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 ...
Preliminary Economic Assessment (“PEA”) and GCU Financial Status (Section 5.12) The economic potential of the Springpole Gold Project is subject to ongoing assessment as information becomes available. The March 25, 2013 Preliminary Economic Assessment provides the most recent information and provides further justification to continue exploration work. The Project will safely and effectively enable further definition work on the gold deposit. That work will allow GCU to refine the economic information available to date and prepare a pre-feasibility and/or feasibility study for the development of the gold deposit into a mine. GCU is a publicly traded company and is subject to strict regulation regarding financial disclosure. First bullet: The baseline studies and impact analyses were completed with input from the provincial government, and in accordance with accepted practice. That information was included in the final ESR. TFTO’s recommendation proposes an environmental assessment more relevant to that warranted for a mine development and far beyond what is required for the proposed Project of an access road. Second bullet: The record of consultation is included in the final ESR. GCU is committed to working with Aboriginal groups whose rights may be impacted by GCU activities, and continues discussions to formalize its working relationship with the affected First Nations. TFTO Summary of Recommendations (Section 6) Third bullet: The environmental studies necessary for the assessment of the road project are included in the final ESR. TFTO’s recommendation would impose obligations far beyond those warranted or required for the impact of a seasonal access road. Fourth bullet: 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. The nature, intensity and duration of the Project are appropriate for a Class C Environmental Assessment and it is not a unique undertaking that warrants an individual (Category D) environmental assessment. Fifth bullet: The only outstanding recommended item is the Good Neighbour Policy. TFTO committed to GCU that it would provide a draft policy for discussion, but none 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/- 3-
The basic environmental protection and mitigation measures are incorporated into the final ESR (Section 5 and 6), along with details regarding implementation (Section 8). Adhering to the guidance documents and procedures in the final ESR removes the need for the recommended impact analysis. The rehabilitation plan is described in Section 5.3 of the final ESR. Sixth bullet: Financial disclosure that may be made publicly is made on a regular basis on GCU’s website, in accordance with regulatory requirements. GCU cannot disclose financial information to TFTO that has not been disclosed publicly and such a request is not reasonable. Seventh bullet: This is addressed and this recommendation is effectively integrated into Section 5.3 of the final ESR. Eighth bullet: The final ESR complies with the requirements of this Class Environmental Assessment. GCU provides public disclosure on its website in accordance with regulatory requirements. The Project is aligned with provincial government objectives, as articulated in Section 1.3 of the final ESR. Ninth bullet: An individual (Category D) environmental assessment is not appropriate for a simple, routine undertaking such as the one being proposed in the final ESR. The nature of the work is well understood, the mitigation measures are proven and values have been identified and are being avoided with the proposed corridor. Gold Canyon Resources Inc. Response to TFTO Submission for Springpole Access Corridor Final ESR April 2013 Schedule 1/- 4-
- 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 and 360: Gold Canyon Resources Inc: Final En
- Page 361: GCU has hired qualified, independen
- 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
- Page 411 and 412: Supplemental Mitigation Measures fo
Preliminary<br />
Economic<br />
Assessment<br />
(“PEA”) and GCU<br />
Financial Status<br />
(Section 5.12)<br />
The economic potential of the Springpole <strong>Gold</strong> Project is subject to<br />
ongoing assessment as information becomes available. The March 25,<br />
2013 Preliminary Economic Assessment provides the most recent<br />
information and provides further justification to continue exploration work.<br />
The Project will safely and effectively enable further definition work on the<br />
gold deposit. That work will allow GCU to refine the economic information<br />
available to date and prepare a pre-feasibility and/or feasibility study for<br />
the development of the gold deposit into a mine.<br />
GCU is a publicly traded company and is subject to strict regulation<br />
regarding financial disclosure.<br />
First bullet: The baseline studies and impact analyses were completed with<br />
input from the provincial government, and in accordance with accepted<br />
practice. That information was included in the final ESR. TFTO’s<br />
recommendation proposes an environmental assessment more relevant to<br />
that warranted for a mine development and far beyond what is required for<br />
the proposed Project of an access road.<br />
Second bullet: The record of consultation is included in the final ESR. GCU<br />
is committed to working with Aboriginal groups whose rights may be<br />
impacted by GCU activities, and continues discussions to formalize its<br />
working relationship with the affected First Nations.<br />
TFTO Summary of<br />
Recommendations<br />
(Section 6)<br />
Third bullet: The environmental studies necessary for the assessment of<br />
the road project are included in the final ESR. TFTO’s recommendation<br />
would impose obligations far beyond those warranted or required for the<br />
impact of a seasonal access road.<br />
Fourth bullet: Although not specifically required by the Class<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> Assessment process, potential cumulative impacts were<br />
considered throughout the final ESR and the preferred corridor has been<br />
selected to minimize cumulative impacts. The nature, intensity and<br />
duration of the Project are appropriate for a Class C <strong>Environmental</strong><br />
Assessment and it is not a unique undertaking that warrants an individual<br />
(Category D) environmental assessment.<br />
Fifth bullet:<br />
The only outstanding recommended item is the Good Neighbour Policy.<br />
TFTO committed to GCU that it would provide a draft policy for discussion,<br />
but none has been proposed to date. Entering into such an agreement is a<br />
commitment in the final ESR.<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/- 3-