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

Gold Canyon Resources Inc: Final Environmental Study Report Review
March 30, 2013
The ESR regards all potential impacts to lakes, rivers and streams to be low, without
providing any rationale, or having the evidence to back up those claims.
Recommendation: GCU needs to conduct a thorough aquatics study, taking into account
the above-mentioned parameters, relevant to all Springpole exploration activities. The
study should assess the environmental impacts for the duration of Springpole exploration
project; 10-20 years.
Recommendation: The next aquatics baseline study performed by GCU needs to take
information gathered from the hydrology and terrestrial baseline studies and evaluate
their combined effect on aquatic habitat, surface and deep water quality, species diversity,
species reproduction, hydrology, etc.
Recommendation: If GCU has determined that there are high levels of heavy metals
detected in Springpole, all activities that could potentially contribute to increased heavy
metal leaching must be stopped.
5.5 Hydrology Baseline Report Deficiencies
Hydrology is the study of water movement, quality and distribution. Typical hydrological
investigations include an assessment of ground water quality, character, composition and
potential for contamination. The hydrological study conducted by GCU did not evaluate
any parameters associated with ground water quality, or identify which aquifers may be
impacted by Springpole drilling activity.
The aquatics study should have been conducted in conjunction with the hydrology study in
order to properly assess for downstream or ground water contamination: aquatics study
revealed that heavy metals were already elevated in Springpole.
In the Preliminary Economic Assessment released March 25, 2013, GCU states that
Springpole exploration construction will include: “project infrastructure, dike construction
and dewatering activities, open pit development, procurement of mining and milling
equipment, and mill construction (GCU Preliminary Economic Assessment – March 25,
2013).”
NO WHERE in the ESR or Technical reports (hydrology or aquatics) does GCU discuss
dike construction, dewatering activities, open pit development or the required water
and sewer infrastructure required to pursue continued/advanced exploration, that
would occur pending approval of the eastern corridor.
It is evident for the Preliminary Economic Assessment, that GCU is NOT being fully
transparent about the full scope of the Springpole exploration project, nor the true
environmental and socio-economic ramifications related to project activities.
Recommendation: GCU needs to fully disclose ALL Springpole related exploration
activities, inclusive of the eastern corridor, in a single document complete with technical
34