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

Gold Canyon Resources Inc.
Springpole Gold Access Corridor Project
Final Environmental Study Report
6.2 Process to Determine Compensation for Proximal Tourism Operators
In response to GCU’s Base Case Project Description Report, several proximal tourism operators
have told GCU that the Project will have a devastating effect on their respective businesses. It is
acknowledged that proximal tourism operators in the region may be affected by the Project due to
the further loss of remoteness values. It is also recognized that there may be a reduced marketability
of these businesses due to the on-going 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 activities by members of Aboriginal communities and any related trail development.
As evidenced by a variety of policies and legislation, the provincial government is interested in a
prosperous tourism industry as well as a prosperous mineral development industry. It is also
recognized that the provincial government may currently have limited resources to resolve disputes
between competing interests in the Crown resources. As a result of these realities and consistent
with the provisions of the recently modernized Mining Act, GCU has sought a recommendation from
the office of the Mining and Lands Commissioner for an independent, qualified professional to
recommend a solution for this particular situation. GCU has engaged this government-endorsed,
independent professional and obtained a preliminary recommendation regarding the issue of
compensation. The recommended solution is provided in Appendix 6 and is regarded as being
consistent with current government policies as well as precedents in similar situations. Obtaining a
recommendation from this government-endorsed, independent professional is not to be construed
as a unilateral selection of an arbitrator to determine appropriate compensation for impacts arising
from this Project. Rather, this measure is intended to be a way to facilitate MNR’s dispute resolution
process described in MNR (2003) in a timely manner that is consistent with government legislation,
policy and priorities.
GCU wishes to be proactive regarding this matter rather than the alternative of doing nothing and
forcing the affected tourism operators to file a statement of claim against GCU in court for damages.
Pending any regulatory approvals, entering into a non-binding dispute resolution process that is
conducted by a qualified, government-endorsed independent party is a measure that GCU’s Board
and shareholders can support. GCU regards its willingness to implement this recommendation as a
demonstration of its reasonableness, its commitment to good faith consultation and its desire to
develop a respectful relationship with local tourism operators.
6.3 Viewscape at Birch River Crossing
The proposed Birch River crossing is located at the southeast end of Springpole Lake and is shown
on Figure 2-1. The viewscape at the proposed Birch River crossing is of particular value to Pickerel
Arm Camps. Although less ideal from an engineering and cost perspective, the proposed crossing
location has been modified from the original Base Case Project Description Report to minimize the
impact to guests at Pickerel Arm Camps. As indicated in Photograph 6-1 the revised crossing
location will not normally be visible to guests at Pickerel Arm Camps that are fishing on Springpole
Lake.
July 2013 Page 56