Revised Final Environmental Study Report (24 MB) - Gold Canyon ...
Revised Final Environmental Study Report (24 MB) - Gold Canyon ... Revised Final Environmental Study Report (24 MB) - Gold Canyon ...
Gold Canyon Resources Inc: Final Environmental Study Report Review March 30, 2013 1 Overview Beginning in 2012, Gold Canyon Resources (GCU) put forward a proposal to develop a seasonal access road to their primary drilling exploration site at Springpole Lake. The road will extend roughly 43 Km northeast off the Wenasaga road from Ear Falls ON. After reviewing road alternatives, GCU decided to pursue a road through the eastern corridor, which requires clearing of roughly 645 km 2 of forested area. In 2011 GCU contracted DST Consulting Engineers to conduct general environmental baseline studies within the Springpole area. The general environmental baseline studies were used to develop future Environmental Study Reports (ESR) for various projects; eastern corridor development and increased mining exploration. In July 2012 GCU released their Springpole Exploration & Access Corridor Base Case Project Description Report, which was sent out to Stakeholders (tourist outfitters), First Nation communities and interested parties. In October 2012 GCU released the Springpole Gold Access Corridor Draft Environmental Study Report (ESR) to solicit feedback from Stakeholders, First Nation communities and interested parties. Numerous tourist outfitters raised objections to the project for reasons ranging from economic to environmental. In November 2012, four tourist outfitters; Kabeelo Lodge, Birch Lake Lodge, Northern Wilderness Outfitters and KayAir Service & Outposts (Trout Forest Tourist Outfitters), collaborated to seek legal counsel regarding unresolved socio-economic and environmental impacts resulting from eastern corridor development and operations. GCU did not provide adequate environmental mitigation measures, nor any feasible options to tourist outfitters for compensation due to economic loss incurred through loss of remote tourism value. On March 2, 2013 GCU submitted their Springpole Gold Access Corridor Project Final ESR under a Class C Environmental Assessment (EA), to the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) for approval. Stakeholders, First Nation communities and interested parties received notification by email of the Final ESR from GCU, accompanied with an electronic copy of the Final ESR (no technical reports were submitted): the OMNR did not contact Stakeholders, First Nation communities or interested parties. This report is a review of the GCU Final ESR and Baseline Environmental Technical Reports (Technical Reports) submitted on March 2, 2013 to OMNR for approval by GCU, and highlights deficiencies encountered with the ESR, Technical Reports and Preliminary Economic Assessment, as reviewed by Trout Forest Tourist Outfitters. Stakeholders have been very clear to the OMNR and GCU, that continued exploration at Springpole does not require a winter road, and the rationale and baseline environmental studies used to justify the project are without merit. 4
Gold Canyon Resources Inc: Final Environmental Study Report Review March 30, 2013 1.1 Report Objectives 1) To highlight the fact that GCU did not conduct the required baseline environmental studies from which the eastern corridor ESR was drafted, in order to gain OMNR approval for the project; 2) That the project will have far reaching environmental impacts, and a more thorough environmental and socio-economic analysis is required prior to project approval. 3) To request a Part II Order to elevate the Environmental Assessment requirements for this project from a Class C to a Class D. 4) Require that GCU provide a Reclamation Bond with the OMNR to ensure that money is available for land rehabilitation. 1.2 Stakeholders and First Nation Communities The Trout Forest area supports a variety of wilderness tourism operations, which promote northwestern Ontario and strive to maintain sustainable and environmentally conscious businesses. First Nation communities affected by Springpole exploration activities are Cat Lake First Nation, Slate Falls First Nation, Lac Seul First Nation and Wabauskang First Nation. Failure of GCU and the OMNR to recognize the traditional and Treaty lands impacted by GCU related Springpole activities, infringes upon Aboriginal and Treaty rights: Stakeholders support the interests and rights of local First Nation communities. Local tourist operators have a long established relationship with local First Nation communities, providing jobs and community support. Trout Forest tourism forms a strong component of local heritage and culture, which is evident in the Ear Falls and Red Lake communities, that work with and support local tourism. GCU conducted two “consultation” rounds with Stakeholders, First Nation communities, organizations and the public. Issues were raised about how GCU engaged with affected First Nation and non-First Nation parties, as there was little time between initial “consultation” and completion of the Draft ESR by GCU. 5
- Page 223 and 224: Photo 7: Taken facing the North app
- Page 225 and 226: CROSSING 8 SPRINPOLE ROAD ( EAST EN
- Page 227 and 228: CROSSING 9 SPRINPOLE ROAD ( EAST EN
- Page 229 and 230: CROSSING 10 SPRINPOLE ROAD - SITE P
- Page 231 and 232: CROSSING 11 SPRINPOLE ROAD - SITE P
- Page 233 and 234: CROSSING 12 SPRINPOLE ROAD - SITE P
- Page 235 and 236: CROSSING 13 SPRINPOLE ROAD - SITE P
- Page 237 and 238: CROSSING 14 SPRINPOLE ROAD - SITE P
- Page 240 and 241: SENT BY E-MAIL ATTACHMENT Adamson C
- Page 242: BRIDGE SITE DATA FORM - EXISTING CO
- Page 245 and 246: Materials - 30' Deaddog Creek Bridg
