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

Schedule 2:
Detailed response to TFTO Submission to Springpole Access Corridor Project Final ESR.
Page 4 1
1. Area to be cleared for the entire 43 km corridor of the proposed Project is only 0.645 km 2 NOT
645 km 2 , as stated by the TFTO. Number is based on incorrect calculation of the corridor.
(43km x 0.015 km = 0.645 km 2 ).
0.33 km 2 of this area is already approved for clearing in the 2009-2019 Trout Lake FMP, so only
0.315 km 2 is added by the GCU Project.
2. DST Consulting Engineers (“DST”) has continued to conduct baseline studies throughout 2012.
The TFTO statement implies the work was conducted only in 2011.
3. TFTO has omitted the pre-consultation that was initiated by email on April 7, and followed up
with phone calls and one-on-one meetings with interested parties throughout May 2012.
4. TFTO has defined Stakeholders to be "tourist operators", but has used the term interchangeably
throughout the report to mean all public stakeholders, tourist operators and TFTO. It is very
unclear at times who they are referencing in their comments.
In fact, "stakeholders" in the April 7 pre-consultation included bait fishery owners, private land
owners, and others, identified by the MNR as having a greater interest in the proposal. In later
consultation efforts, the list was expanded to include Provincial and Federal Ministries, NGO's,
and other stakeholder organizations. The TFTO Submission documents the pre-consultation
stakeholder list, not the Final ESR list. Please refer to Appendix 3 in the Final ESR for the full
consultation list.
5. These comments were used to develop mitigation measures for the Project, and refine the
Project Description. GCU scaled back its original proposal and implemented significant
mitigation measures in response to stakeholder comments - See Table 3-1 in the Final ESR.
Some stakeholders also responded with comments/letters of support for the project.
6. GCU and MNR delayed release of the Final ESR to convene 2 meetings with TFTO and their legal
counsel in late January and early-February to identify and discuss any impacts they felt were
unresolved. None were identified. Rather, they wished to discuss economic compensation and
buyout of their operations by GCU. Their proposal was declined.
7. Mitigation measures were adopted as described in Table 3.1 and 3.2 in ESR
1 Page numbers referenced at the top of each page refer to the TFTO Submission page number.
Gold Canyon Resources Inc.
Response to TFTO Submission for Springpole Access Corridor Final ESR
April 2013 Schedule 2/- 1-