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 ...
Schedule 1: GCU Response to General Concerns stated in TFTO Submission GCU Response to TFTO Submission TFTO Submission (TFTO Section reference) Overview (Section 1) Inadequate First Nation Consultation (Section 1.2) Major concerns (Section 2.2) Lack of a Good Neighbour Policy (Section 4.1) GCU Response The TFTO Submission repeatedly refers to clearing of 645 km 2 of forested land and this is incorrect. The entire 43 km road corridor would require 0.645 km 2 of clearing over a 43km corridor (43 km x 0.015 km). Of this 0.645 km 2 of proposed clearing, approximately 0.33 km 2 is already approved to be cleared in the Trout Lake Forest Management Plan (approximately 22km x 0.015 km). The record of stakeholder consultations is included in the final ESR. The TFTO Submission speculates about potential impacts of the development of a mine. That speculation is beyond the scope of this ESR. If GCU seeks to develop the Springpole Gold project into a mine, a new environmental assessment process that will assess the broader impacts and benefits of such a development. The record of stakeholder consultations is included in the final ESR. The Crown has a legal obligation to consult Aboriginal groups. GCU has performed some of the procedural aspects of that consultation as delegated by the Crown. Those consultations are set out in detail in the final ESR. GCU remains strongly committed to working with Aboriginal groups whose Aboriginal and/or Treaty Rights may be affected by GCU’s activities. The issues noted in the TFTO Submission are dealt with in the final ESR and reasonable mitigation measures are proposed in the final ESR (see Tables 3.1 and 3.2 final ESR). GCU is willing to agree to a good neighbour policy with TFTO. In November 2012, a TFTO representative agreed to prepare a draft policy for discussion between GCU and TFTO. GCU has confirmed its willingness to agree to such a policy in subsequent discussion with TFTO, but nothing further has been proposed to date. Entering into such an agreement is a commitment in the final ESR. Gold Canyon Resources Inc. Response to TFTO Submission for Springpole Access Corridor Final ESR April 2013 Schedule 1/- 1-
GCU has hired qualified, independent consultants to conduct baseline environmental studies with direct participation of First Nation technicians. The baseline environmental work surpasses what is typically required for an environmental assessment for a road corridor of this nature. Alleged Deficient Baseline Studies (Sections 5.3-5.5) GCU offered in the final ESR to share the “working draft” baseline studies that GCU has initiated in the larger region. These “working draft” studies are simply factual reports that are intended to characterize environmental and socio-economic conditions in the larger region to support a potential future environmental assessment process for a mine development. The “working draft” studies contain no impact predictions and are not required to inform the environmental assessment for this Project, they simply supplement the compulsory information that has been provided in the final ESR. The baseline environmental studies identify values that should be avoided by the road corridor (see Figure 2-1 of the final ESR). Those studies also document the current conditions used in the impact analysis for the winter road. That analysis is presented in Appendix 4 of the final ESR. The TFTO Submission does not identify any material deficiency with the baseline studies and associated impact analyses that were relied on and incorporated as Appendix 4 to the final ESR. Assessment of Potential Cumulative Impacts (Section 5.8) Future use of the road Although not specifically required by the Class Environmental Assessment process, potential cumulative impacts were considered throughout the final ESR and the preferred corridor has been selected to minimize cumulative impacts. This is articulated throughout the final ESR. The nature, intensity and duration of the project are appropriate for a Class Environmental Assessment and it is not a unique undertaking that warrants an individual (Category D) environmental assessment. Concerns regarding future use or upgrading of the road and eventual decommissioning are addressed in the final ESR. Full disclosure is provided regarding collaborations and future plans. (Sections 5.9, 5.10) Gold Canyon Resources Inc. Response to TFTO Submission for Springpole Access Corridor Final ESR April 2013 Schedule 1/- 2-
- 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
- Page 325 and 326: Gold Canyon Resources Inc: Final En
- Page 327 and 328: Gold Canyon Resources Inc: Final En
- Page 329 and 330: Gold Canyon Resources Inc: Final En
- Page 331 and 332: Gold Canyon Resources Inc: Final En
