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 ...

goldcanyon.ca
from goldcanyon.ca More from this publisher
06.05.2015 Views

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-

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-

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!