- Page 247 and 248: Canada flow gauge on the Cat River,
- Page 249 and 250: Crown Land Bridge Management Guidel
- Page 251: Photo 3 - Site #2 indicates propose
- Page 254 and 255: Springpole_GenericSedInstall_______
- Page 256 and 257: Springpole_GenericSedInstall_______
- Page 258 and 259: Springpole_GenericSedInstall_______
- Page 260 and 261: Springpole_GenericSedInstall_______
- Page 262 and 263: Springpole_GenericSedInstall_______
- Page 264 and 265: Springpole_GenericSedInstall_______
- Page 266 and 267: Comments Received at Open Houses co
- Page 268 and 269: Comments Received at Open Houses co
- Page 270 and 271: APPENDIX 9 9A: SUBMISSION FROM TROU
- Page 272 and 273: Gold Canyon Resources Inc: Final En
- Page 276 and 277: Gold Canyon Resources Inc: Final En
- Page 278 and 279: Gold Canyon Resources Inc: Final En
- Page 280 and 281: Gold Canyon Resources Inc: Final En
- Page 282 and 283: Gold Canyon Resources Inc: Final En
- Page 284 and 285: Gold Canyon Resources Inc: Final En
- Page 286 and 287: Gold Canyon Resources Inc: Final En
- Page 288 and 289: Gold Canyon Resources Inc: Final En
- Page 290 and 291: Gold Canyon Resources Inc: Final En
- Page 292 and 293: Gold Canyon Resources Inc: Final En
- Page 294 and 295: Gold Canyon Resources Inc: Final En
- Page 296 and 297: Gold Canyon Resources Inc: Final En
- Page 298 and 299: Gold Canyon Resources Inc: Final En
- Page 300 and 301: Gold Canyon Resources Inc: Final En
- Page 302 and 303: Gold Canyon Resources Inc: Final En
- Page 304 and 305: Gold Canyon Resources Inc: Final En
- Page 306 and 307: Gold Canyon Resources Inc: Final En
- Page 308 and 309: Gold Canyon Resources Inc: Final En
- Page 310 and 311: Gold Canyon Resources Inc: Final En
- Page 312 and 313: Gold Canyon Resources Inc: Final En
- Page 314 and 315: GOLD CANYON RESOURCES INC. GCU: TSX
- Page 316: Page 3 GCU’s mitigation measures
- Page 319 and 320: Gold Canyon Resources Inc: Final En
- Page 321 and 322: Gold Canyon Resources Inc: Final En
- Page 323 and 324: Gold Canyon Resources Inc: Final En
<strong>Gold</strong> <strong>Canyon</strong> Resources Inc: <strong>Final</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Study</strong> <strong>Report</strong> Review<br />
March 30, 2013<br />
1 Overview<br />
Beginning in 2012, <strong>Gold</strong> <strong>Canyon</strong> Resources (GCU) put forward a proposal to develop a<br />
seasonal access road to their primary drilling exploration site at Springpole Lake. The road<br />
will extend roughly 43 Km northeast off the Wenasaga road from Ear Falls ON. After<br />
reviewing road alternatives, GCU decided to pursue a road through the eastern corridor,<br />
which requires clearing of roughly 645 km 2 of forested area.<br />
In 2011 GCU contracted DST Consulting Engineers to conduct general environmental<br />
baseline studies within the Springpole area. The general environmental baseline studies<br />
were used to develop future <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Study</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s (ESR) for various projects;<br />
eastern corridor development and increased mining exploration.<br />
In July 2012 GCU released their Springpole Exploration & Access Corridor Base Case<br />
Project Description <strong>Report</strong>, which was sent out to Stakeholders (tourist outfitters), First<br />
Nation communities and interested parties. In October 2012 GCU released the Springpole<br />
<strong>Gold</strong> Access Corridor Draft <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Study</strong> <strong>Report</strong> (ESR) to solicit feedback from<br />
Stakeholders, First Nation communities and interested parties. Numerous tourist outfitters<br />
raised objections to the project for reasons ranging from economic to environmental.<br />
In November 2012, four tourist outfitters; Kabeelo Lodge, Birch Lake Lodge, Northern<br />
Wilderness Outfitters and KayAir Service & Outposts (Trout Forest Tourist Outfitters),<br />
collaborated to seek legal counsel regarding unresolved socio-economic and environmental<br />
impacts resulting from eastern corridor development and operations. GCU did not provide<br />
adequate environmental mitigation measures, nor any feasible options to tourist outfitters<br />
for compensation due to economic loss incurred through loss of remote tourism value.<br />
On March 2, 2013 GCU submitted their Springpole <strong>Gold</strong> Access Corridor Project <strong>Final</strong> ESR<br />
under a Class C <strong>Environmental</strong> Assessment (EA), to the Ontario Ministry of Natural<br />
Resources (OMNR) for approval. Stakeholders, First Nation communities and interested<br />
parties received notification by email of the <strong>Final</strong> ESR from GCU, accompanied with an<br />
electronic copy of the <strong>Final</strong> ESR (no technical reports were submitted): the OMNR did not<br />
contact Stakeholders, First Nation communities or interested parties.<br />
This report is a review of the GCU <strong>Final</strong> ESR and Baseline <strong>Environmental</strong> Technical <strong>Report</strong>s<br />
(Technical <strong>Report</strong>s) submitted on March 2, 2013 to OMNR for approval by GCU, and<br />
highlights deficiencies encountered with the ESR, Technical <strong>Report</strong>s and Preliminary<br />
Economic Assessment, as reviewed by Trout Forest Tourist Outfitters.<br />
Stakeholders have been very clear to the OMNR and GCU, that continued exploration<br />
at Springpole does not require a winter road, and the rationale and baseline<br />
environmental studies used to justify the project are without merit.<br />
4