- Page 333 and 334: Gold Canyon Resources Inc: Final En
- Page 335 and 336: Gold Canyon Resources Inc: Final En
- Page 337 and 338: Gold Canyon Resources Inc: Final En
- Page 339 and 340: Gold Canyon Resources Inc: Final En
- Page 341 and 342: Gold Canyon Resources Inc: Final En
- Page 343 and 344: Gold Canyon Resources Inc: Final En
- Page 345 and 346: Gold Canyon Resources Inc: Final En
- Page 347 and 348: Gold Canyon Resources Inc: Final En
- Page 349 and 350: Gold Canyon Resources Inc: Final En
- Page 351 and 352: Gold Canyon Resources Inc: Final En
- Page 353 and 354: Gold Canyon Resources Inc: Final En
- Page 355 and 356: Gold Canyon Resources Inc: Final En
- Page 357 and 358: Gold Canyon Resources Inc: Final En
- Page 359: Gold Canyon Resources Inc: Final En
- Page 363 and 364: The basic environmental protection
- Page 365 and 366: 8. Like the Draft ESR, Notices were
- Page 367 and 368: A full record of consultation is pr
- Page 369 and 370: Page 7 1. Corridor alternatives pre
- Page 371 and 372: 13. “Stakeholders” refers solel
- Page 373 and 374: Page 10 1. Detailed comments on the
- Page 375 and 376: Page 13 1. GCU is proposing to clea
- Page 377 and 378: Page 15 1. GCU is open to developin
- Page 379 and 380: Page 17 1. The economic information
- Page 381 and 382: Page 18 1. This is not a requiremen
- Page 383 and 384: (which were not intended to describ
- Page 385 and 386: Page 21 1. Note that the OLT develo
- Page 387 and 388: Page 22 1. The statement that carib
- Page 389 and 390: Page 24 1. General comment on 5.3.2
- Page 391 and 392: Page 26 1. The background database
- Page 393 and 394: Page 29 1. Comments on Table 3: The
- Page 395 and 396: Page 31 1. Water quality at Springp
- Page 397 and 398: 9. The aquatics baseline report doe
- Page 399 and 400: assessed through toxicity testing a
- Page 401 and 402: Page 34 1. Life of this Project is
- Page 403 and 404: Page 36 1. These recommendations ar
- Page 405 and 406: Page 38 1. Domtar has approval unde
- Page 407 and 408: Page 39 1. This means simply that G
- Page 409 and 410: Page 42 1. The recommendations from
GCU has hired qualified, independent consultants to conduct baseline<br />
environmental studies with direct participation of First Nation technicians.<br />
The baseline environmental work surpasses what is typically required for<br />
an environmental assessment for a road corridor of this nature.<br />
Alleged Deficient<br />
Baseline Studies<br />
(Sections 5.3-5.5)<br />
GCU offered in the final ESR to share the “working draft” baseline studies<br />
that GCU has initiated in the larger region. These “working draft” studies<br />
are simply factual reports that are intended to characterize environmental<br />
and socio-economic conditions in the larger region to support a potential<br />
future environmental assessment process for a mine development. The<br />
“working draft” studies contain no impact predictions and are not required<br />
to inform the environmental assessment for this Project, they simply<br />
supplement the compulsory information that has been provided in the final<br />
ESR.<br />
The baseline environmental studies identify values that should be avoided<br />
by the road corridor (see Figure 2-1 of the final ESR). Those studies also<br />
document the current conditions used in the impact analysis for the winter<br />
road. That analysis is presented in Appendix 4 of the final ESR.<br />
The TFTO Submission does not identify any material deficiency with the<br />
baseline studies and associated impact analyses that were relied on and<br />
incorporated as Appendix 4 to the final ESR.<br />
Assessment of<br />
Potential<br />
Cumulative<br />
Impacts<br />
(Section 5.8)<br />
Future use of the<br />
road<br />
Although not specifically required by the Class <strong>Environmental</strong> Assessment<br />
process, potential cumulative impacts were considered throughout the final<br />
ESR and the preferred corridor has been selected to minimize cumulative<br />
impacts. This is articulated throughout the final ESR. The nature, intensity<br />
and duration of the project are appropriate for a Class <strong>Environmental</strong><br />
Assessment and it is not a unique undertaking that warrants an individual<br />
(Category D) environmental assessment.<br />
Concerns regarding future use or upgrading of the road and eventual<br />
decommissioning are addressed in the final ESR. Full disclosure is<br />
provided regarding collaborations and future plans.<br />
(Sections 5.9,<br />
5.10)<br />
<strong>Gold</strong> <strong>Canyon</strong> Resources Inc.<br />
Response to TFTO Submission for Springpole Access Corridor <strong>Final</strong> ESR<br />
April 2013 Schedule 1/- 2-