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

GOLD CANYON RESOURCES INC.
GCU: TSX-V
Suite 810 - 609 Granville Street, P.O. Box 10356 Pacific Centre, Vancouver, B.C., Canada V7Y 1G5
Tel: (604) 682-3234 Toll free: 1 (888) 242-3234 Fax: (604) 682-0537
www.goldcanyon.ca
April 19, 2013
Chief Matthew Keewaykapow, Cat Lake First Nation
Chief Lorraine Crane, Slate Falls First Nation
Chief Clifford Bull, Lac Seul First Nation
Chief Leslie Cameron, Wabauskang First Nation
Mr. Jim Bradley, Minister of the Environment
Mr. Michael Chan, Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport
Mr. Michael Gravelle, Minister of Northern Development and Mines
Mr. Dave New, Ministry of Natural Resources, Area Supervisor, Red Lake South
SENT VIA EMAIL ONLY
Re: Response to Trout Forest Tourist Outfitters Final Environmental Study Report Review
We write to respond to the submission dated 30 March 2013 from the Trout Forest Tourist
Outfitters (“TFTO”) titled Gold Canyon Resources Inc.: Final Environmental Study Report Review
(the “TFTO Submission”). The TFTO Submission is seriously flawed and, therefore, should be
given very little, if any, weight when assessing Gold Canyon Resources Inc.’s (“GCU”)
Environment Study Report for the Springpole Gold Access Corridor Project (“Project”).
Our main concerns with the TFTO Submission are as follows:
1. Many of the concerns relate to the development of the Springpole gold mine
project (“Gold Project”), rather than the Project, and are not within the scope of this
review. A further comprehensive review of the mine development would be
undertaken if the Gold Project advances to that stage.
2. TFTO’s concerns related to the Project are based on factual errors,
misunderstandings, and mischaracterizations. The resulting conclusions that
TFTO asks the Ministry to draw are extreme and beyond any reasonable
understanding of the nature and scale of the Project. Moreover, those conclusions
lack any evidentiary or logical foundation.
3. GCU’s consultation efforts are not accurately reflected. GCU undertook extensive
consultation, including with the TFTO. GCU listened carefully to all reasonable
concerns raised and adjusted the design of the Project in response.
4. TFTO uses inflammatory language that is unwarranted and then distributed the
TFTO Submission broadly in an effort to raise concerns among others. TFTO
refers to “stakeholders” in numerous paragraphs and purports to represent a broad
view of such stakeholders. It is unfortunate that TFTO has chosen this approach.
TFTO can only speak for its members. GCU has always been open and
forthcoming with information to explain the Project with all interested stakeholders.