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

Page 16
1. General Comment on Section 5: The 2011 reports are DRAFT and were intended to be used in
conjunction with successive years of data for future project permitting. The data for these
reports was not collected for the purposes of the access corridor, but some of the data collected
in these reports was useful when viewed relative to the 2012 data. It appears TFTO has only
reviewed the 2011 environmental baseline reports and did not take the report in Appendix 4
(Biological Constraints Report) into consideration in their comments. At the time of data
collection for the 2011 reports, no access corridor was being proposed, therefore, the data
collected was to support anticipated general environmental permitting for exploration. The data
collected in 2011 is relevant to the corridor in that the work completed characterizes the
general biodiversity and ecology of the area. The work conducted in 2012 covered a much wider
study area, and encompassed both potential access corridors and the exploration camp area.
Various study areas were also developed for the areas surrounding the corridors and camp, the
size of which varies depending on the parameter being studied (vegetation, wildlife, etc.). These
study areas are explained and presented in the report found in Appendix 4.
2. It is standard for ESR's to reference methodologies and provide brief descriptions. Providing
complete methodologies in full detail is beyond the scope of an ESR, provided the
methodologies are clearly referenced. Having only reviewed the 2011 baseline reports, it is not
surprising that TFTO has concluded the studies were deficient in some aspects. However, a full
review of the Biological Constraints Report in Appendix 4 demonstrates a thorough and
appropriate analysis was completed.
3. GCU hosted Open Houses for each of CLFN, SFFN, and LSFN in their communities in mid-May,
prior to the start of the 2012 field program. GCU also hired FN technicians to actively participate
in the studies. These technicians were valuable members of the survey teams, applying their
local knowledge to the studies to ensure good quality results were obtained.
In the case of the archaeological studies, GCU hired 2 FN workers who had led or participated in
their recent LUP Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge study and were therefore well versed in the
Traditional Knowledge of the area. Another worker had local knowledge of the area, and
previous experience on other archaeological studies. GCU has made best efforts to incorporate
as much Traditional Knowledge into the baseline studies as the Aboriginal communities have
been willing to share.
4. This is taken out of context. The ESR report clearly qualifies that the numbers provided are
based on benchmarking of other similar mines and that the actual characteristics of future mine
production would be defined in the PEA, see page 4, ESR.
Gold Canyon Resources Inc.
Response to TFTO Submission for Springpole Access Corridor Final ESR
April 2013 Schedule 2/- 15-