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

Gold Canyon Resources Inc.
Springpole Gold Access Corridor Project
Final Environmental Study Report
Table 3-2: Issues Management Matrix
Summary of Issue GCU View and Mitigation Measure(s) Status (1) / Implementation Strategy
1. GCU needs a good
neighbour policy
2. Impacts on business and
personal lives of outfitters and
their employees due to loss of
remoteness value
3. Environmental degradation
and water quality.
4. Right of way width
5. Avoid creating new access
to remote lakes
GCU is receptive to this and is willing to enter into a Resource Stewardship Agreement that is in general accordance with
recent precedents. GCU is hopeful that the Springpole Gold Project is economic and that GCU's presence in the area will
be a lasting one, so GCU is interested in formalizing the practices that are necessary to be regarded as a good neighbour.
Stakeholder complaints regarding activities on the Project are a very important performance indicator to GCU and GCU's
target is zero public complaints.
GCU acknowledges that proximal tourism operators in the region may be affected by the Project due to the further loss of
remoteness values. GCU also recognizes that there may be a reduced marketability of these businesses due to the ongoing
forestry operations and ancillary aggregate resource extraction in the area, the 2011 wildfire (refer to Figure 2-1)
mineral exploration activities by other companies, more distant hydropower developments to the south and the on-going
practice of traditional subsistence activities by members of rights-bearing Aboriginal communities and related trail
development. To minimize construction related impacts (noise, dust), GCU proposes to construct during winter months
when outfitters are not active. Furthermore, GCU intends to primarily use the road during winter months (refer to Section
5.3).
The proposed project consists of timber harvesting and corridor construction with water crossings. This is routine work that
has been conducted in Ontario for decades and the environmental protection measures are well-proven and established.
GCU shall adhere to the best practice guidance documents referenced herein. GCU has adequate staff to ensure these
prescriptive environmental protection requirements will be followed during project execution. As well, GCU has committed to
having the Project overseen by a Registered Professional Forester (“RPF”) and a compliance audit by a RPF following
construction.
GCU intends to minimize the ROW width to the extent practical. The corridor that would be harvested would be on the order
of 10 to 15 m width.
No increased public access to the region and its lakes are proposed as part of this Project. Pending agreement of MNR,
GCU proposes to install a modern, monitored gate at the end of the current FMP road in 2013 when the road is constructed.
No “exclosure”-related impacts to wildlife are anticipated as a result of the gate. When Domtar builds the Wenasaga Road
extension that is approved in the 2014-2019 FMP, GCU proposes to move the gate to the end of the FMP-approved road,
which is ~1km south of the Birch River crossing (refer to Figure 2-1 and 2-2). With respect to road building by Domtar, this
work will involve an upgrade to the road that is built by GCU and not a re-build. In collaboration with MNR and pursuant to
the Public Lands Act, GCU proposes to post the additional lakes that may not be accessed on the existing sign at the
Tarpley / Wenasaga Road junction. Furthermore, GCU will place boulders adjacent to the road to prevent boats being
launched at Birch River.
6. Noise from road building Construct the road and timber harvesting during the off-season, when the outfitters are not active.
7. Traffic volume & timing
8. Opportunities for working
together
9. Viewscape at Birch River
crossing
Perform bulk, seasonal shipment of consumables during off-season (i.e. perform shipments between late August and early
June) and minimize road usage during the traditional busy time of late May to mid-July. Notify outfitters of traffic schedule in
advance so they can plan their activities accordingly. Continue to engage proximal tourism operators in case this sensitive
timeframe changes. This is regarded as consistent with precedents in recent FMPs. By constructing the road to a winter
road operational standard, there is a natural incentive for GCU to utilize the road during winter months to the maximum
extent practical and minimize road use during summer months. Refer to Section 5.3 regarding proposed use of the road.
GCU is very receptive to this sort of exploratory discussion. GCU is interested in exploring a variety of win-win scenarios.
GCU is also interested in discussing how road access could be a benefit to tourism operators and landowners during the
current and future potential phases of the Project.
GCU is willing to negotiate and adopt a good neighbour policy. GCU does
not regard this good faith commitment as a condition precedent to
conclude the Class EA process. GCU wishes to explore the establishment
of a stakeholder working group with Terms of Reference that are similar to
those of a Local Citizen’s Committee for a SFL.
GCU is willing to engage an independent professional recommended by
the Ontario Government (Mining Lands Commissioner) to serve as an
arbitrator to facilitate the government's dispute resolution process and
abide by the recommendations that arise from the process (refer to
Section 6.2).
Adhere to the well-proven and established MNR and DFO guidance
documents described herein. These have been integrated into the project
execution plan in Section 5.
Width is consistent with precedents and has been minimized to the extent
practical, without unnecessarily compromising safety of the road due to
limited visibility.
These mitigation measures are regarded as superior to the mitigation
measures on similar project precedents. The setbacks of the proposed
corridor from remote tourism lakes are shown on Figure 2-1.
This mitigation measure is regarded as better than the mitigation
measures that have been implemented for similar projects.
GCU to have an open-door policy and continue engagement to minimize
impacts to tourism operators. This is regarded as consistent with similar
project precedents.
GCU to open to explore collaborations and win-win scenarios with
interested outfitters. GCU wishes to explore the establishment of a
stakeholder working group with Terms of Reference that are similar to
those of a Local Citizen’s Committee for a SFL.
GCU has moved the bridge to a downstream location so it is not visible to boaters from the upstream direction during normal
water conditions due to rapids. Refer to Photograph 6-1 in Section 6. GCU has made best efforts to mitigate this issue.
July 2013 Page 32