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 ...
Page 30 1. The locations chosen for the 2011 vegetation surveys were appropriate for our understanding of the Project at that time. 2. All species encountered during field work were documented. The species list from the 2011 vegetative survey can be found in Appendix A of the 2011 Terrestrial report. None of the species at risk listed in Table 3 of the TFTO Submission occurred in any of the vegetation plots. 3. This goes beyond the requirements of a Class C EA. 4. There is extensive discussion on potential impact to the terrestrial environment including vegetation in the ESR Appendix 4, Biological Constraints Report. 5. No vascular species at risk were found to occur within our study area. 6. No vascular species at risk were found to occur within our study area. 7. This is not normally a component of a Class C EA. 8. Statistical analysis of vegetation is beyond the scope of a Class EA. 9. These recommendations would go far beyond the requirements for this type of road project. The information included in the ESR Appendix 4, Biological Constraints Report is sufficient and the TFTO recommendations are based on an incomplete understanding of the information already available and incorporated in the ESR. Gold Canyon Resources Inc. Response to TFTO Submission for Springpole Access Corridor Final ESR April 2013 Schedule 2/- 31-
Page 31 1. Water quality at Springpole is not related to the ESR for the access corridor. TFTO also appears to condemn all mining activities. Significant effort is made to monitor water quality. To determine if drilling activities at Springpole have an effect on surface water, water quality for one lake not affected by the project (reference lake) and one lake located downstream from Springpole Lake were also included in the Aquatics Baseline Report. A comparison of water quality in a Lake not directly affected by exploration activities will serve two purposes: to collect data that will serve as a benchmark to be referred to when mining activities start and to determine if abiotic changes have any influence in the general conditions of the area. After careful examination of the data, there is no evidence that Springpole Lake has been affected by drilling activities. This is based on water quality data collected at different sampling locations and at different sampling times, that totals 27 samples collected in Springpole Lake. Of these 27 samples collected, one sample had an exceedance in cadmium. That cannot be considered as a reflection of the water quality in the whole Lake. 2. The statement in bold is a lead in to the underlined statement on page 32, which is based on a quoted reference document that does not support the TFTO’s conclusions about contamination of water from drilling activities. See comments in regard to page 32 of the TFTO Submission. 3. Total phosphorus: Five samples had elevated concentrations of phosphorus. One sample was collected in Springpole Lake, one sample was collected at the unnamed pond (west of the Springpole camp), one sample was collected in Birch Lake, and two samples were collected in Seagrave Lake. To state that phosphorus was elevated in the study area would be a misinterpretation of the results. The lakes studied had more than one sample collected during 2011 and therefore an exceedance in one water sample cannot define the overall conditions in the whole lake. Moreover, the lake that had more exceedances in phosphorus was Seagrave Lake, which is located upstream from Springpole Lake. 4. Elevated dissolved mercury concentrations were found in three samples. Sample SW3, located in Birch Lake had elevated mercury concentrations during the winter sampling event. Two samples had elevated concentrations of mercury in Seagrave Lake at sampling site SW5. No samples had elevated mercury concentrations in Springpole Lake, where drilling activities have been conducted. It should also be noted that Seagrave Lake is located upstream from Springpole Lake, and therefore drilling activities at Springpole Lake would not influence water quality at Seagrave Lake. As for the sample collected at Birch Lake, similar to the one cadmium exceedance, statistically this result could be an outlier. Based on the results of the surface water quality sampling, it was recommended to continue the monitoring of surface water quality to determine if the elevated mercury observed at SW3 is an outlier or a reflection of mercury contamination. Gold Canyon Resources Inc. Response to TFTO Submission for Springpole Access Corridor Final ESR April 2013 Schedule 2/- 32-
- 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 and 362: GCU has hired qualified, independen
- 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: Page 29 1. Comments on Table 3: The
- 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
Page 30<br />
1. The locations chosen for the 2011 vegetation surveys were appropriate for our understanding of<br />
the Project at that time.<br />
2. All species encountered during field work were documented. The species list from the 2011<br />
vegetative survey can be found in Appendix A of the 2011 Terrestrial report. None of the species<br />
at risk listed in Table 3 of the TFTO Submission occurred in any of the vegetation plots.<br />
3. This goes beyond the requirements of a Class C EA.<br />
4. There is extensive discussion on potential impact to the terrestrial environment including<br />
vegetation in the ESR Appendix 4, Biological Constraints <strong>Report</strong>.<br />
5. No vascular species at risk were found to occur within our study area.<br />
6. No vascular species at risk were found to occur within our study area.<br />
7. This is not normally a component of a Class C EA.<br />
8. Statistical analysis of vegetation is beyond the scope of a Class EA.<br />
9. These recommendations would go far beyond the requirements for this type of road project.<br />
The information included in the ESR Appendix 4, Biological Constraints <strong>Report</strong> is sufficient and<br />
the TFTO recommendations are based on an incomplete understanding of the information<br />
already available and incorporated in the 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 2/- 31-
Change language