitored gate at the end of the FMP road. Beyond the FMP-road,
access will be gated and restricted to GCU personnel, Crown employees, their agents and stakeholders with MNR approval to use the
road (e.g. tourism outfitter, commercial bait fisherman). In the event of unwanted access, this corridor has a greater risk of providing
direct access to Birch Lake.
Obstruct navigation X Comply with approval from Transport Canada for any approvals to cross a navigable water (Birch River).
Obstruct other resource
management projects
X No synergies with future roads planned by SFL holder, which creates a larger cumulative impact and could negatively affect the
permitting process of the SFL holder.
Traffic patterns or traffic
infrastructure
X
Access would be restricted by a modern, monitored gate. No synergies with future roads proposed by SFL holder. This option would
introduce traffic into an area of the Trout Lake SFL where there would otherwise be no traffic.
Recreational
importance-public or
private
X
Remoteness of the area would be negatively impacted. This corridor is through a less developed region and would result in a greater
cumulative impact for the region because it would duplicate the FMP-approved access corridor. Refer to Table 3-2 for management
strategy and mitigation measures. This alternative would increase potential unwanted access to Birch Lake. It is noted that this could
be a positive effect if there are lodge owners seeking to convert to a drive-in mode of operation or landowners seeking the ability to
drive to their property. GCU acknowledges that the road could be a positive impact if access were allowed by MNR. Access could also
be a negative impact to local landowners desiring remoteness and no increased access to the area.
July 2013 Page 10